Wasn't it David Pogue's tepid review of Windows Vista (covered on Slashdot recently) that raised accusations that he was just a Mac Fanboy? His in depth review suggests that either he's capable of being open minded and doing a great job of research, or that his "research" was aided by the close similarity between Windows Vista and Mac OS X. Of course, deciding which is true simply goes to one's own OS allegiances.
Of course, I come down on the cynical mac fanboy side of things. That paranoid group that says Microsoft isn't providing features or advice on their "Vienna" release only because Apple hasn't revealed Leopard's "top secret" features yet.:-)
"10.5, on the other hand, seems mightily like an upgrade, adding software features, and not decent internal features."
If you think that Leopard sounds only like an upgrade of niche, end-user features, I think you'll be in for a pleasant surprise when it is actually released.
There are some compelling features under the hood that are being added for developers that will make their code less buggy, fit in better with the flash and glitz of Mac OS X, start taking advantage of newer hardware features, and offer more public access to the bits of code that Apple used to develop and keep private for Apple's own apps. Even if Apple doesn't reveal any other compelling end-user features (which I find an unlikely scenario), the ease Apple is making developers lives has already provoked some developers to say that the Leopard upgrade is a requirement for the next major upgrade of their apps. If Apple strikes out and offers no compelling end user features, then the blame will lie with developers as the bad guys who are forcing users to upgrade to Leopard. If Apple hits upon a compelling set of features for Mac users, the upgrade will be a no-brainer for everyone in the Mac community whose machines can run it.
If that's the case, why isn't Apple hyping Leopard up more like Microsoft did for Vista back in mid-2006? Time is getting short if the release is in the spring. My guess is that Apple is waiting for the Vista hype to die down before offering a more compelling set of end user features that will make even reticent Windows XP users want to switch platforms before Microsoft can copy the bullet list into a service pack release. Based on those banners at WWDC and MacWorld that everyone was talking about, I see Leopard as taking aim at Windows users rather than the Mac OS X Tiger community.
The Zune _could_ have had a scroll wheel. Remember that Apple and Microsoft have a comprehensive, patent cross-licensing agreement since both are holding the other by the testicles (due to the mess that ease of patenting has become).
Let us all help the band play merrily along while the Zune ship slides into the murky waters of consumer disinterest, by labeling this and all subsequent Zune trolling articles with the flag "zuneral".
While the allusion to the common death ceremony may be quite appropriate now, you have to consider what happens if the Zune really catches fire and takes off!
Perhaps, because of the "squirting" socialization feature, Zunereal Disease (or just "Zunereal") would be a better tag:-)
IMO, it isn't exactly fair to compare "Zune" with "ALL of the iPods". The Zune targets one small slice of territory that Apple has already staked out.
The three models of Zune did edge out one current generation iPod product: the 30GB U2 iPod Video. What might be some reasons?
The U2 iPod price ($280) is significantly higher than the Zune ($240)
The U2 iPod gives more cash to U2's label (Universal) than the Zune (no facts. just speculation on the huge $premium)
Monotone color schemes (whether Black, Fudge, or White) are more appealing than high contrast duo-tones.
Features such as FM reception or squirting may be seen as desirable (if there is any impact).
Adding cosmetic features such as band signatures may be undesirable (if there is any impact).
Now when you take this list to compare to the non-U2 iPods, you may see different trends.
Price is not a factor.
Similar color scheme relative rankings suggest color is important but not a factor differentiating brands.
Features such as FM reception or squirting may confuse, or worry customers (if there is any impact).
What can be concluded beyond this? Not much. Marketplace sales pressure, crossover sales, brand name recognition, and all sorts of other things could play a part, but these aren't trends suggested solely on the basis of a four day sales summary alone. Barring any major advertising pushes or model introuductions, these trends should stay pretty steady through Christmas. I guess we'll see where things are on January 1.
Looking at those videos, it seems to take two or three clicks to start the song after it's transferred (does it? I really can't tell for sure.) If so, I bet Microsoft is kicking themselves for making an interface that's so unfriendly to music marketeers.
For version 2.0, they can make the user be forced to start playing the song when it's done. Expensive Zune broadcast stations in your Tower Records or Virgin superstore could broadcast songs that users would be forced to download and listen to. It'd make the music marketeers ecstatic!
For version 3.0, they can have it automatically download and execute Visual Basic code too! That's bound to attract the spam and porn marketeers! The platform will fly!
Maybe Microsoft is talking about user interface improvements, but I really hope they are improvements in favor of the user.:-)
I wholly agree: from the external perspective, it sounded like a lot of the developers fell into the classic S/W development trap: re-write something for the sole reason that "We can make it better this time". Very rarely does this ever fit a customer's actual desires... but developers almost always want to do it anyway (myself included).
Of course, the decision to not re-write and keep ugly legacy code itself (rather than just the API) isn't always the correct one either. The judgement of what is "best" is tough for managers and coders. Though I've only started to listen to the "pragmatic" arguments for about a year and a half or so, the best thing I've found to answer this question is unit testing. And I don't particularly like writing unit tests.
If there are unit tests that have already been written, I can see just what sort of implementation problems happened in the past. When I want to re-write code, I'm usually thinking in the stratosphere about how the new approach will make everything better, but looking over unit tests written by other developers often brings me back down to earth and I see that my perfect solution may wind up retreading similar problems in an unfamiliar way. That's even more important when the customer sees an old problem re-surface in new code: they've already been down this road and they'll be out for blood that we're backpedaling and charging them for regression rather than development.
Since unit tests are a new practice at my work, they aren't always written for legacy code to make this judgement. In that case, I find that forcing myself to sit down and write some unit tests is a good thing. Though writing them is on par with my desire to floss, I have to admit that it is a good practice. It scratches my itch to actually dig into the details and write code. After I've really looked at the failure possibilities, it really helps me make a better decision to rewrite or not. And whether we choose to rewrite now or not, it's useful in the future whether the decision is made to dump or rewrite.
I am curious about the testing practices for major products like Vista and OS X are standardized and used. I know Microsoft has a huge testing infrastructure, but I wonder if the delays in Vista have been due to too much influence of the testers, or too little, or no net effect at all. I was under the impression that Apple's testing was much better, but some major, obvious regressions lately make me think that perhaps Apple simply has a smaller "legacy" of custom code to support. Do big companies even have sound testing practices and require their use?
As a final note though, I prefer to write unit tests on other people's code since mine, of course, never needs them:-)
If many companies try to force Apple's hand, Apple has options:
1) Promote the hell out of Indie lables and shift the whole market away from major players.
Apple is well regarded by musicians because of their Logic and Garage Band tools. Imagine if Apple offered (as part of the song creation workflow) an iTunes "upload space" to anyone for $X per year and Y% of sales. If $X per year was low enough for weekend bands to participate, they'd be promoting iTunes purchases at their gigs in bars and bookstores rather than hauling suitcases of burned CD's to each gig! If the Y% of sales was signigicantly under the 90% that most record labels take from bands, then even serious bands would consider Apple to be financially attractive.
As cool or frightening as this sounds though, Apple doesn't have this option because of their relationship with Apple Records. The agreements aren't fully public, but its believed that Apple Records still holds non-compete contracts with Apple (the computer company) in aspects of the music industry that overlap with what a music label does. Have you noticed that Apple avoids use of the Apple trademark in word form on their iPods in favor of the bitten fruit icon? That was an issue in one of the latest Apple vs Apple lawsuits.
Microsoft has this "label competitor" option so they just need to throw out enough money to create a Microsoft music marketplace. In that case, no matter what deals they may have made with the major labels to get there, they can usurp the market itself by offering the "Microsoft" branded music label. That would be pretty nasty for Microsoft to partner with the market's powerhouses, then turn around, undercut, and steal their former partners' markets.
Hmmm, perhaps Paul, Yoko, Dhani and Ringo should be offered positions on Apple's board of directors instead.
I'm sure they will run out of big cat names before [Mac OS X 10.10]:)
They've already deviated from the "big cat" naming trend. Pumas (10.1) are classified as small cats because they can not roar. Apple has applied for cat related trademarks including Cougar, Lynx, and Lion. That'd take us through 10.8. What about 10.9? I'm guessing:
Sphinx - Monumental, mythic, and knowledgeable
Tabby - Friendly and fully domesticated
Simba - Co-marketing with Disney gone wild
Sabertooth - Extinct (good name for a concurrent compatability release with 11.0)
What changed in 10.2 to leave 10.0 and 10.1 owners out in the cold?
The reason is mostly one of developer convenience, IMHO.
The format of NIB files and the bundle structure changed in 10.2. For developers, this was a huge difference. Localizing an app (as I recall) under Puma (10.1) was time consuming. The binary-only NIB file format before 10.1 meant you either needed to localize your app in your code or by manually opening the NIBs in interface builder and changing things. 10.2 allowed for text based NIB files, supported new user-visible GUI items, and was more resilient against corruption (at least anecdotally). There was a backwards compatible file-format for 10.1 but it was not the default. A developer could make a backwards compatible app, but what developer is going to go out of their way to make their job harder? Even today, it's possible to develop bundles and NIBs that are 10.1 and 10.0 compatible, but it's just not a desirable thing for developers to do.
10.5 will offer developers what I consider to be "major laziness options" so I expect it will become a mandatory requirement for new versions of OS X apps. Some of Apple's private GUI items users know from the iApps and Pro apps will be available in Interface Builder so developers don't have to make an inferior knock-off. Garbage collection in Objective-C 2.0 will make debugging your model far easier in debug and development, even if you decide to go back to manual memory management for performance in your release app. More unification of Carbon and Cocoa (e.g. NSViews in a carbon windows). In the past, things like the NSDocument architecture were great but for many developers it wasn't enough to force a rewrite of their app from the ground up. They'd already done the hard stuff, so why start over? But with 10.5 there are compelling developer reasons for new apps to NOT be backwards compatible and for older apps to rewrite their model or interface layer in 10.5 only code (even if they can't justify starting over with a clean slate). The biggest justification for 10.5 only apps will be developer laziness:-)
Why did you go half way implementing CSS instead of fully supporting standards all other browsers have for some time now.
As stated, there's really only one answer to this question: "We didn't. We achieved greater than 50% CSS standards compliance." I think a better question (with the same intent) would place the question in the context of why IE7 failed to meet the web community's expectation of compliance and what may change in the future. Something like...
Web standards are open goals cooperatively established by competing interests (including Microsoft). Because partial implementation of web standards was a tactic in the "browser wars", many view lack of compliance with common standards as uncooperative and anti-competitive. What was eagerly expected to be a unified call for users and developers to "upgrade the web" based on the excellent support of web standards in IE7 has been muted by improvements which only offer limited support of commonly used portions of CSS, JavaScript,.xhtml, and the Document Object Model. Considering the financial resources of Microsoft, the incredible coding talent of the IE7 team, and Microsoft's participation in the web standards bodies, the unmet expectations in IE7's standards compliance are perplexing. But whatever the conflicting corporate interests were, the initial release of IE7 is now in the past. What can the portion of the web community which was disappointed by the current release of IE7's standards compliance expect of the new goals now under development?
I didn't realize how relaxing this game was until I played Adventure again on a friend's "retro 2600 game consoles built into a joystick" machines. I knew exactly where to grab the sword, defeat even the red dragon, and find the micro-dot/easter egg without having played it (or even thinking about it) in years. I suspect other games like the Superman game, or Yar's Revengewould trigger the same response, but it's very strange (and perhaps a little scary) how comforting it is for those built in motor memories to kick in again.
Maybe I can see now why my mom is nostalgic over some mundane useless activity like shucking vegetables. Or my dad recalls how great it was to kill wasps. Weird activities from when we were young and not concerned about politics, relationships, or investment portfolios. Maybe I should have learned something else besides how to beat Adventure though.:-/
Presentations: Your audience (on left and center) sees a full screen Keynote presentation. Your angle shows you the presenter notes, slide navigation, and a thumbnail of the "full screen" that they are seeing. Not great, but for audiences in a boardroom or cubicle, it'd be an improvement.
Differing subtitles: A German presentation offers viewers who may benefit from French subtitles to sit to the left, and English subtitles to sit on the right. Perhaps a marketing presentation gets a similar treatment with technical information on the left, and financial information on the right.
The device doesn't sound like it'd be a cost effective substitute for a KVM switch, but there are some areas three different, synchronized views would be beneficial. Of course increasing size and resolution would help even more, but that will certainly come.
Will naked, all-women videos turn out to be deluded expressions of a sex-starved man's fantasy life, and not have anything to do with changing homosexual or feminist attitudes? Tell me it's not true!
While I can sympathize with people who feel tricked by seeing items posted on Youtube in a deceptive manner, it comes with no assertions that it is true. It's vast and unsupervised, and viewers need to be aware of that. Just adding a pretense that something is "authorized" or meets some kind of regulation will probably do more to lower people's guard than to actually improve the honesty of those who post.
Would Dreamworks have fired office staff if they had been talking about downloading a hot new Dreamworks movie via BitTorrent like "Over the Hedge"? What if the movie was still unreleased like "Dream Girls", or "Flushed Away" or "Transformers: The Movie". Even though it'd be bad publicity for DreamWorks to fire employees who are enthusiastic believers about their own products, it'd be worse to give them a wink and say "That's okay" if they really want secrecy.
Whether I agree or disagree with Apple's PR department about the wisdom of offering Leopard preview releases to developers only, that's the choice they made. It's not up to me, even if I were an employee of Apple, to try and change that policy or think that I'm somehow exempt from it. Apple's discouraging developers from talking about releases they have on Apple developer mailing lists even. It's doubtful that they'd make exemptions from their closed lips policy for staff in the Apple retail stores.
"Predictably, all open source offerings are blown away by Internet Explorer and Microsoft Office's 100% deployment rates."
But that isn't quite what the survey said. The OSS survery reads
"Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer are deployed by all institutions on most desktops."
One notable exception to this would be Internet Explorer deployment on any Macs. Internet Explorer was insecure and underdeveloped after the Puma version in Mac OS X v 10.1 went live. It was no longer bundled on new Macs or OS X install discs when Tiger shipped.
Sept 2001 - IE 5.1 bundled with Mac OS X v 10.1 was first non-preview OS X version.
June 2002 - IE 5.2 dropped support for non-OS X users.
Jan 2003 - Safari released (for Macs OS X v 10.2+)
June 2003 - IE 5 new feature development ceased.
April 2005 - IE dropped from the OS X Tiger bundle.
Dec 2005 - All "IE 5 for Mac" development ceased.
While a number of Microsoft products are obscenely widespread despite its quality and security flaws, it isn't 100% in use out there. I know it's not a really big deal, but perhaps a small ray of hope may keep some developers and users from pulling the trigger on a dark an lonely night.
Seeing the itemized list of who's providing what, made me think about why everyone thinks their "allegiance" is the one to do it right and to do it first. In general I think the trend is:
Unix needs a bulletproof implementation
Apple needs a bulletproof interface
Microsoft needs a bullet point
That probably sounds negative to any of the three groups, but I think it explains more about why users don't "remember" that someone else perhaps did it first. An Apple aficionado who appreciates good user interfaces will never acknowledge anyone else as coming "first" after seeing the demo of Time Machine; there's just never been anything like it. But a Unix user will guffaw at the crash they had during the demo and state that they're the ones with the "first" version since they really see reliability as their cornerstone. As for adamant Microsoft users, it just seems to matter about when something was released rather than the quality. The next version may completely drop the interface or re-engineer the back end. But often these users can quote feature lists and continuity better than most Trekkies or Whovians.
In a lot of ways, I think there's a lot to be improved from all three camps. Make it work. Make it usable. And make it known. I think there are things each developer group can learn from the other, but advocacy will be self-selecting.
Well, these may be justified to keep things out of the carry on areas, but what's to stop creative terrorists from putting explosive chemicals in the cargo hold. One chemical embedded in a block of ice, which will melt after a few hours, mix with another chemical and "Bang!". Oh, now I get it, that's what the three hour delays are for. I see the logic now.
Back in 1997, Steve Jobs got on stage at MacWorld and told the Mac faithful to get over it, the desktop war is over and Microsoft won. So why does Apple seem to want to promote the idea that Windows is copying a lot of things from OS X?
1. Perfection Required
If anything in Windows isn't up to snuff when released, the pundits and reviewers will say that the Mac did it better. William Lloyd George said "The most dangerous thing in the world is to try to leap a chasm in two jumps." People will be less likely to wait for Microsoft to wait for a Service Pack to fix their issues if they know what they want has been done before and done right.
2. Provocation Means Attention
If Apple provokes Microsoft in addressing their provocations, then Apple wins. Microsoft may point out that they have features that are better (windows you can write sticky notes on the back of) but the fact that they need to respond will drag Apple into the media spotlight that even though the features may differ slightly, Apple already has all of this. Some people ONLY pay attention to what Microsoft does; if Microsoft starts making messages that draw comparisons or attention to Leopard then Apple wins something. There's no such thing as bad publicity.
3. Developer Motivation
WWDC is the for the most elite of the Macintosh fan boys: the developers. Right now at least, no one is making any noise about Leopard in public media. The longer and louder people anticipate Windows, then the more Mac developers have to question if they really have chosen the right horse. If there's a selected venue to target the motivation of the developers, it's clearly WWDC. You won't see many articles or TV spots anticipating Leopard before it's close to release, but Mac developers are key to it's success so make sure they have a message they'll remember every time they see a Vista ad or promo.
4. Justifying Reverse Copying
Whether one considers the desktop search feature or window management to be copying from OS X is a bit subjective, but when one sees all of these things including the Aero bubble with Microsoft logo it really starts to seem that Microsoft is trying to borrow liberally from the Mac. If Windows is perceived as the one playing catchup through copying, then it does distract if there are any features that the Mac is copying from Windows. Off hand there are very few that fall into this basket (and they were pointed out by Paul), but if there are others it looks more like Microsoft is copying an unreleased Mac feature than Apple incorporating a good idea from Microsoft.
5. The Next Wave
If Apple waits until after Windows goes gold, and then release their "secret" features then they may have a compelling argument that Windows is "behind". When the public learned about windowed operating systems the Mac was the lagger. Now when Microsoft starts making big news about their release Apple is in a very nice position to steal their thunder. "Yeah, we've had all that debugged and working for a while, but here's the shimmering new features and candy on the Mac right now."
All of these reasons add up to some very compelling reasons to do a little ribbing at Microsoft's expense. It's doubtful that any of this will stop before Leopard goes live, but it most certainly won't get worse. Apple isn't likely to venture into territories of slander or libel.
Trouble is, you're rare enough that it's not worth doing. You can be sure that Apple is intensely aware of how the Tablet PCs are selling, and there just isn't that much demand for that form factor. It would take something compellingly different to make it fly, beyond just being a Mac without a keyboard. Now, if Samsung came up with a 300 DPI display or something to go with it, that might do the trick, but I'm not holding my breath for that.
Despite the low numbers, Apple could be very interseted in who the tablets are sold to rather than the quantities. Tablets are an expensive luxury form of portable craved by doctors, lawyers, and salesmen. Anyone who likes the "walk softly and carry mean clipboard" look as a form of function or authority will want a tablet just because of the form factor.
A gynecologist friend of mine has a Windows Tablet PC and hates it because of the crashing and small resolution, but he carries it because he doesn't look like a "troll or jeweler hunched over a laptop". He'll write on paper before he'll use a conventional laptop when he's with a patient. Apple is very good at making form factors everyone drools over. Even if the Mac Tablet is only a doctor's "data entry" PC it could be quite a lucrative market that would inspire many more sales.
The development side is risky, but Apple already has much IP that a tablet could benefit from. They've been pushing alternate input for a while in Mac OS X: Inkwell hand recognition, Voice recognition, Universal Access, and other technologies are already there. Apple has patents on areas of parallax compensation, handwriting recognition, and a whole lot more left over from the Newton. The rumored "resolution independence" for Quartz could solve one of the biggest problems of other PC tablets. As far as the hardware goes, it would require a new production process but only a few parts that aren't already bought in bulk for other Apple items. Again, it all seems to come down to the form factor.
If Apple gets into this area, my bet is that they will live or die on the form factor much more than on the OS features or even price. This is a very lucrative audience and Apple has lots of experience making, pricing, and selling machines to these audiences.
Leopoard has had the longest development cycle of any Mac OS X release since 1.0.
That's not quite true: Tiger was longer (so far). Here's a list of Mac OS X releases following 10.0 (released March 24, 2001):
Puma -- Sep 29, 2001 ~6.3 months gestation
Jaguar -- Aug 24, 2002 ~10.9 months gestation
Panther -- Oct 24, 2003 ~14.2 months gestation
Tiger -- Apr 29, 2005 ~ 18.4 months gestation
Leopard has been incubating for a bit over 15 months from Tiger's release. If it takes the same amount of time as Tiger to release we'll see it go live at the start of November. If it follows the other trend of "prior release + 4 months" we'll see it go live at the start of March 2007. Both of these would fit in with the prediction that Steve made at the last WWDC that we'll see it at the end of 2006 or the start of 2007 "about the time Longhorn is released".
No matter what technology is in the pipeline, the release date is more likely to be determined by when Apple wants to go head to head with the Microsoft PR machine. Apple hasn't made any public technology promises (other than a final version of Boot Camp) so it can delay any project that isn't quite ready until 10.6. If Apple wants to look like an "innovator" and come in "first" with what everyone will think of as the next generation successor to Windows 98, then it may aim for November. If it wants to ride the Microsoft PR wave (rather than appear overwhelmed by it) then it may wait until the same time or just after Windows Vista is declared by some as a steaming pile of poo.
Setting any release date is risky, but I think Leopard's will have less to do with technology and everything to do with what date Apple thinks is the best day to take on Goliath.
While Linux, BSD, and (past) OSX developers are used to an open kernel, Microsoft has a long tradition of security through obscurity. Microsoft has also not had a problem with rolling over competitors and even collaborators with a lock-out technology when they feel they are in a position to make more money. Those arguments are common and they won't even make a blip on the conciousness of most people.
What would really get Microsoft to pull it's greedy hands out of making "security services" the next extension of its monopoly powers? I think it would be when the Ralph Naders, and liability lawyers take Microsoft becoming the sole provider as admission of making a product with a faulty design and trying to profit from it.
If you want to make Microsoft open it's doors and keep it's hands off the security market, then you need to make noise about this new tactic as being a tacit admission of faulty products and trying to profit from supplying the broken product and the fixes. Perhaps then, Microsoft might be eager to open the kimono for third party or independent review.
I've heard stories about how the medical profession was so enamored with radioactive tools for healing. Xrays to look inside the body. The way radiation exposure could kill unwanted bacteria. The cool soothing greenish glow of radioactive clocks and other tools. They came up with implementations of using radiation before understanding what it was doing. Today, looking back at the lack of understanding seems crazy; we'd never do something like that again. Would we?
Are we in fact going to do the same thing with electricity here? Are we really understanding why these mice are being cured or are we just satisfied to have a technique that appears to work? I don't mean to be cynical. Curing the impossible seems like a great thing. But will we be reading about how a quick emag arthritis treatment today resulted in the creation of Alzheimer's v2.0 tomorrow?
IMHO, a workable implementation is great, but full understanding would be better.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't it David Pogue's tepid review of Windows Vista (covered on Slashdot recently) that raised accusations that he was just a Mac Fanboy? His in depth review suggests that either he's capable of being open minded and doing a great job of research, or that his "research" was aided by the close similarity between Windows Vista and Mac OS X. Of course, deciding which is true simply goes to one's own OS allegiances.
:-)
Of course, I come down on the cynical mac fanboy side of things. That paranoid group that says Microsoft isn't providing features or advice on their "Vienna" release only because Apple hasn't revealed Leopard's "top secret" features yet.
If you think that Leopard sounds only like an upgrade of niche, end-user features, I think you'll be in for a pleasant surprise when it is actually released.
There are some compelling features under the hood that are being added for developers that will make their code less buggy, fit in better with the flash and glitz of Mac OS X, start taking advantage of newer hardware features, and offer more public access to the bits of code that Apple used to develop and keep private for Apple's own apps. Even if Apple doesn't reveal any other compelling end-user features (which I find an unlikely scenario), the ease Apple is making developers lives has already provoked some developers to say that the Leopard upgrade is a requirement for the next major upgrade of their apps. If Apple strikes out and offers no compelling end user features, then the blame will lie with developers as the bad guys who are forcing users to upgrade to Leopard. If Apple hits upon a compelling set of features for Mac users, the upgrade will be a no-brainer for everyone in the Mac community whose machines can run it.
If that's the case, why isn't Apple hyping Leopard up more like Microsoft did for Vista back in mid-2006? Time is getting short if the release is in the spring. My guess is that Apple is waiting for the Vista hype to die down before offering a more compelling set of end user features that will make even reticent Windows XP users want to switch platforms before Microsoft can copy the bullet list into a service pack release. Based on those banners at WWDC and MacWorld that everyone was talking about, I see Leopard as taking aim at Windows users rather than the Mac OS X Tiger community.
I guess we'll see in a few months.
The Zune _could_ have had a scroll wheel. Remember that Apple and Microsoft have a comprehensive, patent cross-licensing agreement since both are holding the other by the testicles (due to the mess that ease of patenting has become).
Whether kiosk or station, I bet the Zune social center will be coming soon to record stores, coffee shops, and stadiums near you.
What could be holding them up?
There's probably a technical glitch implementing the new DRM feature that will require you to listen to the song three times before you can delete it.
"Jenna, you didn't take my Zune to Starbucks again? I'll never be able to stomach playing Britney's new album three more times. Ye Gods!"
While the allusion to the common death ceremony may be quite appropriate now, you have to consider what happens if the Zune really catches fire and takes off!
Perhaps, because of the "squirting" socialization feature, Zunereal Disease (or just "Zunereal") would be a better tag :-)
The three models of Zune did edge out one current generation iPod product:
the 30GB U2 iPod Video. What might be some reasons?
Now when you take this list to compare to the non-U2 iPods, you may see different trends.
What can be concluded beyond this? Not much. Marketplace sales pressure, crossover sales, brand name recognition, and all sorts of other things could play a part, but these aren't trends suggested solely on the basis of a four day sales summary alone. Barring any major advertising pushes or model introuductions, these trends should stay pretty steady through Christmas. I guess we'll see where things are on January 1.
Looking at those videos, it seems to take two or three clicks to start the song after it's transferred (does it? I really can't tell for sure.) If so, I bet Microsoft is kicking themselves for making an interface that's so unfriendly to music marketeers.
:-)
For version 2.0, they can make the user be forced to start playing the song when it's done. Expensive Zune broadcast stations in your Tower Records or Virgin superstore could broadcast songs that users would be forced to download and listen to. It'd make the music marketeers ecstatic!
For version 3.0, they can have it automatically download and execute Visual Basic code too! That's bound to attract the spam and porn marketeers! The platform will fly!
Maybe Microsoft is talking about user interface improvements, but I really hope they are improvements in favor of the user.
Of course, the decision to not re-write and keep ugly legacy code itself (rather than just the API) isn't always the correct one either. The judgement of what is "best" is tough for managers and coders. Though I've only started to listen to the "pragmatic" arguments for about a year and a half or so, the best thing I've found to answer this question is unit testing. And I don't particularly like writing unit tests.
If there are unit tests that have already been written, I can see just what sort of implementation problems happened in the past. When I want to re-write code, I'm usually thinking in the stratosphere about how the new approach will make everything better, but looking over unit tests written by other developers often brings me back down to earth and I see that my perfect solution may wind up retreading similar problems in an unfamiliar way. That's even more important when the customer sees an old problem re-surface in new code: they've already been down this road and they'll be out for blood that we're backpedaling and charging them for regression rather than development.
Since unit tests are a new practice at my work, they aren't always written for legacy code to make this judgement. In that case, I find that forcing myself to sit down and write some unit tests is a good thing. Though writing them is on par with my desire to floss, I have to admit that it is a good practice. It scratches my itch to actually dig into the details and write code. After I've really looked at the failure possibilities, it really helps me make a better decision to rewrite or not. And whether we choose to rewrite now or not, it's useful in the future whether the decision is made to dump or rewrite.
I am curious about the testing practices for major products like Vista and OS X are standardized and used. I know Microsoft has a huge testing infrastructure, but I wonder if the delays in Vista have been due to too much influence of the testers, or too little, or no net effect at all. I was under the impression that Apple's testing was much better, but some major, obvious regressions lately make me think that perhaps Apple simply has a smaller "legacy" of custom code to support. Do big companies even have sound testing practices and require their use?
As a final note though, I prefer to write unit tests on other people's code since mine, of course, never needs them :-)
Apple is well regarded by musicians because of their Logic and Garage Band tools. Imagine if Apple offered (as part of the song creation workflow) an iTunes "upload space" to anyone for $X per year and Y% of sales. If $X per year was low enough for weekend bands to participate, they'd be promoting iTunes purchases at their gigs in bars and bookstores rather than hauling suitcases of burned CD's to each gig! If the Y% of sales was signigicantly under the 90% that most record labels take from bands, then even serious bands would consider Apple to be financially attractive.
As cool or frightening as this sounds though, Apple doesn't have this option because of their relationship with Apple Records. The agreements aren't fully public, but its believed that Apple Records still holds non-compete contracts with Apple (the computer company) in aspects of the music industry that overlap with what a music label does. Have you noticed that Apple avoids use of the Apple trademark in word form on their iPods in favor of the bitten fruit icon? That was an issue in one of the latest Apple vs Apple lawsuits.
Microsoft has this "label competitor" option so they just need to throw out enough money to create a Microsoft music marketplace. In that case, no matter what deals they may have made with the major labels to get there, they can usurp the market itself by offering the "Microsoft" branded music label. That would be pretty nasty for Microsoft to partner with the market's powerhouses, then turn around, undercut, and steal their former partners' markets.
Hmmm, perhaps Paul, Yoko, Dhani and Ringo should be offered positions on Apple's board of directors instead.
They've already deviated from the "big cat" naming trend. Pumas (10.1) are classified as small cats because they can not roar. Apple has applied for cat related trademarks including Cougar, Lynx, and Lion. That'd take us through 10.8. What about 10.9? I'm guessing:
The reason is mostly one of developer convenience, IMHO.
The format of NIB files and the bundle structure changed in 10.2. For developers, this was a huge difference. Localizing an app (as I recall) under Puma (10.1) was time consuming. The binary-only NIB file format before 10.1 meant you either needed to localize your app in your code or by manually opening the NIBs in interface builder and changing things. 10.2 allowed for text based NIB files, supported new user-visible GUI items, and was more resilient against corruption (at least anecdotally). There was a backwards compatible file-format for 10.1 but it was not the default. A developer could make a backwards compatible app, but what developer is going to go out of their way to make their job harder? Even today, it's possible to develop bundles and NIBs that are 10.1 and 10.0 compatible, but it's just not a desirable thing for developers to do.
10.5 will offer developers what I consider to be "major laziness options" so I expect it will become a mandatory requirement for new versions of OS X apps. Some of Apple's private GUI items users know from the iApps and Pro apps will be available in Interface Builder so developers don't have to make an inferior knock-off. Garbage collection in Objective-C 2.0 will make debugging your model far easier in debug and development, even if you decide to go back to manual memory management for performance in your release app. More unification of Carbon and Cocoa (e.g. NSViews in a carbon windows). In the past, things like the NSDocument architecture were great but for many developers it wasn't enough to force a rewrite of their app from the ground up. They'd already done the hard stuff, so why start over? But with 10.5 there are compelling developer reasons for new apps to NOT be backwards compatible and for older apps to rewrite their model or interface layer in 10.5 only code (even if they can't justify starting over with a clean slate). The biggest justification for 10.5 only apps will be developer laziness :-)
As stated, there's really only one answer to this question: "We didn't. We achieved greater than 50% CSS standards compliance." I think a better question (with the same intent) would place the question in the context of why IE7 failed to meet the web community's expectation of compliance and what may change in the future. Something like...
Web standards are open goals cooperatively established by competing interests (including Microsoft). Because partial implementation of web standards was a tactic in the "browser wars", many view lack of compliance with common standards as uncooperative and anti-competitive. What was eagerly expected to be a unified call for users and developers to "upgrade the web" based on the excellent support of web standards in IE7 has been muted by improvements which only offer limited support of commonly used portions of CSS, JavaScript, .xhtml, and the Document Object Model. Considering the financial resources of Microsoft, the incredible coding talent of the IE7 team, and Microsoft's participation in the web standards bodies, the unmet expectations in IE7's standards compliance are perplexing. But whatever the conflicting corporate interests were, the initial release of IE7 is now in the past. What can the portion of the web community which was disappointed by the current release of IE7's standards compliance expect of the new goals now under development?
I didn't realize how relaxing this game was until I played Adventure again on a friend's "retro 2600 game consoles built into a joystick" machines. I knew exactly where to grab the sword, defeat even the red dragon, and find the micro-dot/easter egg without having played it (or even thinking about it) in years. I suspect other games like the Superman game, or Yar's Revengewould trigger the same response, but it's very strange (and perhaps a little scary) how comforting it is for those built in motor memories to kick in again.
:-/
Maybe I can see now why my mom is nostalgic over some mundane useless activity like shucking vegetables. Or my dad recalls how great it was to kill wasps. Weird activities from when we were young and not concerned about politics, relationships, or investment portfolios. Maybe I should have learned something else besides how to beat Adventure though.
Presentations: Your audience (on left and center) sees a full screen Keynote presentation. Your angle shows you the presenter notes, slide navigation, and a thumbnail of the "full screen" that they are seeing. Not great, but for audiences in a boardroom or cubicle, it'd be an improvement.
Differing subtitles: A German presentation offers viewers who may benefit from French subtitles to sit to the left, and English subtitles to sit on the right. Perhaps a marketing presentation gets a similar treatment with technical information on the left, and financial information on the right.
The device doesn't sound like it'd be a cost effective substitute for a KVM switch, but there are some areas three different, synchronized views would be beneficial. Of course increasing size and resolution would help even more, but that will certainly come.
Will naked, all-women videos turn out to be deluded expressions of a sex-starved man's fantasy life, and not have anything to do with changing homosexual or feminist attitudes? Tell me it's not true!
While I can sympathize with people who feel tricked by seeing items posted on Youtube in a deceptive manner, it comes with no assertions that it is true. It's vast and unsupervised, and viewers need to be aware of that. Just adding a pretense that something is "authorized" or meets some kind of regulation will probably do more to lower people's guard than to actually improve the honesty of those who post.
Would Dreamworks have fired office staff if they had been talking about downloading a hot new Dreamworks movie via BitTorrent like "Over the Hedge"? What if the movie was still unreleased like "Dream Girls", or "Flushed Away" or "Transformers: The Movie". Even though it'd be bad publicity for DreamWorks to fire employees who are enthusiastic believers about their own products, it'd be worse to give them a wink and say "That's okay" if they really want secrecy.
Whether I agree or disagree with Apple's PR department about the wisdom of offering Leopard preview releases to developers only, that's the choice they made. It's not up to me, even if I were an employee of Apple, to try and change that policy or think that I'm somehow exempt from it. Apple's discouraging developers from talking about releases they have on Apple developer mailing lists even. It's doubtful that they'd make exemptions from their closed lips policy for staff in the Apple retail stores.
The anonymous reader wrote:
But that isn't quite what the survey said. The OSS survery reads
One notable exception to this would be Internet Explorer deployment on any Macs. Internet Explorer was insecure and underdeveloped after the Puma version in Mac OS X v 10.1 went live. It was no longer bundled on new Macs or OS X install discs when Tiger shipped.
While a number of Microsoft products are obscenely widespread despite its quality and security flaws, it isn't 100% in use out there. I know it's not a really big deal, but perhaps a small ray of hope may keep some developers and users from pulling the trigger on a dark an lonely night.
Seeing the itemized list of who's providing what, made me think about why everyone thinks their "allegiance" is the one to do it right and to do it first. In general I think the trend is:
That probably sounds negative to any of the three groups, but I think it explains more about why users don't "remember" that someone else perhaps did it first. An Apple aficionado who appreciates good user interfaces will never acknowledge anyone else as coming "first" after seeing the demo of Time Machine; there's just never been anything like it. But a Unix user will guffaw at the crash they had during the demo and state that they're the ones with the "first" version since they really see reliability as their cornerstone. As for adamant Microsoft users, it just seems to matter about when something was released rather than the quality. The next version may completely drop the interface or re-engineer the back end. But often these users can quote feature lists and continuity better than most Trekkies or Whovians.
In a lot of ways, I think there's a lot to be improved from all three camps. Make it work. Make it usable. And make it known. I think there are things each developer group can learn from the other, but advocacy will be self-selecting.
Well, these may be justified to keep things out of the carry on areas, but what's to stop creative terrorists from putting explosive chemicals in the cargo hold. One chemical embedded in a block of ice, which will melt after a few hours, mix with another chemical and "Bang!". Oh, now I get it, that's what the three hour delays are for. I see the logic now.
Back in 1997, Steve Jobs got on stage at MacWorld and told the Mac faithful to get over it, the desktop war is over and Microsoft won. So why does Apple seem to want to promote the idea that Windows is copying a lot of things from OS X?
1. Perfection Required 2. Provocation Means Attention 3. Developer Motivation 4. Justifying Reverse Copying 5. The Next Wave All of these reasons add up to some very compelling reasons to do a little ribbing at Microsoft's expense. It's doubtful that any of this will stop before Leopard goes live, but it most certainly won't get worse. Apple isn't likely to venture into territories of slander or libel.Despite the low numbers, Apple could be very interseted in who the tablets are sold to rather than the quantities. Tablets are an expensive luxury form of portable craved by doctors, lawyers, and salesmen. Anyone who likes the "walk softly and carry mean clipboard" look as a form of function or authority will want a tablet just because of the form factor.
A gynecologist friend of mine has a Windows Tablet PC and hates it because of the crashing and small resolution, but he carries it because he doesn't look like a "troll or jeweler hunched over a laptop". He'll write on paper before he'll use a conventional laptop when he's with a patient. Apple is very good at making form factors everyone drools over. Even if the Mac Tablet is only a doctor's "data entry" PC it could be quite a lucrative market that would inspire many more sales.
The development side is risky, but Apple already has much IP that a tablet could benefit from. They've been pushing alternate input for a while in Mac OS X: Inkwell hand recognition, Voice recognition, Universal Access, and other technologies are already there. Apple has patents on areas of parallax compensation, handwriting recognition, and a whole lot more left over from the Newton. The rumored "resolution independence" for Quartz could solve one of the biggest problems of other PC tablets. As far as the hardware goes, it would require a new production process but only a few parts that aren't already bought in bulk for other Apple items. Again, it all seems to come down to the form factor.
If Apple gets into this area, my bet is that they will live or die on the form factor much more than on the OS features or even price. This is a very lucrative audience and Apple has lots of experience making, pricing, and selling machines to these audiences.
Leopard has been incubating for a bit over 15 months from Tiger's release. If it takes the same amount of time as Tiger to release we'll see it go live at the start of November. If it follows the other trend of "prior release + 4 months" we'll see it go live at the start of March 2007. Both of these would fit in with the prediction that Steve made at the last WWDC that we'll see it at the end of 2006 or the start of 2007 "about the time Longhorn is released".
No matter what technology is in the pipeline, the release date is more likely to be determined by when Apple wants to go head to head with the Microsoft PR machine. Apple hasn't made any public technology promises (other than a final version of Boot Camp) so it can delay any project that isn't quite ready until 10.6. If Apple wants to look like an "innovator" and come in "first" with what everyone will think of as the next generation successor to Windows 98, then it may aim for November. If it wants to ride the Microsoft PR wave (rather than appear overwhelmed by it) then it may wait until the same time or just after Windows Vista is declared by some as a steaming pile of poo.
Setting any release date is risky, but I think Leopard's will have less to do with technology and everything to do with what date Apple thinks is the best day to take on Goliath.
No, they're supposed to give you the 40 sheckles of silver, not the other way around.
While Linux, BSD, and (past) OSX developers are used to an open kernel, Microsoft has a long tradition of security through obscurity. Microsoft has also not had a problem with rolling over competitors and even collaborators with a lock-out technology when they feel they are in a position to make more money. Those arguments are common and they won't even make a blip on the conciousness of most people.
What would really get Microsoft to pull it's greedy hands out of making "security services" the next extension of its monopoly powers? I think it would be when the Ralph Naders, and liability lawyers take Microsoft becoming the sole provider as admission of making a product with a faulty design and trying to profit from it.
If you want to make Microsoft open it's doors and keep it's hands off the security market, then you need to make noise about this new tactic as being a tacit admission of faulty products and trying to profit from supplying the broken product and the fixes. Perhaps then, Microsoft might be eager to open the kimono for third party or independent review.
I've heard stories about how the medical profession was so enamored with radioactive tools for healing. Xrays to look inside the body. The way radiation exposure could kill unwanted bacteria. The cool soothing greenish glow of radioactive clocks and other tools. They came up with implementations of using radiation before understanding what it was doing. Today, looking back at the lack of understanding seems crazy; we'd never do something like that again. Would we?
Are we in fact going to do the same thing with electricity here? Are we really understanding why these mice are being cured or are we just satisfied to have a technique that appears to work? I don't mean to be cynical. Curing the impossible seems like a great thing. But will we be reading about how a quick emag arthritis treatment today resulted in the creation of Alzheimer's v2.0 tomorrow?
IMHO, a workable implementation is great, but full understanding would be better.