My guild has been in MC for two weeks now. We cleared to Domo the first week (but hadn't completed the quest for Aqual Quintessence so we couldn't summon him) and full cleared the next week. We have about 40-45 regular raiders that raid every night. Almost every member now has between 2 and 4 pieces of Tier 1. The tier 1 raiding set isn't very hard to obtain at all.
In addition, we've been doing ZG for a month, and I have all the set pieces from ZG, as well as all of the drops that I could possibly be interested in (including Betrayer's Boots). The only thing I lack is my edge of madness trinket (that sucks so I don't know if I'll ever get it)..
As I pointed out below, however, Fitzgerald tried to get the phone records of the reporter (AFTER the fact, not an attempt to monitor ongoing communications from the reporter, which is an even WORSE offense, imho) and the court denied his request, citing the constitutional privledges of the press.
So even in a case where the leaked classified information did in fact danger lives, it was decided by the court that the phone records of journalists were protected.
And the article is about the executive branch of the government proactively monitoring the phone lines of reporters in case they talk to a "leaker".
Your "zomg it's classified information nub!" argument almost holds water, until you realize that there is a Judicial branch of the government meant to oversee these types of activities specifically to prevent abuse by the Executive. If the Executive is willing to get court orders to do this type of monitoring, then it's within the letter of the law, else it's just abuse of power to stop dwindling poll numbers.
But keep on listening to the spin and disregard the law, because our National Security is at stake..:p
P.S.: Remember waaaaaay back when when you were desperately trying to protect reporter's rights to not divulge their sources when an administration official leaked classified information (poor poor Scooter, he should have been protected, it's all those other leakers that deserve jail time).. well the Judge in that case ruled that the Fitzgerald could not have the phone records of any reporters, because they are constitutionally protected.. I didn't hear your outrage back then that the government wasn't allowed to look at the records..
You are right, because the government will be completely trustworthy and will only abuse the power to tap reporter's phones when it's a matter of National Security. And we can use all those other cases where the government didn't lie to us as evidence of how trustworthy and wonderful they really and truly are.
Ohh hey, you have a bit of Kool Aid on your chin, might want to wash that off.
I bet the person that marked me as a troll just wishes Bill Clinton had this power, so that he could have stopped Linda Tripp from leaking private information about the sex lives of those in the White House..
Ohh wait.. it's only good when REPUBLICANS tap our phones..
For a second there I almost ran out of Kool Aid.. continue on..
I've always thought this myself. Spam doesn't even look reasonable to the average consumer, and usually comes off looking like a scam. I can't help but to wonder if the "low cost of entry" and "it only takes a few responses to make money" myths that are so prevelant amongst the Spam *fighters* is the reason there is so much spam.
Don't get me wrong, I want to fight spam at every step of the way, I just can't help to wonder if it's mostly unprofitable, or at least such a poor return on your time that it ends up being more work than reward. I mean, most other "get rich quick" schemes (pyramid schemes, MAKE MONEY FROM HOME reselling schemes, etc) turn out to be completely bogus, yet they still exist. I bet for every profitable spammer there are thousands of people who never make a dime (or even lose money) doing it.
I bet a vast majority of spammers are 20 something kids who are just living in their parents basement until their "buisness" takes off, but thus far it has barely covered the cost of their pot habit.. *shrug*..
I was most certainly there (though I certainly wish I was as young as you imply I am)..
You completely gloss over the fact that people didn't have to buy PCs for their home PCs. Those of us working in tech first bought home pcs, and WE'RE the people who told others to buy home PCs when it came time, for OUR convience because WE knew we had to fix those fuckers when they broke.
I still posit, that if you can convince US to switch the rest of the world will switch, i.e. if Apple wins us over they win.
First of all, I don't know why either of you think Steam "failed". I suspect it resulted in extra revenue for Valve, and they're planning to release a third-party game this fall, so the jury is still out. We would have to know how much it cost to implement and what the long-term revenue curves are to know whether or not it "failed".
The jury most certainly is not out.. Look at iTunes if you want to see a successful distributor. Then go back and look at Steam. Steam has clearly failed in a most catastrophic way. It may not be dead, but it has certainly failed..
As to why I responded to you post, it probably was where you said "stupid" instead of "due to contractual arrangements".
It was stupid, it may have been due to "contractual arrangements" but that just means it was either a) stupid that they signed the contract or b) stupid that they tried to use Half Life II to launch Steam.
Tell you what, mark this post, write down my username, mark the date, whatever you want, then come back when Steam is a huge success and tell me how stupid I am. I just wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, you'll probably find it is dangerous for your health..
The OP asked why Steam failed. I told him why, which is, the value of what the company was offering was not equivelent to the product the consumer was receiving. None of the shit you just spouted even remotely matters, I'm sorry that Valve was under a contract was too draconian to pull off what they were attempting, but people aren't going to run out and buy a game off of Steam because they feel sorry for Valve for signing a crappy contract..
I completely understand how the gaming buisness works, and your lengthy diatribe was pretty useless to me. I didn't give a reason why Valve charged more, and the reason doesn't matter to the consumer, all the consumer needs to understand is "Inferior product, same money".. Thus Steam failed.. dramatically.. pathetically.. but certainly not amazingly..
What utter bullshit. As if Apple is preventing anyone from writing a device driver. I guess those companies providing OS X compatible hardware (ethernet cards, video cards, serial adapters, etc) are pulling the IOKit and API specifications out of thin air!
No, your argument doesn't hold water. Manufacturers create drivers when they feel there is significant demand. Due to Apple including so much on the motherboard of a stock machine, there hasn't been much in the way of demand, so many manufacturers haven't written drivers. Today at least USB and Firewire have allowed lots of things that previously required drivers to use built-in class drivers.
I think you misunderstood my post, that was exactly my point. If the market share for OSX increases the hardware support will increase (if Apple allows it). I don't know WHAT Apple allows, I assume the APIs are already open, I just threw in the caveat because it's real, if the APIs are open and the demand exists, hardware manufacturers will flock to the platform.
Then you go on to argue out of both sides of your mouth:
As if Apple is preventing anyone from writing a device driver. I guess those companies providing OS X compatible hardware (ethernet cards, video cards, serial adapters, etc) are pulling the IOKit and API specifications out of thin air!... Finally, Apple must continue to control the experience
So which is it? Does Apple have an open API (thus, by definition is unable to "control the experience") or does Apple control the experience? Jesus, talk about using two arguments at once.. My point was that increasing the hardware support for OSX isn't really an issue if they shoot for increased market share.
Perhaps you believe that 30% of PC purchasers each year really want OS X, not Windows, and buy a PC anyway instead of a Mac. If that is true, then the gambit would work. Apple would need to be very certain about that, though, before abandoning a strategy that is currently very successful.
I believe they could gain a larger than 30% share, almost overnight, certainly withing a few years. The market is ready for something revolutionary, the early adopters that drive the market just don't want to buy an overpriced Mac to run that revolutionary product. Again, if you read my initial post, I think if OSX ran on commodity hardware, my son would end up reading about Microsoft in a history book.. In fact, I think opening OSX up to commodity hardware would win over the "early adopters", people like me who are going to build their pcs, and we'll recommend it to people who will actually buy real macs, so I hardly think it's far to discount any of the current market share Apple has using real macs. My thesis is, if they can win me over by letting me run OSX on my AMD I put together by hand, it will only serve to INCREASE their hardware sales (as well as their software sales)..
Look at it this way, my parents buy Sony TVs, even though MUCH cheaper TVs exist. They have 4 TVs, every single one is Sony. In fact, I cannot remember them ever buying anything BUT Sony, yet the whole time cheaper TVs have existed. Buying a Sony TV is easy for them, and they have the money to spend to avoid having to research, they know if they buy a Sony TV it will work well and it will do what they want it to do. They do not have the energy or the desire to spend 20 hours on the 'net to find a cheaper TV that is equivelent in quality and ease of use.
If I switch to running OSX on my x86, they will end up buying an Apple PC straight from Apple for the exact same reason that they always buy a Sony TV. They will be interested in buying something that they don't have to research but will be of appropriate quality for their needs. The barrier right now from them buying a Mac is the fact that I don't use a OSX, thus I will not support them using OSX. If I switch to OSX, Apple will increase it's hardware sales, not just it's software sales..
I disagree.. Lets assume your numbers are correct. If I told my boss that we could go to market with the products that we have today, and could potentially end up with 4-5 times the profit, he'd have a heart attack at the opportunity. If I could promise him that if the gamble failed, we'd still have the iPod to fall back on (which is probably a vast majority of those sales) he'd make me Vice President of the Universe. Buisnesses rarely, if ever, have the opportunity that Apple has today. Moving from $450 million to $2 billion in profits is absurd and unheard of.. And that's assuming your (probably conservative) guess is right..
1. Apple would have to support a massively larger amount of hardware.
Due to the lack of formatting (probably not your fault) and because I happen to know quite a bit about the subject, I stopped reading at this sentence..
My nick, pcidevel, comes from the fact that I've spent the last 5 years developing device drivers for pci devices in Windows (as well as Linux, HP-UX, Solaris, etc).. I've never worked for Microsoft that whole time. Microsoft does not develop the device drivers for Windows, the third party manufacturer of the device does. I've written, probably close to a dozen drivers, from niche products to ethernet drivers for Intel (if you use a IBM or Intel ethernet card, you've probably encounterd my code.. yeah it's the shit that made your box BSOD, sorry about that)..
If Apple increases their market share and opens their APIs, hardware manufacturers will flock to OSX with device drivers. Hell I've had companies pay me to develop drivers for HP-UX, and there are probably around 15 people in the WORLD using HP-UX anymore. You can guarantee if there was even a fractional market for OSX using the hardware I've developed for, my boss would have me working on OSX drivers in a heartbeat, i.e. if Apple would let us, we would support them.. hardware manufacturers love cash..
Why not? The last time they wanted a PC I had the free time to build one for them.. this time I won't (I grew up). I'm not sure if you've noticed or not, but the computing world has hardly stayed static in the last 5 years. Things are changing drastically, Dell offers a lot more options today than they offered only a couple of years ago. You're pretending today's market has always existed, when it clearly hasn't. There are easily a dozen reasons that I built my mother's PC and my grandfather's PC and my father in laws PC, but then told my aunt to just order a PC from Dell.. It's silly to say "but you did it this way once, I don't believe you'll EVAR CHANGE!1!".. be realistic..
And we all know that companies that gain nearly 100% of the market share make almost no money. Hence the recent Microsoft bankruptcy..
I pray for Apple's sake that Steve Jobs is smarter than you, because if he doesn't see the HUGE opportunity that OSX has in the marketplace right now, Apple is doomed to be nothing but an iPod manufacturer for the rest of it's time. If there ever has been a time to strike at the heart of Microsoft it's right now, and if there ever has been a company that can pull it off, with the right smarts, it's today's Apple. Apple needs to realize WHY Windows won, if they do that, they'll own the market.
And it's silly to think that Apple will want to stay a "hardware" company when they have the opportunity to be the de facto standard in computing. Microsoft became the 100 lb gorilla it is today with the EXACT buisness model you described above. Why do you think it will only work for them?
Well, that's sorta my point. Everything I want to do with OSX works out of the box except two things: 1) Most Games, and 2) Running on my pre-built AMD. Thus OSX and Windows are equivelent minus those two items. I would switch to OSX in a heartbeat if they solved those two problems. When/if I ever switch pretty much everyone I know will switch, as I am their primary source of computer advice and tech support. Thus if Apple would drop the "WE'RE A HARDWARE COMPANY NEWB!!!1!" line, they would probably end up with the Monopoly that Microsoft has today. That is assuming that the product they offer is, in reality, much better than Windows, as every Mac user tells me..
The "Apple is a Hardware company!11!" thing is pretty stupid. Apple makes less profit on OSX compared to their hardware, but that can way more than be made up for by VOLUME. Just ask Microsoft, lower profit margin with exponentially higher volume == FAT LOOT.. *shrug*..
Again, I've said it 3 times now, but I will repeat, my parents would most likely (since they have the cash) go straight to the horses mouth. They would buy a microsoft pc right now if a) one exists, and b) they thought it would be "better" (which the branding alone would make them think such).
But, lets assume they purchased a PC from Dell with OSX preinstalled (with a licensing fee going to Dell). As we all know, this is a buisness model that will NEVER work. We can verify that by the fact that Microsoft almost went bankrupt while Apple is the richest company in the world.. ohh wait.. that never happened, huh?
Your parents, your grandparents, your aunts, and the entire within-two-branchings of your family tree all buy a Mac OS-compatible machine on your recommendation and use your pirated copy of the OS.
No, I pirate as an early adopter, they buy real versions because they have money to pay for convience. They all purchased real copies of XP when I built their machines, it's just easier that way. They will buy real Apples with real Mac OSX if they ever made the switch. Again, it's just easier that way.
If early adopters pirating really hurt a company Apple, would be the kings of the world and Microsoft would be out of buisness. Notice that hasn't happened.
No, of course I won't. I'm expected to be able to fix these things, over the phone most of the time, when things go wrong. Right now I can boot up XP on my laptop, and step through any problem my family has, right there as I talk to them on the phone. I can tell them each step as I do it, and I can wait for them to finish each step until I do the next. If I tell them to buy Macs, when they call me with problems (WHICH THEY WILL) and I decide to help them (which I will, even if I said above that I'm not going to be tech support anymore, I'm weak willed), I will not have that convience. Which means basically, being the computer literate person in my family, I'm going to be the guy who dictates what people buy. I don't have statistics, but I bet 9 times out of 10, that is how the computer world works (lets just say that every single "Computer Guy" I know runs his families tech support in the same way)..
Be realistic, it's not "weird" of me at all. I choose what my "users" use out of convience for me. I will NEVER tell them to switch to Mac unless I have a Mac sitting around to use to diagnose their problems. And I will never have a Mac sitting around unless I decide I need a Mac or the barrier for entry is much lower than it is today (i.e. I'm not going to buy a Mac Mini so that I can run OSX just to support my family, I will however install a cracked version of OSX just to see what it's like). The only way I'm going to decide I "need" a Mac is if the Mac has some applications (read: games) that I cannot get on the PC. This is the reality of the market, your perception about what the market "should" be like isn't a strong enough force to actually change the market..
Example: I finally get around to pirating OSX because it finally works on my home built PC and actually has some use for me (Games). I work with it for a couple of months, and I decide I love it (assuming it's as great as I've been promised). I find alternative applications for all of the "normal" applications I use, such as word processors and browsing the web.
The next month my parents decide they want to upgrade their PC and come to me for advice (because I built their last PC). I have long since decided to tell them to buy stock pcs, as I am through being Tech Support for my family. I say "you know, this mac stuff is much easier and better, buy a mac". Apple gains market share.
My grandfather, a year later, decides to upgrade his PC. He comes to me for advice because I built his last pc. I tell him to buy a Mac. He talks to my parents, they tell him they love their mac (because it's as good as you guys have been promising). He buys a mac. Apple gains market share.
Soon, my aunt, wants to upgrade, repeat above story. Market share continues to grow. Rinse and repeat for my entire family. Rinse and repeat for my friends and their families. In 5 years listen to all of the "Apple is a MONOPOLY" trolls on slashdot. In 10 years my son asks me "What is Microsoft? What is a Dell?"..
So Steve did a great job by using the Internet to skip standard distribution channels for music... Why this didn't work so well for games? http://www.steampowered.com/
Choose one or more:
Because iTunes has an expansive catalog of Music from several artists and various labels. Steam supports only Valve's games, it's not worth the hassle for a catalog of 4 or 5 (or even 10 or 20) games. Call me when I can order ANY game on steam.
Because iTunes realized that people would see less value in a "digital" only copy of the music, and thus charged significantly less for the digital music than you would normally pay for a CD in the store. Valve charges (practically) the same price for a digital only game as it does for a game with a box, permanent CD, and a printed manual. Stupid.
iTunes works, period. Steam was buggy and painful at release.
Songs require significantly less bandwidth than games. iTunes has instant gratification for people with broadband. I can order a song on iTunes and listen to it in a minute or two. Steam on the other hand is unusable by those without Broadband and is still pretty slow for those of us with fat pipes.
Even if not a single one of the items above is true, the market perception is that every item above is true. Thus Valve was unable to overcome the market perception of an inferior product for the same price. Apple on the other hand was able to defeat this market perception. Don't tell me "it's not fair", because it's Valves's job to overcome these perceptions if they want to succeed, they did not.
I'm sure that if I had more than 5 minutes to post, I could easily have come up with twice that many items, but it should at least give you an idea.
Notice that other game developers have used internet distribution and overcome these obstacles, but they also realized that digital only content has less intrinsic value and more difficulty for the end user than real content that one can purchase from a brick and mortar store, thus they charged less for their digital only games.
Basically Valve said to their customers: "We would like for you, the customer, to take the burdens of distribution on yourself, have a lower quality gameplay experience, have a lower quality distribution medium, and we would like for you to do it with no tangible benefit for yourself. Ohh btw, thanks for saving us all kinds of cash in distribution, we think u r so h0t!" The customers replied: "Uhh WTF?!" I'm a pathetic lefty liberal hippy that doesn't believe in the crazy Libertarian/Republican propaganda that the "free market" always triumphs, but this is a clear case where the free market kicked Valve's ass, and rightfully so..
WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
Therefore, this is not a total fabrication, it's a failure on your part to accept the truth.
EXACTLY, Now.. turn off your partisan blinders and read what he said (and later clarified several times):
WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
Again, Wilson has clarified this statement MANY times.. he is saying, that after Novak's story went to print that she was no longer a clandestine agent. Now, given the quote you presented, you could make the case that he was commenting on her status before the article, so we are at an apparent stalemate..
Except you completely left off the next question:
BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?
WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about.
What's that? LOOKY THERE!! HE DID NOT COMMENT ON HER STATUS BEFORE NOVAK'S ARTICLE WAS RELEASED. Ohh, isn't that too bad? You're a total fucking liar..
Slashdot Mirror
My guild has been in MC for two weeks now. We cleared to Domo the first week (but hadn't completed the quest for Aqual Quintessence so we couldn't summon him) and full cleared the next week. We have about 40-45 regular raiders that raid every night. Almost every member now has between 2 and 4 pieces of Tier 1. The tier 1 raiding set isn't very hard to obtain at all.
In addition, we've been doing ZG for a month, and I have all the set pieces from ZG, as well as all of the drops that I could possibly be interested in (including Betrayer's Boots). The only thing I lack is my edge of madness trinket (that sucks so I don't know if I'll ever get it)..
Nice try, bravo.
As I pointed out below, however, Fitzgerald tried to get the phone records of the reporter (AFTER the fact, not an attempt to monitor ongoing communications from the reporter, which is an even WORSE offense, imho) and the court denied his request, citing the constitutional privledges of the press.
So even in a case where the leaked classified information did in fact danger lives, it was decided by the court that the phone records of journalists were protected.
Again, good try.
And the article is about the executive branch of the government proactively monitoring the phone lines of reporters in case they talk to a "leaker".
:p
Your "zomg it's classified information nub!" argument almost holds water, until you realize that there is a Judicial branch of the government meant to oversee these types of activities specifically to prevent abuse by the Executive. If the Executive is willing to get court orders to do this type of monitoring, then it's within the letter of the law, else it's just abuse of power to stop dwindling poll numbers.
But keep on listening to the spin and disregard the law, because our National Security is at stake..
P.S.: Remember waaaaaay back when when you were desperately trying to protect reporter's rights to not divulge their sources when an administration official leaked classified information (poor poor Scooter, he should have been protected, it's all those other leakers that deserve jail time).. well the Judge in that case ruled that the Fitzgerald could not have the phone records of any reporters, because they are constitutionally protected.. I didn't hear your outrage back then that the government wasn't allowed to look at the records..
You are right, because the government will be completely trustworthy and will only abuse the power to tap reporter's phones when it's a matter of National Security. And we can use all those other cases where the government didn't lie to us as evidence of how trustworthy and wonderful they really and truly are.
Ohh hey, you have a bit of Kool Aid on your chin, might want to wash that off.
I bet the person that marked me as a troll just wishes Bill Clinton had this power, so that he could have stopped Linda Tripp from leaking private information about the sex lives of those in the White House..
Ohh wait.. it's only good when REPUBLICANS tap our phones..
For a second there I almost ran out of Kool Aid.. continue on..
Yes, because punishing whistleblowers that uncover massive corruption in the government is good for all of us.
I've always thought this myself. Spam doesn't even look reasonable to the average consumer, and usually comes off looking like a scam. I can't help but to wonder if the "low cost of entry" and "it only takes a few responses to make money" myths that are so prevelant amongst the Spam *fighters* is the reason there is so much spam.
Don't get me wrong, I want to fight spam at every step of the way, I just can't help to wonder if it's mostly unprofitable, or at least such a poor return on your time that it ends up being more work than reward. I mean, most other "get rich quick" schemes (pyramid schemes, MAKE MONEY FROM HOME reselling schemes, etc) turn out to be completely bogus, yet they still exist. I bet for every profitable spammer there are thousands of people who never make a dime (or even lose money) doing it.
I bet a vast majority of spammers are 20 something kids who are just living in their parents basement until their "buisness" takes off, but thus far it has barely covered the cost of their pot habit.. *shrug*..
I was most certainly there (though I certainly wish I was as young as you imply I am)..
You completely gloss over the fact that people didn't have to buy PCs for their home PCs. Those of us working in tech first bought home pcs, and WE'RE the people who told others to buy home PCs when it came time, for OUR convience because WE knew we had to fix those fuckers when they broke.
I still posit, that if you can convince US to switch the rest of the world will switch, i.e. if Apple wins us over they win.
First of all, I don't know why either of you think Steam "failed". I suspect it resulted in extra revenue for Valve, and they're planning to release a third-party game this fall, so the jury is still out. We would have to know how much it cost to implement and what the long-term revenue curves are to know whether or not it "failed".
The jury most certainly is not out.. Look at iTunes if you want to see a successful distributor. Then go back and look at Steam. Steam has clearly failed in a most catastrophic way. It may not be dead, but it has certainly failed..
As to why I responded to you post, it probably was where you said "stupid" instead of "due to contractual arrangements".
It was stupid, it may have been due to "contractual arrangements" but that just means it was either a) stupid that they signed the contract or b) stupid that they tried to use Half Life II to launch Steam.
Tell you what, mark this post, write down my username, mark the date, whatever you want, then come back when Steam is a huge success and tell me how stupid I am. I just wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, you'll probably find it is dangerous for your health..
And?
The OP asked why Steam failed. I told him why, which is, the value of what the company was offering was not equivelent to the product the consumer was receiving. None of the shit you just spouted even remotely matters, I'm sorry that Valve was under a contract was too draconian to pull off what they were attempting, but people aren't going to run out and buy a game off of Steam because they feel sorry for Valve for signing a crappy contract..
I completely understand how the gaming buisness works, and your lengthy diatribe was pretty useless to me. I didn't give a reason why Valve charged more, and the reason doesn't matter to the consumer, all the consumer needs to understand is "Inferior product, same money".. Thus Steam failed.. dramatically.. pathetically.. but certainly not amazingly..
What utter bullshit. As if Apple is preventing anyone from writing a device driver. I guess those companies providing OS X compatible hardware (ethernet cards, video cards, serial adapters, etc) are pulling the IOKit and API specifications out of thin air!
...
No, your argument doesn't hold water. Manufacturers create drivers when they feel there is significant demand. Due to Apple including so much on the motherboard of a stock machine, there hasn't been much in the way of demand, so many manufacturers haven't written drivers. Today at least USB and Firewire have allowed lots of things that previously required drivers to use built-in class drivers.
I think you misunderstood my post, that was exactly my point. If the market share for OSX increases the hardware support will increase (if Apple allows it). I don't know WHAT Apple allows, I assume the APIs are already open, I just threw in the caveat because it's real, if the APIs are open and the demand exists, hardware manufacturers will flock to the platform.
Then you go on to argue out of both sides of your mouth:
As if Apple is preventing anyone from writing a device driver. I guess those companies providing OS X compatible hardware (ethernet cards, video cards, serial adapters, etc) are pulling the IOKit and API specifications out of thin air!
Finally, Apple must continue to control the experience
So which is it? Does Apple have an open API (thus, by definition is unable to "control the experience") or does Apple control the experience? Jesus, talk about using two arguments at once.. My point was that increasing the hardware support for OSX isn't really an issue if they shoot for increased market share.
Perhaps you believe that 30% of PC purchasers each year really want OS X, not Windows, and buy a PC anyway instead of a Mac. If that is true, then the gambit would work. Apple would need to be very certain about that, though, before abandoning a strategy that is currently very successful.
I believe they could gain a larger than 30% share, almost overnight, certainly withing a few years. The market is ready for something revolutionary, the early adopters that drive the market just don't want to buy an overpriced Mac to run that revolutionary product. Again, if you read my initial post, I think if OSX ran on commodity hardware, my son would end up reading about Microsoft in a history book.. In fact, I think opening OSX up to commodity hardware would win over the "early adopters", people like me who are going to build their pcs, and we'll recommend it to people who will actually buy real macs, so I hardly think it's far to discount any of the current market share Apple has using real macs. My thesis is, if they can win me over by letting me run OSX on my AMD I put together by hand, it will only serve to INCREASE their hardware sales (as well as their software sales)..
Look at it this way, my parents buy Sony TVs, even though MUCH cheaper TVs exist. They have 4 TVs, every single one is Sony. In fact, I cannot remember them ever buying anything BUT Sony, yet the whole time cheaper TVs have existed. Buying a Sony TV is easy for them, and they have the money to spend to avoid having to research, they know if they buy a Sony TV it will work well and it will do what they want it to do. They do not have the energy or the desire to spend 20 hours on the 'net to find a cheaper TV that is equivelent in quality and ease of use.
If I switch to running OSX on my x86, they will end up buying an Apple PC straight from Apple for the exact same reason that they always buy a Sony TV. They will be interested in buying something that they don't have to research but will be of appropriate quality for their needs. The barrier right now from them buying a Mac is the fact that I don't use a OSX, thus I will not support them using OSX. If I switch to OSX, Apple will increase it's hardware sales, not just it's software sales..
I disagree.. Lets assume your numbers are correct. If I told my boss that we could go to market with the products that we have today, and could potentially end up with 4-5 times the profit, he'd have a heart attack at the opportunity. If I could promise him that if the gamble failed, we'd still have the iPod to fall back on (which is probably a vast majority of those sales) he'd make me Vice President of the Universe. Buisnesses rarely, if ever, have the opportunity that Apple has today. Moving from $450 million to $2 billion in profits is absurd and unheard of.. And that's assuming your (probably conservative) guess is right..
1. Apple would have to support a massively larger amount of hardware.
Due to the lack of formatting (probably not your fault) and because I happen to know quite a bit about the subject, I stopped reading at this sentence..
My nick, pcidevel, comes from the fact that I've spent the last 5 years developing device drivers for pci devices in Windows (as well as Linux, HP-UX, Solaris, etc).. I've never worked for Microsoft that whole time. Microsoft does not develop the device drivers for Windows, the third party manufacturer of the device does. I've written, probably close to a dozen drivers, from niche products to ethernet drivers for Intel (if you use a IBM or Intel ethernet card, you've probably encounterd my code.. yeah it's the shit that made your box BSOD, sorry about that)..
If Apple increases their market share and opens their APIs, hardware manufacturers will flock to OSX with device drivers. Hell I've had companies pay me to develop drivers for HP-UX, and there are probably around 15 people in the WORLD using HP-UX anymore. You can guarantee if there was even a fractional market for OSX using the hardware I've developed for, my boss would have me working on OSX drivers in a heartbeat, i.e. if Apple would let us, we would support them.. hardware manufacturers love cash..
Why not? The last time they wanted a PC I had the free time to build one for them.. this time I won't (I grew up). I'm not sure if you've noticed or not, but the computing world has hardly stayed static in the last 5 years. Things are changing drastically, Dell offers a lot more options today than they offered only a couple of years ago. You're pretending today's market has always existed, when it clearly hasn't. There are easily a dozen reasons that I built my mother's PC and my grandfather's PC and my father in laws PC, but then told my aunt to just order a PC from Dell.. It's silly to say "but you did it this way once, I don't believe you'll EVAR CHANGE!1!".. be realistic..
And we all know that companies that gain nearly 100% of the market share make almost no money. Hence the recent Microsoft bankruptcy..
I pray for Apple's sake that Steve Jobs is smarter than you, because if he doesn't see the HUGE opportunity that OSX has in the marketplace right now, Apple is doomed to be nothing but an iPod manufacturer for the rest of it's time. If there ever has been a time to strike at the heart of Microsoft it's right now, and if there ever has been a company that can pull it off, with the right smarts, it's today's Apple. Apple needs to realize WHY Windows won, if they do that, they'll own the market.
And it's silly to think that Apple will want to stay a "hardware" company when they have the opportunity to be the de facto standard in computing. Microsoft became the 100 lb gorilla it is today with the EXACT buisness model you described above. Why do you think it will only work for them?
Well, that's sorta my point. Everything I want to do with OSX works out of the box except two things: 1) Most Games, and 2) Running on my pre-built AMD. Thus OSX and Windows are equivelent minus those two items. I would switch to OSX in a heartbeat if they solved those two problems. When/if I ever switch pretty much everyone I know will switch, as I am their primary source of computer advice and tech support. Thus if Apple would drop the "WE'RE A HARDWARE COMPANY NEWB!!!1!" line, they would probably end up with the Monopoly that Microsoft has today. That is assuming that the product they offer is, in reality, much better than Windows, as every Mac user tells me..
The "Apple is a Hardware company!11!" thing is pretty stupid. Apple makes less profit on OSX compared to their hardware, but that can way more than be made up for by VOLUME. Just ask Microsoft, lower profit margin with exponentially higher volume == FAT LOOT.. *shrug*..
How is this in Apple's best interests again?
Again, I've said it 3 times now, but I will repeat, my parents would most likely (since they have the cash) go straight to the horses mouth. They would buy a microsoft pc right now if a) one exists, and b) they thought it would be "better" (which the branding alone would make them think such).
But, lets assume they purchased a PC from Dell with OSX preinstalled (with a licensing fee going to Dell). As we all know, this is a buisness model that will NEVER work. We can verify that by the fact that Microsoft almost went bankrupt while Apple is the richest company in the world.. ohh wait.. that never happened, huh?
Your parents, your grandparents, your aunts, and the entire within-two-branchings of your family tree all buy a Mac OS-compatible machine on your recommendation and use your pirated copy of the OS.
No, I pirate as an early adopter, they buy real versions because they have money to pay for convience. They all purchased real copies of XP when I built their machines, it's just easier that way. They will buy real Apples with real Mac OSX if they ever made the switch. Again, it's just easier that way.
If early adopters pirating really hurt a company Apple, would be the kings of the world and Microsoft would be out of buisness. Notice that hasn't happened.
No, of course I won't. I'm expected to be able to fix these things, over the phone most of the time, when things go wrong. Right now I can boot up XP on my laptop, and step through any problem my family has, right there as I talk to them on the phone. I can tell them each step as I do it, and I can wait for them to finish each step until I do the next. If I tell them to buy Macs, when they call me with problems (WHICH THEY WILL) and I decide to help them (which I will, even if I said above that I'm not going to be tech support anymore, I'm weak willed), I will not have that convience. Which means basically, being the computer literate person in my family, I'm going to be the guy who dictates what people buy. I don't have statistics, but I bet 9 times out of 10, that is how the computer world works (lets just say that every single "Computer Guy" I know runs his families tech support in the same way)..
Be realistic, it's not "weird" of me at all. I choose what my "users" use out of convience for me. I will NEVER tell them to switch to Mac unless I have a Mac sitting around to use to diagnose their problems. And I will never have a Mac sitting around unless I decide I need a Mac or the barrier for entry is much lower than it is today (i.e. I'm not going to buy a Mac Mini so that I can run OSX just to support my family, I will however install a cracked version of OSX just to see what it's like). The only way I'm going to decide I "need" a Mac is if the Mac has some applications (read: games) that I cannot get on the PC. This is the reality of the market, your perception about what the market "should" be like isn't a strong enough force to actually change the market..
But how would more games help Apple.
Example: I finally get around to pirating OSX because it finally works on my home built PC and actually has some use for me (Games). I work with it for a couple of months, and I decide I love it (assuming it's as great as I've been promised). I find alternative applications for all of the "normal" applications I use, such as word processors and browsing the web.
The next month my parents decide they want to upgrade their PC and come to me for advice (because I built their last PC). I have long since decided to tell them to buy stock pcs, as I am through being Tech Support for my family. I say "you know, this mac stuff is much easier and better, buy a mac". Apple gains market share.
My grandfather, a year later, decides to upgrade his PC. He comes to me for advice because I built his last pc. I tell him to buy a Mac. He talks to my parents, they tell him they love their mac (because it's as good as you guys have been promising). He buys a mac. Apple gains market share.
Soon, my aunt, wants to upgrade, repeat above story. Market share continues to grow. Rinse and repeat for my entire family. Rinse and repeat for my friends and their families. In 5 years listen to all of the "Apple is a MONOPOLY" trolls on slashdot. In 10 years my son asks me "What is Microsoft? What is a Dell?"..
Choose one or more:
I'm sure that if I had more than 5 minutes to post, I could easily have come up with twice that many items, but it should at least give you an idea.
Notice that other game developers have used internet distribution and overcome these obstacles, but they also realized that digital only content has less intrinsic value and more difficulty for the end user than real content that one can purchase from a brick and mortar store, thus they charged less for their digital only games.
Basically Valve said to their customers: "We would like for you, the customer, to take the burdens of distribution on yourself, have a lower quality gameplay experience, have a lower quality distribution medium, and we would like for you to do it with no tangible benefit for yourself. Ohh btw, thanks for saving us all kinds of cash in distribution, we think u r so h0t!" The customers replied: "Uhh WTF?!" I'm a pathetic lefty liberal hippy that doesn't believe in the crazy Libertarian/Republican propaganda that the "free market" always triumphs, but this is a clear case where the free market kicked Valve's ass, and rightfully so..
So now that you've been proven to be a total liar, you change your story to something else that has been proven to be complete nonsense. Nice try..
(And here I will note that unlike yourself, I have not descended into name calling or profanity.)
Ohh NOOOOEEEESSS!!!1! I didn't hurt your poor little lying feelings did I? I hope I can sleep tonight!!
Here's the exact quote from Joe Wilson:
WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
Therefore, this is not a total fabrication, it's a failure on your part to accept the truth.
EXACTLY, Now.. turn off your partisan blinders and read what he said (and later clarified several times):
WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
Again, Wilson has clarified this statement MANY times.. he is saying, that after Novak's story went to print that she was no longer a clandestine agent. Now, given the quote you presented, you could make the case that he was commenting on her status before the article, so we are at an apparent stalemate..
Except you completely left off the next question:
BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?
WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about.
What's that? LOOKY THERE!! HE DID NOT COMMENT ON HER STATUS BEFORE NOVAK'S ARTICLE WAS RELEASED. Ohh, isn't that too bad? You're a total fucking liar..