Anyone who thinks CEOs or "management" don't do any real work, is an idiot.
I've gotten tired of trying to explain to these people-- and have been forced to conclude that they aren't listening. They've made up their minds.
They have no vision and no desire to take any risks. They will sit in their little job and whine-- cause its a lot easier to whine than to, excuse me, bet the farm, as you did.
Basically, they want something for nothing. I have more contempt for them-- the unambitious who want to prevent those with ability from profiting on it, than I do for the guy you call Junior. Junior was given the silver spoon and didn't recognize the value of it, I can understand that. You know he's recognizing it now.
But those who think themselves "poor" or just scraping by (with the "help" of %18 credit card debt and a huge house they shouldn't have bought and a care that isn't 15 years old) -- those people should know the value of money, cause they've managed to run out of it.
And if they make the life choice to have lots of kids and spend spend spend, then they have chosen to be poor. I'll be friends, but I don't give any sympathy when they are jealous of my wealth.
I have one very close friend who's clearly jealous and I try and try to explain about credit cards and the stock market and all that, but thir eyes just glaze over. The credit card, and the shopping it represents, is their own personal form of crack.
One day, they will wake up from the high and find themselves hung over. Hopefully its not too late for them when they do.
But bitching about loans some company gives to its employees is just an excuse to ignore the %21 reality hanging over their heads.
To quote spike lee: Wake Up!
Re:This has nothing to do with making money...
on
Expose on Insider Loans
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Sheesh. I don't think you know what an unethical business practice is.
Giving money to your employees is called "compensation" not fraud.
You list a bunch of companies that committed fraud in the same breath, and that makes me suspect you can't tell the difference.
This old liberal saw is getting old-- if you wanna be rich, then work hard and be wise with your money.
Stop the constant anti-rich people rants. It just makes you look like all the other bigots in the world (The anti-jew people, the anti-black people, etc.)
Republicans are fast and loose with human rights, but Democrats are just as loose with human rights and on top of that are whiny babies who can't seem to handle the fact that some people have managed to make a lot of money. On top of that, it seems that you guys skipped economics in college and cant' tell that those rich people do far more for the opportunities availible to poor people than any government program ever has.
Like the guy says: "I don't hate rich people, I've never had a poor person give me a job. I always believed if I worked hard, good things would happen to me, and they have."
ALL of this anti-rich crap is sour grapes. Unless you were an investor in or employee of Enron, Worldcom etc, you have no right to complain because their fraud has not affected you.
And if you're like the idiot who said "Well, enron caused the stock market to go down and that hurt my holdings" then you do not belong invested in the stock market because you do not understand enough about how it works to risk money there. Better get educated or put your money under a matress. Cause if you're buying stock in a company and it goes down because of something that happens at another company, any intelligent person says "Hey! I was gonna buy it anyway, but now I get a deal"
That's a good point. They'd better not call it "Atomic" They should call it "nano"-- we haven't yet breed a fervent religious movement that hates nanotechnology for defying god, etc. Those types are still stuck on outlawing human cloning ( which is a right, by the way, you the right to reproduce-- who has the right to tell you *how* to reprorduce? Nobody)--- now that they have finally gotten over test tube babies.
Thanks for providing the references. The lucas guy seems a bit anti-apple, or at least confusing. He doesn't give the context-- I mean, did he write steve looking for sanction to recreate cocoa? If so, I can totally see steve saying "Don't use our intellectual property".
That's not a threat. That's a request, and to follow it up with "nothing good can come from" is to back it up with concern. IF he had declared that Gnustep used Apple property that would be a different matter, but he didn't-- it seems clear to me that steve doesn't know, and his one line, terse email (which exactly fits the format of the one email I've gotten from him-- which was a response to one of my emails) is just warning people not to duplicate apple's stuff.
Its no suprise he's so terse given how this "incident" is later characterized by you and others. I'm not flaming you, I just think you're over reacting. Actually, I think most people over react to everything apple does-- the faithful declare their faith betrayed, the haters use to to "prove" apple is the ultimate evil. More often than not these positions are taken not on things apple has actually DONE but things its rumored to do, or in this case, even less.
Or, in shrot, its not clear that steve knows or thinks that gnustep was using apple IP, he was just warning them not to.
To be honest the biggest thing that holds me back about using Gnustep (Though my primary application can't work there, I have a shareware app that could) is concern about the GPL and the GPL infecting my code making it impossible to sell.
In theory there should be no risk of this, in practice there is.
But I haven't researched it and I'll look into it when the time is right.
Someone complaining that they can't take free software and make it unfree is rather funny.
You are so stupid you can't even tell what the issue is? First off "Free" software isn't involved here-- that's a bullshit term as you use it as I've shown . Secondly, I'm not wanting to make open source software closed, I just wnat ot be able to sell my software. If I use and GPLed software, then I cant-- even if I keep the GPLed software open sourced.
So, stop lying about what I've said-- you think I'm not going to notice it? How stupid is that?
Finally, RMS advocates the elimination of propritary software and software patents. He advocates that the government does this. The government doing so involves guns because everything the government does is enforced with guns. Therefore RMS is advocating the use of violence to force people to open their code when they don't want to.
The fact is that RMS is the one who wants something for nothing, not me.
You just can't deal with this so you have to lie about what I've said to try and twist it around.
ARe you really so stupid that you think I won't notice when you lie about what I said?
Sheesh.
Get a life. And learn the definition of "Free" you fuckwad.
Apple does not crack down on diversity. That's just silly. The only examples put forth for that I've heard of were people who were blatently using apple copyrighted stuff.
They don't keep their innovation closed off from the rest of the world-- everyone is free to use it. Hell, they build it into the OS or give it away for free completely as they did with rendezvous.
Somehow you seem to be ignoring the fact that Macs and Windows boxes are not compatible, and they never will be. And it ain't apple's arrogance that makes this the case.
No the loss is not that big a deal, and they are profitable for the year, but that doesn't mean that they don't have to watch their money.
A 250K here, 250k there and pretty soon it adds up to real money.
I think apple wants/needs to make Macworld a profit center, and until that happens things are going to be tough-- there's no reason they should be spending any money, net, on macworld. It should at least be free to them, if not something they derive a couple million in profit from.
In my experience, NT 4 was neither more stable nor faster. Especially on the hardware back in those days.
OS 7 was rather stable, OS 8 was extremely stable.
What was unstable was the extensions that people would add to the OS. If you didn't do that, you almost never saw crashes-- and even then you only saw crashes from poorly written apps.
A OS 8 machine, unpatched, running quality apps, would never crash. Giving it less issues than NT 4. (Which is not to say that NT 4 wasn't a big improvement for MS)
conventions are marketing events. Microsoft controls the windows conventions. Its not surprising that Apple would require that MacWorld to meet its needs.
After all, it is really apple's convention, its not a convention for apple-- the people who put on that show are profiting on apple's support, not the other way around.
it is really funny to listen to someone who writes proprietary code complain about free software.
You aren't paying very close attention. But anyway, its irrelevant-- you've placed me in a nice little box in your head that lets you hate me and so you're not listening to what I say.
Whatever. I've explained why the GPL is not getting my support, but BSD code is. And BSD projects will continue to grow, in part, because of my help. Hell, much of the code I work on and release is released without any license - its public domain.
The poison pill provisions of the GPL make it not worth dealing with.
Oh, and your inability to comprehend english does not make a lie on my part. Watch those accusations.
Unfortunately, without knowing the details its hard to form an opinion. I googled but couldn't find anything linking lucas and jobs.
Back when people were releasing aqua themes there was a lot of flack about how apple was being asinine in its threats, but it turned out that the people were using apple graphics in their themes and were violating apple copyrights directly.
I find it hard to believe that someone built a webobjects clone and was intimidated out of releasing it-- anyone with the resources to produce such a project could afford a lawyer- webobjects is rather big.
But the code is also apples copyrighted code. I don't know how you can make a clone without violating the code, even if you just reproduce the apis-- the apis are copyrighted as well.
Openstep was an open standard, right? So that supports gnustep.
I think cocoa developers aren't helping much because they are working on applications and are focused on that. PErsonally, I could help in the future, if Gnustep looks like its going to be viable (Which is something I simply haven't researched yet because it isn't the appropriate time to consider porting my app.)
I think it would be a strategically good move for apple to move cocoa to windows, and I suspect any threats are probably due to apple having plans along those lines-- rather than apple not wanting such an entity to exist. But I could be wrong.
I do think apple recognizes that what they have is a platform, they are not just a hardware company, and they do want the platform to be strong, but hey want it to be done in such a way that the mac is the first class citizen.
No doubt people will claim that this is Steve Jobs being mercurial.
But to be honest, I'm surprised-- I would think Apple would welcome the move to Boston, especially given that it is supposed to make the show cheaper for exhibiters. I don't really think that Apple has a real strategic advantage of having MacWorld in NYC-- after all Boston is less than a days drive away, and is also a big hub of computing types.
Furthermore, if what they really want is to be in NYC, why threaten to boycott NYC 2003?
One thing thats perplexed me is that Think Secret talks about a press release from Apple, but I have not been able to find it.
Is this really not a public issue- and merely something thats gone on in the back rooms of negotiating that someone (possible IDG) decided to make public to make Apple look bad? OR was I just poor at finding the release from Apple? A reference to Apple actual statement would be valuable (think secret mentions it but doesn't link to it.)
To be honest, one thing thats odd about the situation is that I would expect the show to be apples show-- not Macworlds. Or put another way, this is the kind of thing that Apple would create themselves and then hire a company like IDG to manage for them-- rather than something that Apple will likely want to have owned (and the profits going to) an outside entity (Which I believe is the people behind the Macworld magazine.)
Since Apple is a niche market, what they may really want is their own show-- or enough control that this show serves their marketing needs. It doesn't seem like it would be viable to have two major competing shows.
Furthermore, these shows are really a profitable thing, even after paying the convention center and the union guys, the organizers clear a lot of cash. And they are making that cash based on the fact that Apple will have major announcements-- and indirectly, companies will exhibit there because of Apple's presence.
When I was looking at MWSF 2003 booth space, it looked like not much of the show had sold out, so the recession may well be changing the economics of the situation.
This may be the beginning of a reshuffling that has the shows moved to different times of the year (Possibly fall and spring) to better suit sales cycles (the christmas rush is more important than back to school, so MW in the summer may be bad timing.) We may end up with Macworld going away and Apple Expos replacing it... its not clear whether that would be better or worse.
Apple runs an excellent show for WWDC, but then, that's a much smaller affair.
Ah, so when pressed you deny that stallman has claimed that all software should be free. Or that the GPL forces any software that it is mixed with to be "Free" was well.
Stallman is trying to force people to open their code if tehy use GPL code.
I've found that its not worth the time, and I have no desire to open some of my code (after all, that's what I SELL), and so I sued the BSD license.
But calling the GPL about "free" software is like calling the communist party the party of freedom and tolerance.
n none of these places could such a soaring synthesis of singletons as Apple exist.
That is true, and spot on.
Yet, you must concede that individualism is under attack by collectivists in the US, and in recent history, they are winning. While the europeans learn their lessons from the USSR, the US is going for more collectivism. OF course, its collectivism marketed as indifivudalism!
This is bullshit. Final cut pro is quickly taking over the online editing market. And it renders in real-time on even slower macs, so how can you dare claim that macs aren't fast enough for rendering?
FCP is putting film editing out of business, its that good.
Avid left the mac, sure, but Avid is the one who is dying because of it as FCP takes over the market.
ITs quickly becoming the MS Office of Video editing.
A Mac render farm costs twice as much as one made with Athlon MPs and takes 3 times longer to finish rendering the projects.
This is a bald faced lie. There is no PC equivilent to the 1U XServe that anyone has found.... the xserve costs less and has more speed than any 1U server out there-- at least in its price range.
If you moved your rendering to macs, you'd see a doubling of your price performance.
The PC has the dominant market share, why lie about the competition? ITs already won, but do you have to stoop so low as to tell these flat out fabrications to justify your preferences?
Why do zeolots have to lie about the mac advantages? You guys have %95 of the market already, isn't that enough?
when all evidence in the real world (both real software benchmarks and actual computer use) shows the exact opposite.
Hey mister coward, you'd better tell the distributed cracking team that the didn't see twice the performance from the macs than they saw from the "much faster" PCs.
Basically, everyone who thinks macs are slower and more expensive than PCs is either in denial or lying.
I would really like to know how publishing software for a smaller OS userbase is better then publishing for a larger OS userbase.
Because you sell more units.
The number of units you sell is not a function of how many computers out there can run it. Its a function of how many computers out there can run it, what percentage of people are interested in your software, how many direct competitors you have, how much the average person buys on that platform (likelihood to purchase), how effective your advertising can be to widen the percentage of people in the addressable market who know about it, and how likely your product is to work on their particular computer.
Every one of those factors, except total size of customer base, work in the favor of the macintosh.
On the windows side, MS has a lock on most software. Where MS isn't participating, there are usually a dozen companies trying to compete.
It is harder to make your program run on all the pcs, but easier to write to the more standard mac platform, this impacts both your development and support costs, leaving more money for marketing the product.
Mac users tend to buy more software.
On the mac platform there are only a few competitors, if any, for many market segments.
The mac market is homogenous, making it cheaper to build awareness of your product to a wider number of users -- the same add budget will build awareness among 2-3 times as many people on the mac platform than on the pc platform. This is because there are fewer publications addressing them and less noise for them to filter thru to notice your product.
Mac users have already had to think for themselves and go against the grain. The average PC user got the PC by default, and they are unlikely to buy any software for it other than one or two items. MAc users are actually more likely to compare feathres, and as a consequence, will actually pay for software that PC users won't. PC users are more likely to think "I don't really need it", wheras mac users will think "this is worth the money". Thus you can charge $35 on the mac platform where you'd have to charge $25 on the pc platform for the same product.
When you factor all this together,the higher selling prices, lower support and development costs and higher number of units sold, the mac platform is a better place to put your software.
This doesn't hold if you're microsoft, or Adobe. But those are about the only two exceptions I can think of-- if your marketing budget isn't so high that you can easily afford to address the whole pc market, then marketing is a factor. Or, put another way, With enough marketing you can overcome these factors to be just as profitable on the PC as on the Mac. Even then, the Mac market generates far more revenue for Adobe and Microsoft as a percentage of size of the market. Apple software sales are not %5 of their revenue for products that are cross platform and fully makreted-- they are more like %40.
Slashdot Mirror
Right ON!
Anyone who thinks CEOs or "management" don't do any real work, is an idiot.
I've gotten tired of trying to explain to these people-- and have been forced to conclude that they aren't listening. They've made up their minds.
They have no vision and no desire to take any risks. They will sit in their little job and whine-- cause its a lot easier to whine than to, excuse me, bet the farm, as you did.
Basically, they want something for nothing. I have more contempt for them-- the unambitious who want to prevent those with ability from profiting on it, than I do for the guy you call Junior. Junior was given the silver spoon and didn't recognize the value of it, I can understand that. You know he's recognizing it now.
But those who think themselves "poor" or just scraping by (with the "help" of %18 credit card debt and a huge house they shouldn't have bought and a care that isn't 15 years old) -- those people should know the value of money, cause they've managed to run out of it.
And if they make the life choice to have lots of kids and spend spend spend, then they have chosen to be poor. I'll be friends, but I don't give any sympathy when they are jealous of my wealth.
I have one very close friend who's clearly jealous and I try and try to explain about credit cards and the stock market and all that, but thir eyes just glaze over. The credit card, and the shopping it represents, is their own personal form of crack.
One day, they will wake up from the high and find themselves hung over. Hopefully its not too late for them when they do.
But bitching about loans some company gives to its employees is just an excuse to ignore the %21 reality hanging over their heads.
To quote spike lee:
Wake Up!
Sheesh. I don't think you know what an unethical business practice is.
Giving money to your employees is called "compensation" not fraud.
You list a bunch of companies that committed fraud in the same breath, and that makes me suspect you can't tell the difference.
This old liberal saw is getting old-- if you wanna be rich, then work hard and be wise with your money.
Stop the constant anti-rich people rants. It just makes you look like all the other bigots in the world (The anti-jew people, the anti-black people, etc.)
Republicans are fast and loose with human rights, but Democrats are just as loose with human rights and on top of that are whiny babies who can't seem to handle the fact that some people have managed to make a lot of money. On top of that, it seems that you guys skipped economics in college and cant' tell that those rich people do far more for the opportunities availible to poor people than any government program ever has.
Like the guy says: "I don't hate rich people, I've never had a poor person give me a job. I always believed if I worked hard, good things would happen to me, and they have."
ALL of this anti-rich crap is sour grapes. Unless you were an investor in or employee of Enron, Worldcom etc, you have no right to complain because their fraud has not affected you.
And if you're like the idiot who said "Well, enron caused the stock market to go down and that hurt my holdings" then you do not belong invested in the stock market because you do not understand enough about how it works to risk money there. Better get educated or put your money under a matress. Cause if you're buying stock in a company and it goes down because of something that happens at another company, any intelligent person says "Hey! I was gonna buy it anyway, but now I get a deal"
Nope, this is the case for regular FP operations as well as integer work.
Trivial code, that isn't CPU intensive anyway, however, will run faster on a higher clock rate CPU, but it isn't doing much work anyway.
Sorry, you don't get to put words in my mouth and then beat me over the head with them.
You have shown yourself to have no integrity, and to be dishonest.
I'm done wasting time with you.
Goodbye.
That's a good point. They'd better not call it "Atomic" They should call it "nano"-- we haven't yet breed a fervent religious movement that hates nanotechnology for defying god, etc. Those types are still stuck on outlawing human cloning ( which is a right, by the way, you the right to reproduce-- who has the right to tell you *how* to reprorduce? Nobody)--- now that they have finally gotten over test tube babies.
Thanks for providing the references. The lucas guy seems a bit anti-apple, or at least confusing. He doesn't give the context-- I mean, did he write steve looking for sanction to recreate cocoa? If so, I can totally see steve saying "Don't use our intellectual property".
That's not a threat. That's a request, and to follow it up with "nothing good can come from" is to back it up with concern. IF he had declared that Gnustep used Apple property that would be a different matter, but he didn't-- it seems clear to me that steve doesn't know, and his one line, terse email (which exactly fits the format of the one email I've gotten from him-- which was a response to one of my emails) is just warning people not to duplicate apple's stuff.
Its no suprise he's so terse given how this "incident" is later characterized by you and others. I'm not flaming you, I just think you're over reacting. Actually, I think most people over react to everything apple does-- the faithful declare their faith betrayed, the haters use to to "prove" apple is the ultimate evil. More often than not these positions are taken not on things apple has actually DONE but things its rumored to do, or in this case, even less.
Or, in shrot, its not clear that steve knows or thinks that gnustep was using apple IP, he was just warning them not to.
To be honest the biggest thing that holds me back about using Gnustep (Though my primary application can't work there, I have a shareware app that could) is concern about the GPL and the GPL infecting my code making it impossible to sell.
In theory there should be no risk of this, in practice there is.
But I haven't researched it and I'll look into it when the time is right.
Thanks for the discussion.
Someone complaining that they can't take free software and make it unfree is rather funny.
You are so stupid you can't even tell what the issue is? First off "Free" software isn't involved here-- that's a bullshit term as you use it as I've shown . Secondly, I'm not wanting to make open source software closed, I just wnat ot be able to sell my software. If I use and GPLed software, then I cant-- even if I keep the GPLed software open sourced.
So, stop lying about what I've said-- you think I'm not going to notice it? How stupid is that?
Finally, RMS advocates the elimination of propritary software and software patents. He advocates that the government does this. The government doing so involves guns because everything the government does is enforced with guns. Therefore RMS is advocating the use of violence to force people to open their code when they don't want to.
The fact is that RMS is the one who wants something for nothing, not me.
You just can't deal with this so you have to lie about what I've said to try and twist it around.
ARe you really so stupid that you think I won't notice when you lie about what I said?
Sheesh.
Get a life. And learn the definition of "Free" you fuckwad.
Lemmings hits the nail right on the head.
Its fun to watch pc weanies sputter and stutter as they try to justify their following the crowd and ignoring reality.
But that ad really shows the mentality well.
Apple does not crack down on diversity. That's just silly. The only examples put forth for that I've heard of were people who were blatently using apple copyrighted stuff.
They don't keep their innovation closed off from the rest of the world-- everyone is free to use it. Hell, they build it into the OS or give it away for free completely as they did with rendezvous.
Somehow you seem to be ignoring the fact that Macs and Windows boxes are not compatible, and they never will be. And it ain't apple's arrogance that makes this the case.
No the loss is not that big a deal, and they are profitable for the year, but that doesn't mean that they don't have to watch their money.
A 250K here, 250k there and pretty soon it adds up to real money.
I think apple wants/needs to make Macworld a profit center, and until that happens things are going to be tough-- there's no reason they should be spending any money, net, on macworld. It should at least be free to them, if not something they derive a couple million in profit from.
Hmmm, even if that were true, that would only make me exactly as gutless as you.
In my experience, NT 4 was neither more stable nor faster. Especially on the hardware back in those days.
OS 7 was rather stable, OS 8 was extremely stable.
What was unstable was the extensions that people would add to the OS. If you didn't do that, you almost never saw crashes-- and even then you only saw crashes from poorly written apps.
A OS 8 machine, unpatched, running quality apps, would never crash. Giving it less issues than NT 4. (Which is not to say that NT 4 wasn't a big improvement for MS)
I don't see the arrogance.
conventions are marketing events. Microsoft controls the windows conventions. Its not surprising that Apple would require that MacWorld to meet its needs.
After all, it is really apple's convention, its not a convention for apple-- the people who put on that show are profiting on apple's support, not the other way around.
it is really funny to listen to someone who writes proprietary code complain about free software.
You aren't paying very close attention. But anyway, its irrelevant-- you've placed me in a nice little box in your head that lets you hate me and so you're not listening to what I say.
Whatever. I've explained why the GPL is not getting my support, but BSD code is. And BSD projects will continue to grow, in part, because of my help. Hell, much of the code I work on and release is released without any license - its public domain.
The poison pill provisions of the GPL make it not worth dealing with.
Oh, and your inability to comprehend english does not make a lie on my part. Watch those accusations.
Unfortunately, without knowing the details its hard to form an opinion. I googled but couldn't find anything linking lucas and jobs.
Back when people were releasing aqua themes there was a lot of flack about how apple was being asinine in its threats, but it turned out that the people were using apple graphics in their themes and were violating apple copyrights directly.
I find it hard to believe that someone built a webobjects clone and was intimidated out of releasing it-- anyone with the resources to produce such a project could afford a lawyer- webobjects is rather big.
But the code is also apples copyrighted code. I don't know how you can make a clone without violating the code, even if you just reproduce the apis-- the apis are copyrighted as well.
Openstep was an open standard, right? So that supports gnustep.
I think cocoa developers aren't helping much because they are working on applications and are focused on that. PErsonally, I could help in the future, if Gnustep looks like its going to be viable (Which is something I simply haven't researched yet because it isn't the appropriate time to consider porting my app.)
I think it would be a strategically good move for apple to move cocoa to windows, and I suspect any threats are probably due to apple having plans along those lines-- rather than apple not wanting such an entity to exist. But I could be wrong.
I do think apple recognizes that what they have is a platform, they are not just a hardware company, and they do want the platform to be strong, but hey want it to be done in such a way that the mac is the first class citizen.
No doubt people will claim that this is Steve Jobs being mercurial.
But to be honest, I'm surprised-- I would think Apple would welcome the move to Boston, especially given that it is supposed to make the show cheaper for exhibiters. I don't really think that Apple has a real strategic advantage of having MacWorld in NYC-- after all Boston is less than a days drive away, and is also a big hub of computing types.
Furthermore, if what they really want is to be in NYC, why threaten to boycott NYC 2003?
One thing thats perplexed me is that Think Secret talks about a press release from Apple, but I have not been able to find it.
Is this really not a public issue- and merely something thats gone on in the back rooms of negotiating that someone (possible IDG) decided to make public to make Apple look bad? OR was I just poor at finding the release from Apple? A reference to Apple actual statement would be valuable (think secret mentions it but doesn't link to it.)
To be honest, one thing thats odd about the situation is that I would expect the show to be apples show-- not Macworlds. Or put another way, this is the kind of thing that Apple would create themselves and then hire a company like IDG to manage for them-- rather than something that Apple will likely want to have owned (and the profits going to) an outside entity (Which I believe is the people behind the Macworld magazine.)
Since Apple is a niche market, what they may really want is their own show-- or enough control that this show serves their marketing needs. It doesn't seem like it would be viable to have two major competing shows.
Furthermore, these shows are really a profitable thing, even after paying the convention center and the union guys, the organizers clear a lot of cash. And they are making that cash based on the fact that Apple will have major announcements-- and indirectly, companies will exhibit there because of Apple's presence.
When I was looking at MWSF 2003 booth space, it looked like not much of the show had sold out, so the recession may well be changing the economics of the situation.
This may be the beginning of a reshuffling that has the shows moved to different times of the year (Possibly fall and spring) to better suit sales cycles (the christmas rush is more important than back to school, so MW in the summer may be bad timing.) We may end up with Macworld going away and Apple Expos replacing it... its not clear whether that would be better or worse.
Apple runs an excellent show for WWDC, but then, that's a much smaller affair.
Ah, so when pressed you deny that stallman has claimed that all software should be free. Or that the GPL forces any software that it is mixed with to be "Free" was well.
Stallman is trying to force people to open their code if tehy use GPL code.
I've found that its not worth the time, and I have no desire to open some of my code (after all, that's what I SELL), and so I sued the BSD license.
But calling the GPL about "free" software is like calling the communist party the party of freedom and tolerance.
"Spark" is the right word since they used guns and bombs to do it.
There's an amazing sense of irony hearing an anonymous coward tell me to "Get a life".
That's just superb!
n none of these places could such a soaring synthesis of singletons as Apple exist.
That is true, and spot on.
Yet, you must concede that individualism is under attack by collectivists in the US, and in recent history, they are winning. While the europeans learn their lessons from the USSR, the US is going for more collectivism. OF course, its collectivism marketed as indifivudalism!
"We all choose to think alike!" indeed.
This is bullshit. Final cut pro is quickly taking over the online editing market. And it renders in real-time on even slower macs, so how can you dare claim that macs aren't fast enough for rendering?
FCP is putting film editing out of business, its that good.
Avid left the mac, sure, but Avid is the one who is dying because of it as FCP takes over the market.
ITs quickly becoming the MS Office of Video editing.
A Mac render farm costs twice as much as one made with Athlon MPs and takes 3 times longer to finish rendering the projects.
This is a bald faced lie. There is no PC equivilent to the 1U XServe that anyone has found.... the xserve costs less and has more speed than any 1U server out there-- at least in its price range.
If you moved your rendering to macs, you'd see a doubling of your price performance.
The PC has the dominant market share, why lie about the competition? ITs already won, but do you have to stoop so low as to tell these flat out fabrications to justify your preferences?
Why do zeolots have to lie about the mac advantages? You guys have %95 of the market already, isn't that enough?
when all evidence in the real world (both real software benchmarks and actual computer use) shows the exact opposite.
Hey mister coward, you'd better tell the distributed cracking team that the didn't see twice the performance from the macs than they saw from the "much faster" PCs.
Basically, everyone who thinks macs are slower and more expensive than PCs is either in denial or lying.
Cause these are objectively false statements.
And I've proven it time and again.
The nation of islam has engaged in terrorism in the past.
Its amazing how often ignorance becomse justification for calling someone stupid.
Your ignorance of history does not make me stupid, stupid.
I would really like to know how publishing software for a smaller OS userbase is better then publishing for a larger OS userbase.
,the higher selling prices, lower support and development costs and higher number of units sold, the mac platform is a better place to put your software.
Because you sell more units.
The number of units you sell is not a function of how many computers out there can run it. Its a function of how many computers out there can run it, what percentage of people are interested in your software, how many direct competitors you have, how much the average person buys on that platform (likelihood to purchase), how effective your advertising can be to widen the percentage of people in the addressable market who know about it, and how likely your product is to work on their particular computer.
Every one of those factors, except total size of customer base, work in the favor of the macintosh.
On the windows side, MS has a lock on most software. Where MS isn't participating, there are usually a dozen companies trying to compete.
It is harder to make your program run on all the pcs, but easier to write to the more standard mac platform, this impacts both your development and support costs, leaving more money for marketing the product.
Mac users tend to buy more software.
On the mac platform there are only a few competitors, if any, for many market segments.
The mac market is homogenous, making it cheaper to build awareness of your product to a wider number of users -- the same add budget will build awareness among 2-3 times as many people on the mac platform than on the pc platform. This is because there are fewer publications addressing them and less noise for them to filter thru to notice your product.
Mac users have already had to think for themselves and go against the grain. The average PC user got the PC by default, and they are unlikely to buy any software for it other than one or two items. MAc users are actually more likely to compare feathres, and as a consequence, will actually pay for software that PC users won't. PC users are more likely to think "I don't really need it", wheras mac users will think "this is worth the money". Thus you can charge $35 on the mac platform where you'd have to charge $25 on the pc platform for the same product.
When you factor all this together
This doesn't hold if you're microsoft, or Adobe. But those are about the only two exceptions I can think of-- if your marketing budget isn't so high that you can easily afford to address the whole pc market, then marketing is a factor. Or, put another way, With enough marketing you can overcome these factors to be just as profitable on the PC as on the Mac. Even then, the Mac market generates far more revenue for Adobe and Microsoft as a percentage of size of the market. Apple software sales are not %5 of their revenue for products that are cross platform and fully makreted-- they are more like %40.
Oh, you're real tough there, AC.
It is quite unfortunate that most people are so completely ignorant or processor design. That is one of my sticking points.