Now it may be crowd mentality but in the beginning? When the iPod was first released in 2001? Before anyone knew Apple had any cred?
It was definitely due to technical superiority in 2001; small size, speed, battery life, usability, and design.
Those aspects held true for the next several years. By the time the competition caught up (in 2004, approximately), Apple had all the mindshare. It also helped they introduced the iPod mini and everyone else had to catch up yet again.
Today they may all be equivalent, but the first four years gave Apple a huge advantage.
I mean, your argument for individuality also applies to computers. Are you saying you use Macs or Linux because they are better than Windows PCs?
It certainly helps that Apple had the best MP3 player in 2001, 2002, and 2003. By the time others caught up, the iPod had momentum everyone else had to fight.
You argue about immersiveness created through advanced AI, landscapes, and character creation engines; all great things. You forgot about immersiveness created through advanced UI and control schemes, which is where and why the Wii wins right now.
And that is why the Wii is winning the current console war; you just can't play bowling in a PS3 or 360, regardless of how many reflections, flares, bumps, or sound effects they can generate.
That math makes no sense to me. If you assume that each 360 loses Microsoft something like $100 each, each PS3 loses Sony something like $150 each, and each Wii makes Nintendo something like $70 each, you get: Microsoft: 890m loss Sony: 550m loss Nintendo: 630m profit
Factoring games, then, with a 60/60/50 price structure: Microsoft: needs to sell 30.4m games to catch up to Nintendo at selling zero games Sony: needs to sell 23.6m games to catch up to Nintendo at selling zero games Nintendo: 3.6m copies of Zelda, alone, means they are $144m ahead; throw in Metroid, Super Paper Mario, WarioWare, Mario Party 8, etc, and Nintendo has something like 10m games sold, trivially.
Which means the numbers for each console are actually: Microsoft: needs to sell 40m games to catch up to Nintendo Sony: needs to sell 33m games to catch up to Nintendo Nintendo: Clear winner and currently the only profitable game company
How do you deny though that the pack-in game, Wii Sports, is a fun game for the casual gamer?
That non-hardcore gamers have more fun playing Wii Bowling than Gears of War? And that there are more non-hardcore than there are hardcore?
Your arguments self select for "hardcore gamers" when the Wii's appeal is to everyone except the hardcore gamer. For the hardcore there is of course Zelda, Metroid, Resident Evil, Red Steel, etc, but unlike the XBox 360 or PS3, there are games for the non-hardcore: Cooking Mama Wii Sports Wii Play WarioWare Rayman Raving Rabbids Mario Party 8
I don't think you've been looking at the financial reports, then:)
Microsoft's net income grew by 250m between 2005 and 2006. Apple's grew by 650m. Sure, Apple is only a 2b a year income, where Microsoft is 12.6b. Google's grew by 1.6b, while their net income is only 3b.
Projections for 2007 still show Google and Apple both growing faster than their larger rival. At this rate, then, Microsoft's Office and Windows monopoly will be trivialized as PC prices continue dropping. The future is in internet services and advertisements, consumer electronics, and content. The market IS sorting it out, and much faster than "generations". We will, I believe, see the results of Microsoft's inefficiencies within 10 years.
Microsoft seems to be taking care of itself, don't you think?
It's biggest challenges, Google, Nintendo, and Apple, are all making lots of money where Microsoft is losing money.
Microsoft's strong points are, as you say, Windows and Office, and even then that will shrink as PC prices drop.
So even without help, the market is effectively (even if slowly) killing Microsoft. Look at how desperately they are trying to branch into video games, consumer electronics, advertising, web services, and DVRs... all of which lose them money.
As for government... it is surely possible to effect change, but that is different than outright replacing the current system with a new or different system. You can't arbitrarily change the three branches without radically rewriting the constitution. Good luck with that.
You can replace Microsoft, however slowly, with better PCs (see Apple), better OSes (see Apple, Linux), better games (see Nintendo), better services (see Google, better software (see Adobe, Apple, Linux), etc.
From the iTunes library select, "View->View Options" Check, "Date added" Click on the column for Date to sort by date Scroll to the date you added them to your GF's computer Select, using shift, multiple files Hit Delete Confirm the Delete Shut down iTunes
You're right, it would be nice to have a feature to seamlessly synch when file are gone, but that you had to use a third party software only says you didn't know how to use iTunes.
What playlist entries are you talking about? If it's a Smart Playlist, those entries automatically go away when the files go away. Otherwise... if it isn't a smart playlist, you have to manually add or delete files to the playlist.
Nothing is wrong with Winamp, it just doesn't do what I need, right?
And in iTunes the same functionality you want exists, so in that regards iTunes is a superset of Winamp. In fact it's even faster: If I type the first three letters of the song name I want, I am presented with, usually, less than 10 songs to choose from. Since I can type about 100 words per minute, that means I can actually find the song I want in less than a second.
iTunes has ripped music to it's own folder since v1 in 2001. Organization happens automatically, with iTunes. The interface doesn't allow you to drag and drop because it assumes it will copy everything onto your music player (unless you have more music than player, then other rules kick in).
So it's literally designed to be "plug and play", not "drag and drop".
Functions are more than formats. I named functions of iTunes. iTunes is as extensible as WinAmp, so if there is a format you wish, you need merely acquire the correct codec. Just like, with WinAmp, you need to download plugins in order to extend it's functions that iTunes does automatically.
My criteria are usability, utility, and functionality. For that reason iTunes is second on my list, with WinAMP all the way down at the bottom of 50. iPhoto recently shot up to #1 due to it's Web Gallery feature: Select an event, publish, and then edit the gallery at your leisure. The gallery is updated on the website "behind the scenes", so you never need to synchronize or revisit it, it's all done automatically.
iTunes is high on that list for a similar reason. Set up a few "Smart Playlists", and music is automatically added or removed from my queue as necessary depending on playcount, on ranking, on genre, or new additions. I never need to do anything except insert a CD, vote up or down my like of any particular song at the moment, or plug in my iPod.
Gives me more time to do other things... like rollerblading, taking pictures, or talking to people.
I never said anything about the tech-savvy nature of Mac users. I said the customer Apple is targetting, not the customer Apple is attracting. Their ads, print and video, don't talk about the technology, only about the looks, usability, and friendliness of their products.
The customer Apple is targetting thinks Putty is silly, Citrix is a vitamin C supplement, and RDP is a French police department. SCCP and VoIP is just as arcane to them as TCPIP, XSLT, and the DMCA.
It's great that Nokia has such a wonderful phone for you, but isn't it even better that, coming soon, Nokia will have an iPhone-like device that will do everything you just described, AND work like an iPhone too?
If they released now, instead of waiting, they will essentially put AMD out of business; no one would buy Barcelonas and then Intel is "stuck" as a monopoly. Instead they are hobbled by having to wait for AMD before they can release their superior products.
Three things that make it look like an iPhone: 1) Chrome ring around the phone 2) Black face 3) Metal back
If they had done an all black phone, an all silver phone, an all white phone, or some other variation, no one could accuse it of copying, physically, an iPhone.
It's the same with LCDs, after all; you can't say a Dell (all black, rounded bezels, plastic) looks like an Apple (aluminum, flat, metal), despite both being nearly identical in form and function.
Slashdot Mirror
Now it may be crowd mentality but in the beginning? When the iPod was first released in 2001? Before anyone knew Apple had any cred?
It was definitely due to technical superiority in 2001; small size, speed, battery life, usability, and design.
Those aspects held true for the next several years. By the time the competition caught up (in 2004, approximately), Apple had all the mindshare. It also helped they introduced the iPod mini and everyone else had to catch up yet again.
Today they may all be equivalent, but the first four years gave Apple a huge advantage.
I mean, your argument for individuality also applies to computers. Are you saying you use Macs or Linux because they are better than Windows PCs?
It certainly helps that Apple had the best MP3 player in 2001, 2002, and 2003. By the time others caught up, the iPod had momentum everyone else had to fight.
Ah, except this isn't about portable music players now, it's about music jukebox software.
Does Apple have a monopoly on music jukebox software now?
You try to open a thousand pages with a thousand flash-powered stock charts and see how YOUR system handles the load.
You argue about immersiveness created through advanced AI, landscapes, and character creation engines; all great things. You forgot about immersiveness created through advanced UI and control schemes, which is where and why the Wii wins right now.
And that is why the Wii is winning the current console war; you just can't play bowling in a PS3 or 360, regardless of how many reflections, flares, bumps, or sound effects they can generate.
That math makes no sense to me. If you assume that each 360 loses Microsoft something like $100 each, each PS3 loses Sony something like $150 each, and each Wii makes Nintendo something like $70 each, you get:
Microsoft: 890m loss
Sony: 550m loss
Nintendo: 630m profit
Factoring games, then, with a 60/60/50 price structure:
Microsoft: needs to sell 30.4m games to catch up to Nintendo at selling zero games
Sony: needs to sell 23.6m games to catch up to Nintendo at selling zero games
Nintendo: 3.6m copies of Zelda, alone, means they are $144m ahead; throw in Metroid, Super Paper Mario, WarioWare, Mario Party 8, etc, and Nintendo has something like 10m games sold, trivially.
Which means the numbers for each console are actually:
Microsoft: needs to sell 40m games to catch up to Nintendo
Sony: needs to sell 33m games to catch up to Nintendo
Nintendo: Clear winner and currently the only profitable game company
How do you deny though that the pack-in game, Wii Sports, is a fun game for the casual gamer?
That non-hardcore gamers have more fun playing Wii Bowling than Gears of War? And that there are more non-hardcore than there are hardcore?
Your arguments self select for "hardcore gamers" when the Wii's appeal is to everyone except the hardcore gamer. For the hardcore there is of course Zelda, Metroid, Resident Evil, Red Steel, etc, but unlike the XBox 360 or PS3, there are games for the non-hardcore:
Cooking Mama
Wii Sports
Wii Play
WarioWare
Rayman Raving Rabbids
Mario Party 8
I don't think you've been looking at the financial reports, then :)
Microsoft's net income grew by 250m between 2005 and 2006.
Apple's grew by 650m. Sure, Apple is only a 2b a year income, where Microsoft is 12.6b.
Google's grew by 1.6b, while their net income is only 3b.
Projections for 2007 still show Google and Apple both growing faster than their larger rival. At this rate, then, Microsoft's Office and Windows monopoly will be trivialized as PC prices continue dropping. The future is in internet services and advertisements, consumer electronics, and content. The market IS sorting it out, and much faster than "generations". We will, I believe, see the results of Microsoft's inefficiencies within 10 years.
Microsoft seems to be taking care of itself, don't you think?
It's biggest challenges, Google, Nintendo, and Apple, are all making lots of money where Microsoft is losing money.
Microsoft's strong points are, as you say, Windows and Office, and even then that will shrink as PC prices drop.
So even without help, the market is effectively (even if slowly) killing Microsoft. Look at how desperately they are trying to branch into video games, consumer electronics, advertising, web services, and DVRs... all of which lose them money.
As for government... it is surely possible to effect change, but that is different than outright replacing the current system with a new or different system. You can't arbitrarily change the three branches without radically rewriting the constitution. Good luck with that.
You can replace Microsoft, however slowly, with better PCs (see Apple), better OSes (see Apple, Linux), better games (see Nintendo), better services (see Google, better software (see Adobe, Apple, Linux), etc.
Every once in a while one of those thousand companies doesn't fail, and then you have your Apple, your Microsoft, your Ford, etc.
Everyone has a different definition of efficient because everyone has a different cost structure.
You can't "kill" an inefficient government short of staging a coup and killing people.
You can "kill" an inefficient company by creating a MORE efficient company.
We are now talking about two different features, then.
I was address the original, "Delete files on GFs computer" problem.
That feature (add columns, sort by date) has been in iTunes since the first version.
And the ability to delete files, too, has been in iTunes since the first version.
What isn't there is the feature, "Delete files I don't want".
If you say so.
From the iTunes library select, "View->View Options"
Check, "Date added"
Click on the column for Date to sort by date
Scroll to the date you added them to your GF's computer
Select, using shift, multiple files
Hit Delete
Confirm the Delete
Shut down iTunes
You're right, it would be nice to have a feature to seamlessly synch when file are gone, but that you had to use a third party software only says you didn't know how to use iTunes.
Sorry, I misread your post.
What playlist entries are you talking about? If it's a Smart Playlist, those entries automatically go away when the files go away. Otherwise... if it isn't a smart playlist, you have to manually add or delete files to the playlist.
I didn't say, "Delete the playlist entries", I said, "Delete the files". From the library you can actually select and delete the files.
Nothing is wrong with Winamp, it just doesn't do what I need, right?
And in iTunes the same functionality you want exists, so in that regards iTunes is a superset of Winamp. In fact it's even faster: If I type the first three letters of the song name I want, I am presented with, usually, less than 10 songs to choose from. Since I can type about 100 words per minute, that means I can actually find the song I want in less than a second.
You should have used iTunes to delete the files, then.
Weird, again.
iTunes has ripped music to it's own folder since v1 in 2001. Organization happens automatically, with iTunes. The interface doesn't allow you to drag and drop because it assumes it will copy everything onto your music player (unless you have more music than player, then other rules kick in).
So it's literally designed to be "plug and play", not "drag and drop".
Functions are more than formats. I named functions of iTunes. iTunes is as extensible as WinAmp, so if there is a format you wish, you need merely acquire the correct codec. Just like, with WinAmp, you need to download plugins in order to extend it's functions that iTunes does automatically.
Especially in an era of 500gb HDs and 2GB of RAM.
My criteria are usability, utility, and functionality. For that reason iTunes is second on my list, with WinAMP all the way down at the bottom of 50. iPhoto recently shot up to #1 due to it's Web Gallery feature: Select an event, publish, and then edit the gallery at your leisure. The gallery is updated on the website "behind the scenes", so you never need to synchronize or revisit it, it's all done automatically.
iTunes is high on that list for a similar reason. Set up a few "Smart Playlists", and music is automatically added or removed from my queue as necessary depending on playcount, on ranking, on genre, or new additions. I never need to do anything except insert a CD, vote up or down my like of any particular song at the moment, or plug in my iPod.
Gives me more time to do other things... like rollerblading, taking pictures, or talking to people.
I never said anything about the tech-savvy nature of Mac users. I said the customer Apple is targetting, not the customer Apple is attracting. Their ads, print and video, don't talk about the technology, only about the looks, usability, and friendliness of their products.
See "Mac vs PC" as an example.
The customer Apple is targetting thinks Putty is silly, Citrix is a vitamin C supplement, and RDP is a French police department. SCCP and VoIP is just as arcane to them as TCPIP, XSLT, and the DMCA.
It's great that Nokia has such a wonderful phone for you, but isn't it even better that, coming soon, Nokia will have an iPhone-like device that will do everything you just described, AND work like an iPhone too?
Then you would complain that Intel was 'milking' the market by pricing the Penryn's at a 'monopolist' premium.
Intel really has no choice you know.
If they released now, instead of waiting, they will essentially put AMD out of business; no one would buy Barcelonas and then Intel is "stuck" as a monopoly. Instead they are hobbled by having to wait for AMD before they can release their superior products.
Three things that make it look like an iPhone:
1) Chrome ring around the phone
2) Black face
3) Metal back
If they had done an all black phone, an all silver phone, an all white phone, or some other variation, no one could accuse it of copying, physically, an iPhone.
It's the same with LCDs, after all; you can't say a Dell (all black, rounded bezels, plastic) looks like an Apple (aluminum, flat, metal), despite both being nearly identical in form and function.