This is another case where "Macs are more expensive".
Other than a bit of chipped paint on some TiBooks (mine didn't have it) Apple's powerbooks have consistently gotten great reliability ratings, survived being run over by cars, and dropped from tall buildings.
And they cost less than comperable PCs (which, actually there aren't any because Intel Processors run at 1/3 to 1/6 speed on battery power and are slower to begin with)... yet have higher reliability.
The ironic thing is you could get a $2,500 apple powerbook, run MS Office under Virtual PC-- ie EMULATION-- and get better performance than a $4,000 Compaq running the same software off of battery....... and it will last longer to boot. Yet people say Macs are too expensive.
Like saying "Why buy a Toyota when you can get a Yugo???"
Not to be obnoxious, but there really is a difference. If you're gona buy a PC laptop, get one from a quality manufacturer... of which I only know of one: IBM. Toshiba and sony may be high quality when it comes to laptops too.. but Dell, Gateway, Compaq, no-name-- how can you be suprised when your Yugo breaks down???
Which is bullshit-- someone who's just switched platforms doesn't have to buy the OS-- they get it ON THEIR BOX.
Sheesh. Shake 2.5 won't be out before 10.2- as 10.2 IS REQUIRED to run it. so anyone making the switch will get their box with 10.2 on it.
Hell, they'll probably order the whole kit and kaboodle from apple pre-installed with shake and jaguar.
Why this constant harping on Apple as if its expensive-- its only expensive if you don't value your time (and even then, its cheaper than the windows alternative.)
Ok, you're an idiot and have been correctly identified as flaming.
But its worth pointing out that if you were really doing a comparison to some Dell, you'd have quoted the model number of the Dell you're comparing too. Otherwise we must conclude you're just making that up. I do comparisons against dell regularly, and regularly MAcs are a great deal cheaper for comparable hardware.
BTW- OSX is NOT slow. I have it running on a 9500-- an ancient mac that is way beyond the "supported" list and even on that guy its only a bit sluggish. I used it on my PBG3 and it runs with perfectly fine performance-- I don't notice the difference day to day between a 400MHz G3 and the 800MHz G4 I use.
You have the first modern operating system released by ANY COMPANY-- Microsoft promised cairo in 1993 and it still hasn't shipped-- linux is mostly modern except for the UI layer-- and of course since you can't bash it on its merits, you claim its slow because its graphically rich. but the thing is, every computer apple ships has a 3d accelerator and transparency is rather easy for them to do.
What you should be complaining about is that your current OS doesn't make use of the 3D hardware thats there.
Given that Macs have been significantly cheaper than comparable PCs since about 1995, I don't think anything Apple does will "dispel" that image.
The image is created and maintained by PC owners who want to feel justified in their purchase. That is all.
Every comparison I've done, since 1995, in online forums and off, and I've done this repeatedly working for PC software companies and having to prove to my coworkers that Macs aren't a ripoff-- has shown that an equivalent Mac is %10 to %50 cheaper than a comparable PC.
Hell in this very forum people were claiming thant the XServe was too expensive when the closes 1U dell was %50 more and had less drive capacity.
The eMac makes the case- I know of NO PCs from REPUTABLE manufacturers (and that rules out Gateway and all the no-name companies) that can compete with the eMac on price and performance.
Unfortuantely, there are two versions of Dell-- the ripoff, never going to last a year , POS models they sell, and then the high quality models at real prices.
It isn't a comparison to point to a Yugo and claim that a Toyota is thus overpriced... and that's what people do to claim the mac is Overpriced. Point to a computer that won't last 4 months, and doesn't have half the features to begin with.
Apple never was the largest computer company by any measure. That title has mostly been held by IBM.
This is flat out, factually wrong. FRom approximately 1989 to 1994 Apple was the largest Personal Computer maker in the world-- both in volume of units and dollar volume.
At one point in that time I think Apple was doing 12B a year in annual revenue while Microsoft was doing only $4. And people then were talking about how much bigger Microsoft was than Apple.
Everyone's perceptions of what happened in the past are totally based on the current situation-- Microsoft is bigger, so they think it always has been.
When you own %25 of the new machines being built, and there are a dozen people competing for the other 75% its easy to be the largest pc maufacturer in the world.
First off, Apple owns %30 of the company that makes the LCDs. Apple owns the factory, in effect because they used apple's investment to build a new factory.
Secondly, Apple has very large marketshare-- and probably sells more LCD screens than any other single company.
Finally, these designs are not "outdated". They are top of the line, and possibly exclusive to apple. Apple is definitely getting a competitive price here, and as usual, passing it on to its customers. For, AS USUAL, the iMac is far cheaper than a comparable PCs. (course nobody bothers to compare it to comparable PCs. the XBOX doesn't count- no display, slower processor, etc.)
(Why is it people constantly compare apples share of the market to the SUM OF ALL OTHER COMPANIES COMBINED and then say apple's a small company? Its one of the largest computer companies in the world and for a long time was the largest.)
Your assumptions are false, and you conclusion therefore is pointless.
LCDs give you superior picture quality compared to a CRT. Less eye strain, better image quality.
Most "GENERIC" PC LCDS may be crap, just like all those generic 13inch "15 inch CRTs" that gateway and Dell and everyone else sold thruout the 90s that are worthless now.
But you have the choice- buy a powermac and get a CRT if you want, or get an eMac.
But when Apple drops the CRT all together, you'll still be able to go buy a Sony monitor and plug it into your mac (any mac).
Why is it people assume that only things apple sells directly work with apple computers?
You can buy a powermac or even an iMac G4 with a CRT-- Apple's whole line will run with CRTs if you want-- just buy the CRT from someone else (its not like it isn't a commodity) and plug it in.
That's CHOICE. you have choice. Unless you want a powerbook with a CRT built in, then you don't have "choice"
CRTs are commodity. There are hundreds of companies selling them. Apple chooses to sell what it can add value to and that is really killer LCDs.
ITs worth pointing out that Apple's line of LCDs are superior to most of what's out there from a technology point of view-- but since Apple isn't about comparing MHz, etc, they don't hype this as much as they should.
ITs unfortunate that people fall into the trap of thinking every 15 inch CRT or LCD is like every other one.
The fact is that companies must be accountable, or they go out of business. Sometimes not right away, but rather soon. Enron is out of business. AA is out of business. Global crossing is out of business.
Yet we still haven't gotten an honest answer on the assasination of JFK. the election of bush was a clear violation of the constitution (on the FACE OF IT) and yet not only is the supreme court still sitting, nobodie's making a big to-do about it. (And I'm not a democrat, I'd have to say the ends was better, but the means was not justified-- I'd prefer Bush as president, but I'll take a fairly elected gore over a Supreme court selected bush anyday.)
Here in washington state the Mariners wanted a new stadium. It was put up to a vote- three times the electorate in SEATTLE voted it down-- the people who would benefit most from the stadium voted against it, and instead the state legislature went ahead and built it anyway, taxing the whole state to do so.
ARe they being held accountable?
Can anyone give me any examples of the government being held accountable? Clinton violated all his campaign promises and was re-elected, he even beat the impeachment-- which in fact, shows just how much a circus the federal government is. They can't even get their act together on the real stuff and spend all their time investigating clinton's penis.
No, companies that do not do a good job and do not do so consistently go out of business.
The government, never has that problem. Look at the last 20 years of Amtrack or the USPS.
The reason nothings being done... hmm... could it be that democrats cook elections just as much as republicans? And the two parties have a vested interest in the status quo? No?
Back in 2000 MIT demonstrated a secure, verifiable voting mechanism that would allow any citizen to audit the results in a few minutes without giving up the anonymity of the voters. The technology is there.
The fact that it hasn't been adopted is yet another in a long string of failures to perform their duty on the part of our government.
These failures are unacceptable to me, but most people just go about their lives believing what they're told and in denial.
How can you have liberty in a land of sheep? All it takes is a few wolves to convince the sheep that its for thier own good. (which is why we still have the income tax system-- the sheep said "OK" to it to pay for WWI, but the wolves didn't keep their word.)
Yeah, all those pro-pc websites have doctored benchmarks.
But macs are faster because they get far more done per clock cycle and have vastly superior floating point units.
I've never seen a legitimate benchmark showing macs to be slower.... its just a shame that there are so many cooked benchmarks out there tha you believe them.
And the truth is most people are apparently too ignorant of procesor design and the innerworkings of computers to recognize when they're being fooled.
And so they keep buying slower processors with a higher clock rate, and slower busses with a higher clock rate, etc.
i++;// add one to i for (i=0;i10;i++)//loop 10 times, the i10 is there because we start from zero...
Are you being silly?
Yes, these are pointless comments, but they are not the kind of comments I'm talking about.
Maybe comments get out of date- not updating comments is an error by the programmer who didn't update them... but out of date comments are better than no comments.
But the solution seems easy to me. Simply charge your customers for their bandwidth.
This rectifies the disparity between flat rate pricing and incremental bandwidth costs.
When I went to find a solution for my web appliction, I chose to put in a DSL line and host it myself (Because of the complexity of the app, this is cheaper than colocating my computers there).. but I chose a DSL provider that doesn't give "all you can eat" - but instead charges for bandwidth.
The reason I chose this is the theory that the bandwidth hogs would go elsewhere and the latency at this ISP would be much lower. so far this has proven tru, and I've yet to exceed the basic "free" bandwidth level.
If, on the other hand, you're talking bout people who are downloading your customers content at huge rates, then maybe you should charge your customers based on the service they are providing. If they're hosting lots of large files, they should probably be paying more...
Dunno if that's a viable solution-- but smart customers will prefer someone who charges "by the byte"... because the bytes are better quality.
While this is a bit of a troll, it sure sums up my fealings for that guy.
Years ago, I tried to set him straight- explainign physics, how microprocessors are made, and urging him to use some common sense and past history (also known as judgement) before posting his rantings.
Finally, it was the constant "sources are certain that Apple will, introduce iMacs with 22 inch screens at an upcoming trade show- thought to be Sybold, and while this looks totally for sure, you never know and merely the mention of it here might make Steve Jobs pull one of his famous last minute switches and change the machine to a 21 inch display. Our source has seen the product, but Apple can turn its entire component supply chain on a dime so if it doesn't happen, its becuase steve heard we knew-- not becuase I'm pulling this rumor out of my ass!"... that got to me and I stopped visiting.
Not that the other rumor sites are much better. Think Secret at least nailed it so far-- but their'; idiots who think Apple's engaging in "censorship" by not giving people like ryan meaders a free ride and other goodies.
The state of mac fanboy sites has never been worse.
If Richard Stallmand is "happy to sermonize on the false construct of intellectual property."
Then I have to wonder what the point of the GPL is. After all, the GPL is a LICENSE for INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. If Stallman doesn't believe in IP, then what does he need a license to control his IP for?
Why not release everything into the public domain?
My point is NOT to bash the GPL. While I'd never use it, I recognize that it is a construct clearly on the side of Good.
But the GPL does not destroy IP rights, it ENFORCES THEM, by layind down very strictly, what you can and can't do with the software that is GPLed.
I think Stallmans' confusion on what Intellectual property is -- And the inherant anti-corporate, anti-human rights position-- leads to a conflicted, ineffective message.
Dont' repeat this message. IF you support human rights-- one of which is the freedom to run the software you choose on your own computer without government intervention-- then your only ideological choice is Libertariansim.
Communism is complete control over the individual and the elimination of private property (that includes your rights to your computer)
Liberalism is the control over anything you might want to do economically, but not socialy. Meaning if you sell computers, Liberals will require DRM to be built in.
Conservativsm is the control over anything you do socialy, but not economically. Meaning that if you have a computer DRM et. al. are a requirement to keep you from looking at gay or child porn.
Libertarianism-- is the notion that individuals can make their own decisions regarding their own property. That the initiation of force is immoral, and that should it not hurt anyone else, do what you will.
I think too many Geeks fall into the liberal category, and unintentionally adovcate an ideology that requires DRM. Look at the history of Liberals in this country-- Clinton removed gay rights after getting elected on that platform. He didn't do a great job opposing the Clipper chip, etc.
This product will be released this fall. I know because I'm one of the people working on it.
It's features:
-- Designed as a TiVO replacement-- you watch tv on TV, not on your computer (as you do with eyeTV) -- The shows are quicktime movies that you can backup as you wish (CD if you want, or use iDVD and turn them into DVDs) -- Firewire based -- Can record at "broadcast quality" DV if you want really high quality copies of your shows. -- Records at high quality in MPEG4 to give you better quality at a better compression ratio than TiVo. Imagine a 500 hour capacity. -- MacOSX based. You use whatever hard drives you want (Firewire or internal) to store as much as you wish. -- Software supports a variety of hardware devices, and isn't tied to any specific capture device. -- NTSC only initially. -- Built in program guide and speculative recording (like Tivo) as well.
Will be sold as a software product to pair with your choice of hardware, but complete systems will be availible as well.
Better quality than TiVo, at lower cost per hour and without a subscription fee.
When we make our formal "its shipping" announcement, I'll submit it to/. but just wanted anyone who wants a Firewire/high quality PVR to know there's one coming for the Mac. Also, please let me know if you have another format you want supported than MPEG4 and DV. We want to make the product very easy to use (figuring most consumers won't know the difference between DV and MPEG4) but have the flexibility for power users as well.
Microsoft didn't win. The judge threw the case out of court.
The judge was an idiot and clearly incompetant to do what he did.
They did NOT buy the UI from Apple... well, not until 1997 or so with the infamous "$150M" investment that I think also included $5-$10 Billion in private payments.
Apple did not steal the UI from PARC. They invented it themselves.
They DID use some Xerox technology, for which Xerox was very handsomly paid.
The claim that Apple stole the Xerox parc is the standard claim of windows bigots who don't want ot face up to the fact that windows is a cheap mac ripoff. It has no basis in fact.
To be honest, it's this sort of ultra aggresive marketing that switches me off (no pun intended) from Apple. These sorts of adverts, combined with the amount of software they're buying up and making Mac only, are a big no no in my books
You don't fool any of us. your bigotry doesn't need a rationalization like this-- we're not going to buy it anyway. You're a bigot, you'd never buy a mac for whatever reason-- apples soft sell advertising in the past didn't get you to buy one, so we should believe that you won't because of the more direct sales?
The commercials are spot on-- Windows sucks, its pointlessly difficult to use and unreliable. The people aren't losers-- its the operating system (And anyone who puts up with it) that's a loser.
Be prejudiced, fine, just stop with the lame excuses for hating apple.
Fact is, Most mac users are regular people who appreciate a computer that ACTUALLY WORKS and doesn't require a lot of work to get it working.
I'm a flat out computer and operating expert, having worked on OSs at microsoft (I disclaim responsibility for their craptitude, though) and am proficient at every platform-- I don't need training wheels to get things done, but I get a LOT more work done per minute on a Mac than any other platform I've used.
Its not that we're elitist- we're tired of idiots calling us and our platform idiots because it ACTUALLY WORKS. So fsck off with your attitude.
Sometimes what you perceive is arrogance is actually the simple knowledge of superiority.
Yes, you do get OS X for free when you buy a new Mac, but that isn't apple exercising some authoritarian control over your computer.
You can go reformat the drive an install Linux if you want, or BSD (I think?) or Darwin.
Yeah, being a hardware company does give apple a competitive advantage in making its systems better... but it has its downsides too. Apple has made its choice and microsoft has made theirs.
Its often hard to tell what's really going on behind the public facade that PR agencies make...
But anytime Microsoft starts getting aggressive at Apple, that's good news.
Means Apple really is executing well and making good inroads, and it also inflames Microsoft at a time while it is under scrutiny for anti-competitive behaviour.
Slashdot Mirror
This is another case where "Macs are more expensive".
Other than a bit of chipped paint on some TiBooks (mine didn't have it) Apple's powerbooks have consistently gotten great reliability ratings, survived being run over by cars, and dropped from tall buildings.
And they cost less than comperable PCs (which, actually there aren't any because Intel Processors run at 1/3 to 1/6 speed on battery power and are slower to begin with)... yet have higher reliability.
The ironic thing is you could get a $2,500 apple powerbook, run MS Office under Virtual PC-- ie EMULATION-- and get better performance than a $4,000 Compaq running the same software off of battery....
Like saying "Why buy a Toyota when you can get a Yugo???"
Not to be obnoxious, but there really is a difference. If you're gona buy a PC laptop, get one from a quality manufacturer... of which I only know of one: IBM. Toshiba and sony may be high quality when it comes to laptops too.. but Dell, Gateway, Compaq, no-name-- how can you be suprised when your Yugo breaks down???
Just keep wishing and hoping and praying.
Lets see, an 800MHz G4 is only, what, 24 times as fast as a 500MHz P3 when doing floating point math.
Its funny- PC people still think their processors cant' do fractions..... and they're right!
At least, not very fast.
Which is bullshit-- someone who's just switched platforms doesn't have to buy the OS-- they get it ON THEIR BOX.
Sheesh. Shake 2.5 won't be out before 10.2- as 10.2 IS REQUIRED to run it. so anyone making the switch will get their box with 10.2 on it.
Hell, they'll probably order the whole kit and kaboodle from apple pre-installed with shake and jaguar.
Why this constant harping on Apple as if its expensive-- its only expensive if you don't value your time (and even then, its cheaper than the windows alternative.)
The part where thats NOT WHAT WAS SAID.
Apple sold the most PCs. Not "biggest computer ocmpany".
IBM has always had more employees, more land, and more mainframe sales than Apple.
But that's irrelevant when you're talking about the PC space.
A little thing called reality
Ok, you're an idiot and have been correctly identified as flaming.
But its worth pointing out that if you were really doing a comparison to some Dell, you'd have quoted the model number of the Dell you're comparing too. Otherwise we must conclude you're just making that up. I do comparisons against dell regularly, and regularly MAcs are a great deal cheaper for comparable hardware.
BTW- OSX is NOT slow. I have it running on a 9500-- an ancient mac that is way beyond the "supported" list and even on that guy its only a bit sluggish. I used it on my PBG3 and it runs with perfectly fine performance-- I don't notice the difference day to day between a 400MHz G3 and the 800MHz G4 I use.
You have the first modern operating system released by ANY COMPANY-- Microsoft promised cairo in 1993 and it still hasn't shipped-- linux is mostly modern except for the UI layer-- and of course since you can't bash it on its merits, you claim its slow because its graphically rich. but the thing is, every computer apple ships has a 3d accelerator and transparency is rather easy for them to do.
What you should be complaining about is that your current OS doesn't make use of the 3D hardware thats there.
Given that Macs have been significantly cheaper than comparable PCs since about 1995, I don't think anything Apple does will "dispel" that image.
The image is created and maintained by PC owners who want to feel justified in their purchase. That is all.
Every comparison I've done, since 1995, in online forums and off, and I've done this repeatedly working for PC software companies and having to prove to my coworkers that Macs aren't a ripoff-- has shown that an equivalent Mac is %10 to %50 cheaper than a comparable PC.
Hell in this very forum people were claiming thant the XServe was too expensive when the closes 1U dell was %50 more and had less drive capacity.
The eMac makes the case- I know of NO PCs from REPUTABLE manufacturers (and that rules out Gateway and all the no-name companies) that can compete with the eMac on price and performance.
Unfortuantely, there are two versions of Dell-- the ripoff, never going to last a year , POS models they sell, and then the high quality models at real prices.
It isn't a comparison to point to a Yugo and claim that a Toyota is thus overpriced... and that's what people do to claim the mac is Overpriced. Point to a computer that won't last 4 months, and doesn't have half the features to begin with.
Apple never was the largest computer company by any measure. That title has mostly been held by IBM.
This is flat out, factually wrong. FRom approximately 1989 to 1994 Apple was the largest Personal Computer maker in the world-- both in volume of units and dollar volume.
At one point in that time I think Apple was doing 12B a year in annual revenue while Microsoft was doing only $4. And people then were talking about how much bigger Microsoft was than Apple.
Everyone's perceptions of what happened in the past are totally based on the current situation-- Microsoft is bigger, so they think it always has been.
When you own %25 of the new machines being built, and there are a dozen people competing for the other 75% its easy to be the largest pc maufacturer in the world.
You're wrong on a couple counts.
First off, Apple owns %30 of the company that makes the LCDs. Apple owns the factory, in effect because they used apple's investment to build a new factory.
Secondly, Apple has very large marketshare-- and probably sells more LCD screens than any other single company.
Finally, these designs are not "outdated". They are top of the line, and possibly exclusive to apple. Apple is definitely getting a competitive price here, and as usual, passing it on to its customers. For, AS USUAL, the iMac is far cheaper than a comparable PCs. (course nobody bothers to compare it to comparable PCs. the XBOX doesn't count- no display, slower processor, etc.)
(Why is it people constantly compare apples share of the market to the SUM OF ALL OTHER COMPANIES COMBINED and then say apple's a small company? Its one of the largest computer companies in the world and for a long time was the largest.)
Your assumptions are false, and you conclusion therefore is pointless.
LCDs give you superior picture quality compared to a CRT. Less eye strain, better image quality.
Most "GENERIC" PC LCDS may be crap, just like all those generic 13inch "15 inch CRTs" that gateway and Dell and everyone else sold thruout the 90s that are worthless now.
But you have the choice- buy a powermac and get a CRT if you want, or get an eMac.
But when Apple drops the CRT all together, you'll still be able to go buy a Sony monitor and plug it into your mac (any mac).
Why is it people assume that only things apple sells directly work with apple computers?
You can buy a powermac or even an iMac G4 with a CRT-- Apple's whole line will run with CRTs if you want-- just buy the CRT from someone else (its not like it isn't a commodity) and plug it in.
That's CHOICE. you have choice. Unless you want a powerbook with a CRT built in, then you don't have "choice"
CRTs are commodity. There are hundreds of companies selling them. Apple chooses to sell what it can add value to and that is really killer LCDs.
ITs worth pointing out that Apple's line of LCDs are superior to most of what's out there from a technology point of view-- but since Apple isn't about comparing MHz, etc, they don't hype this as much as they should.
ITs unfortunate that people fall into the trap of thinking every 15 inch CRT or LCD is like every other one.
None of your statements support your conclusion.
The fact is that companies must be accountable, or they go out of business. Sometimes not right away, but rather soon. Enron is out of business. AA is out of business. Global crossing is out of business.
Yet we still haven't gotten an honest answer on the assasination of JFK. the election of bush was a clear violation of the constitution (on the FACE OF IT) and yet not only is the supreme court still sitting, nobodie's making a big to-do about it. (And I'm not a democrat, I'd have to say the ends was better, but the means was not justified-- I'd prefer Bush as president, but I'll take a fairly elected gore over a Supreme court selected bush anyday.)
Here in washington state the Mariners wanted a new stadium. It was put up to a vote- three times the electorate in SEATTLE voted it down-- the people who would benefit most from the stadium voted against it, and instead the state legislature went ahead and built it anyway, taxing the whole state to do so.
ARe they being held accountable?
Can anyone give me any examples of the government being held accountable? Clinton violated all his campaign promises and was re-elected, he even beat the impeachment-- which in fact, shows just how much a circus the federal government is. They can't even get their act together on the real stuff and spend all their time investigating clinton's penis.
No, companies that do not do a good job and do not do so consistently go out of business.
The government, never has that problem. Look at the last 20 years of Amtrack or the USPS.
Virtually every company is honest.
The who;e "companies are scum" is the line fed to you to keep you distracted while the politicians pick your pockets.
Baa like a sheep for me.
Companies are answerable to their owners, customers, AND employees-- three constituent groups.
Government isn't even answerable to voters.
Baa Baaa.
The reason nothings being done... hmm... could it be that democrats cook elections just as much as republicans? And the two parties have a vested interest in the status quo? No?
Back in 2000 MIT demonstrated a secure, verifiable voting mechanism that would allow any citizen to audit the results in a few minutes without giving up the anonymity of the voters. The technology is there.
The fact that it hasn't been adopted is yet another in a long string of failures to perform their duty on the part of our government.
These failures are unacceptable to me, but most people just go about their lives believing what they're told and in denial.
How can you have liberty in a land of sheep? All it takes is a few wolves to convince the sheep that its for thier own good. (which is why we still have the income tax system-- the sheep said "OK" to it to pay for WWI, but the wolves didn't keep their word.)
Its a shame, really.
No, it is scienfitic fact.
Yeah, all those pro-pc websites have doctored benchmarks.
But macs are faster because they get far more done per clock cycle and have vastly superior floating point units.
I've never seen a legitimate benchmark showing macs to be slower.... its just a shame that there are so many cooked benchmarks out there tha you believe them.
And the truth is most people are apparently too ignorant of procesor design and the innerworkings of computers to recognize when they're being fooled.
And so they keep buying slower processors with a higher clock rate, and slower busses with a higher clock rate, etc.
i++;// add one to i
for (i=0;i10;i++)//loop 10 times, the i10 is there because we start from zero...
Are you being silly?
Yes, these are pointless comments, but they are not the kind of comments I'm talking about.
Maybe comments get out of date- not updating comments is an error by the programmer who didn't update them... but out of date comments are better than no comments.
But the solution seems easy to me. Simply charge your customers for their bandwidth.
This rectifies the disparity between flat rate pricing and incremental bandwidth costs.
When I went to find a solution for my web appliction, I chose to put in a DSL line and host it myself (Because of the complexity of the app, this is cheaper than colocating my computers there).. but I chose a DSL provider that doesn't give "all you can eat" - but instead charges for bandwidth.
The reason I chose this is the theory that the bandwidth hogs would go elsewhere and the latency at this ISP would be much lower. so far this has proven tru, and I've yet to exceed the basic "free" bandwidth level.
If, on the other hand, you're talking bout people who are downloading your customers content at huge rates, then maybe you should charge your customers based on the service they are providing. If they're hosting lots of large files, they should probably be paying more...
Dunno if that's a viable solution-- but smart customers will prefer someone who charges "by the byte"... because the bytes are better quality.
While this is a bit of a troll, it sure sums up my fealings for that guy.
Years ago, I tried to set him straight- explainign physics, how microprocessors are made, and urging him to use some common sense and past history (also known as judgement) before posting his rantings.
Finally, it was the constant "sources are certain that Apple will, introduce iMacs with 22 inch screens at an upcoming trade show- thought to be Sybold, and while this looks totally for sure, you never know and merely the mention of it here might make Steve Jobs pull one of his famous last minute switches and change the machine to a 21 inch display. Our source has seen the product, but Apple can turn its entire component supply chain on a dime so if it doesn't happen, its becuase steve heard we knew-- not becuase I'm pulling this rumor out of my ass!"
Not that the other rumor sites are much better. Think Secret at least nailed it so far-- but their'; idiots who think Apple's engaging in "censorship" by not giving people like ryan meaders a free ride and other goodies.
The state of mac fanboy sites has never been worse.
If Richard Stallmand is "happy to sermonize on the false construct of intellectual property."
Then I have to wonder what the point of the GPL is. After all, the GPL is a LICENSE for INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. If Stallman doesn't believe in IP, then what does he need a license to control his IP for?
Why not release everything into the public domain?
My point is NOT to bash the GPL. While I'd never use it, I recognize that it is a construct clearly on the side of Good.
But the GPL does not destroy IP rights, it ENFORCES THEM, by layind down very strictly, what you can and can't do with the software that is GPLed.
I think Stallmans' confusion on what Intellectual property is -- And the inherant anti-corporate, anti-human rights position-- leads to a conflicted, ineffective message.
Dont' repeat this message. IF you support human rights-- one of which is the freedom to run the software you choose on your own computer without government intervention-- then your only ideological choice is Libertariansim.
Communism is complete control over the individual and the elimination of private property (that includes your rights to your computer)
Liberalism is the control over anything you might want to do economically, but not socialy. Meaning if you sell computers, Liberals will require DRM to be built in.
Conservativsm is the control over anything you do socialy, but not economically. Meaning that if you have a computer DRM et. al. are a requirement to keep you from looking at gay or child porn.
Libertarianism-- is the notion that individuals can make their own decisions regarding their own property. That the initiation of force is immoral, and that should it not hurt anyone else, do what you will.
I think too many Geeks fall into the liberal category, and unintentionally adovcate an ideology that requires DRM. Look at the history of Liberals in this country-- Clinton removed gay rights after getting elected on that platform. He didn't do a great job opposing the Clipper chip, etc.
Think about it.
This product will be released this fall. I know because I'm one of the people working on it.
It's features:
-- Designed as a TiVO replacement-- you watch tv on TV, not on your computer (as you do with eyeTV)
-- The shows are quicktime movies that you can backup as you wish (CD if you want, or use iDVD and turn them into DVDs)
-- Firewire based
-- Can record at "broadcast quality" DV if you want really high quality copies of your shows.
-- Records at high quality in MPEG4 to give you better quality at a better compression ratio than TiVo. Imagine a 500 hour capacity.
-- MacOSX based. You use whatever hard drives you want (Firewire or internal) to store as much as you wish.
-- Software supports a variety of hardware devices, and isn't tied to any specific capture device.
-- NTSC only initially.
-- Built in program guide and speculative recording (like Tivo) as well.
Will be sold as a software product to pair with your choice of hardware, but complete systems will be availible as well.
Better quality than TiVo, at lower cost per hour and without a subscription fee.
When we make our formal "its shipping" announcement, I'll submit it to
Microsoft didn't win. The judge threw the case out of court.
The judge was an idiot and clearly incompetant to do what he did.
They did NOT buy the UI from Apple... well, not until 1997 or so with the infamous "$150M" investment that I think also included $5-$10 Billion in private payments.
Yet another MYTH.
Apple did not steal the UI from PARC. They invented it themselves.
They DID use some Xerox technology, for which Xerox was very handsomly paid.
The claim that Apple stole the Xerox parc is the standard claim of windows bigots who don't want ot face up to the fact that windows is a cheap mac ripoff. It has no basis in fact.
To be honest, it's this sort of ultra aggresive marketing that switches me off (no pun intended) from Apple. These sorts of adverts, combined with the amount of software they're buying up and making Mac only, are a big no no in my books
You don't fool any of us. your bigotry doesn't need a rationalization like this-- we're not going to buy it anyway. You're a bigot, you'd never buy a mac for whatever reason-- apples soft sell advertising in the past didn't get you to buy one, so we should believe that you won't because of the more direct sales?
The commercials are spot on-- Windows sucks, its pointlessly difficult to use and unreliable. The people aren't losers-- its the operating system (And anyone who puts up with it) that's a loser.
Be prejudiced, fine, just stop with the lame excuses for hating apple.
You post that stupid cartoon every freaking day.
Call it "flaming by proxy". Sheesh.
Fact is, Most mac users are regular people who appreciate a computer that ACTUALLY WORKS and doesn't require a lot of work to get it working.
I'm a flat out computer and operating expert, having worked on OSs at microsoft (I disclaim responsibility for their craptitude, though) and am proficient at every platform-- I don't need training wheels to get things done, but I get a LOT more work done per minute on a Mac than any other platform I've used.
Its not that we're elitist- we're tired of idiots calling us and our platform idiots because it ACTUALLY WORKS. So fsck off with your attitude.
Sometimes what you perceive is arrogance is actually the simple knowledge of superiority.
Yes, you do get OS X for free when you buy a new Mac, but that isn't apple exercising some authoritarian control over your computer.
You can go reformat the drive an install Linux if you want, or BSD (I think?) or Darwin.
Yeah, being a hardware company does give apple a competitive advantage in making its systems better... but it has its downsides too. Apple has made its choice and microsoft has made theirs.
Its often hard to tell what's really going on behind the public facade that PR agencies make...
But anytime Microsoft starts getting aggressive at Apple, that's good news.
Means Apple really is executing well and making good inroads, and it also inflames Microsoft at a time while it is under scrutiny for anti-competitive behaviour.
"If your opponent is angry, provoke him."