Did you think the original iPod was a waste of money too? Did you consider then that most of the market did not? Are you surprised, now, at how popular the iPod is?
I'm trying to answer your question, but you seem to keep misunderstanding.
What is the point of an iPod when the Creative Nomad was cheaper, in 2001? iPod was smaller (same as AppleTV vs TiVo.) iPod was easier to use (There is no need to schedule, program, or search the AppleTV. Just click and watch.)
The point YOU keep making is there are more features on the TiVo.
The point I am making is that those extra features aren't important. The person who wants an AppleTV doesn't want to "know the time and date", don't want to "program the TiVo", don't want to "Subscribe to get the guide", don't want to "Network the TiVo".
For an AppleTV all you do is: 1) Plug into TV 2) Turn on PC 3) Allow the AppleTV to synch to the PC
This is the same as the iPod: 1) Plug into headphones 2) Plug into PC 3) Allow the iPod to synch to the PC
Apple's genius is getting both. The iPod has both date books and contact lists, AND people are paying hundreds of dollars for them.
Apple is betting they will do the same with an iPhone; all the most important features of the smartphone, UMPC, and an iPod, and people will pay hundreds of dollars for them because it works.
Granted DSL costs $15 a month in my area so if I were to download a $10 movie I would be spending $25 for one movie and $15 if you got three. You would have unlimited movie watching rights however.
Keys are pulled all the time; it happened with HD-DVD, BD-ROM, and CSS. Why hasn't it happened with the iPod? Because the software is lenient enough to work around it. Most people found it simpler to compromise iTunes or QuickTime than to compromise the iPod.
And Apple usually throws in new features into iTunes while updating their software security. I'm sure the next leak will see "performance improvements" or "new visualizers" or whatever engineers have cooked up that have not yet been released.
An equally serious problem is how to quickly repair the damage caused by such a leak. A successful repair will likely involve enhancing the music store software, the music jukebox software, and the software in the players with new secrets, then transferring this updated software into the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Macs, Windows PCs and players already in use. This must all be done quickly and in a very coordinated way. Such an undertaking is very difficult when just one company controls all of the pieces. It is near impossible if multiple companies control separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a leak.
You forgot another bulletpoint: One year after Intel ships the 2GHz T7200.
By the time the PWRficient is shipped, I'm sure Intell will have the TDP down from 34W tdp, and for much cheaper.
So why would Apple want to wait two years for the PWRficient when they could have (and did sell) something like 3 million laptops using the Core Duo and Core 2 Duo CPUs?
Herbert Spencer, not Darwin, coined "Survival of the fittest".
Modern Darwinism has evolved since Darwin elaborated on "The origin of species".
Again, even in pure non human societies such as wolves, ants, and birds, nonfit are allowed to survive as long as they are "fit enough".
This is allowed, even encouraged, to increase diversity otherwise you get unwanted founder effects, such as all cheetahs being related closely enough that you can perform skin grafts from one to another.
You are missing a crucial aspect of Darwinism if you quote, "Only the strong survive".
The species is lost if there is only one survivor; or even two, three, etc.
The full implication of Darwinism is best captured by, "From a diverse pool of candidates, only the strong thrive."
Right now the effect of current law and modern medicine is to increase the diversity of our gene pool. We now have untold genetic richness what with decreasing disease and infant mortality and high levels of inter-racial mixing. When (not if) a catastrophe occurs we will have a sufficiently rich gene pool to survive such a catastrophe.
Such as, for example, an airborne AIDs epidemic. Until it happens no one (not even you) can predict which gene sequences and which individuals will survive. That is why it is good for as many people to exist before such an event occurs.
Apple has slowed down it's release cycle but even so it has released 4 OS upgrades in the time it has taken Microsoft to release two (if you count Vista and Media Center, both of which are reasonable upgrade paths from Vanilla XP).
In these past five years Apple has added new features and functionality that Microsoft has only now hit with Vista; 3D UI, effective system wide search, widgets, and improved UI. I use RTM at work and it is mostly better than XP. I hate UAC but that is about it. I run Macs at home and Vista at work feels right.
Does that discount Apple's growth and marketshare of 5.8%?
All the players after Dell and HP are Apple sized. Dell and HP combined make up about 50% of the market so Apple's growth is not insignificant when measured against it's peers (Gateway, Fujitsu, NEC, Toshiba, and Lenovo) in the US.
I mean if you want to put things in prespective, Dell is only 17% worldwide and Lenovo is 6%.
Apple's growth is impressive because it is the only manufacturer right now growing at such a strong/fast pace.
Newsflash: This past quarter Apple hit 6% marketshare this past quarter (growing 30% year over year). Every passing quarter they become more relevant. Last year they were 3%. Next year... maybe even 9%!
Apple is the only PC manufacturer right now experiencing solid steady growth.
Which is why this past quarter Dell's PC sales only rose 4%, HP's rose 15%, the market at under 7%, while Apple hit 30% right? For years the market was growing at 11.8%, with Microsoft's growth tapping directly into that. If sales slow down to 6% growth, so too will Microsoft's income.
Well, how about this: If Vista isn't compelling, why would someone need to buy a new PC if they have a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 year old functioning XP system?
What does Vista offer that XP does not? What does Vista offer that Mac OS X does not, now that you can legally and simply run your copy of XP on your Mac, and at the same time in as well?
Microsoft can't rely on forced upgrades if you can get newer computers that don't run Windows yet can maintain full compatibility... aka Wine, Parallels, and VMWare. Linux and OS X has progressed enough that Microsoft has to compete against them, even if it is only at the fringes.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you think the original iPod was a waste of money too?
Did you consider then that most of the market did not?
Are you surprised, now, at how popular the iPod is?
I'm trying to answer your question, but you seem to keep misunderstanding.
What is the point of an iPod when the Creative Nomad was cheaper, in 2001?
iPod was smaller (same as AppleTV vs TiVo.)
iPod was easier to use (There is no need to schedule, program, or search the AppleTV. Just click and watch.)
The point YOU keep making is there are more features on the TiVo.
The point I am making is that those extra features aren't important. The person who wants an AppleTV doesn't want to "know the time and date", don't want to "program the TiVo", don't want to "Subscribe to get the guide", don't want to "Network the TiVo".
For an AppleTV all you do is:
1) Plug into TV
2) Turn on PC
3) Allow the AppleTV to synch to the PC
This is the same as the iPod:
1) Plug into headphones
2) Plug into PC
3) Allow the iPod to synch to the PC
1) Cheaper because it has no subscription costs
2) Easier because it does less
Both of these points were very salient to the iPod's success. Apple expects them to be key drivers for the AppleTV as well.
And reduce their operating profit... and then go out of business because they couldn't be profitable, right?
Why? Will that mean your opinion was wrong and that you should reconsider Macs?
Why is it important to refer to an authority, like a major university, to shape your opinion? Isn't your opinion good enough?
Half as many as if you had bought from SanDisk?
Apple's genius is getting both. The iPod has both date books and contact lists, AND people are paying hundreds of dollars for them.
Apple is betting they will do the same with an iPhone; all the most important features of the smartphone, UMPC, and an iPod, and people will pay hundreds of dollars for them because it works.
Cheapest? You mean cable is free now?
Granted DSL costs $15 a month in my area so if I were to download a $10 movie I would be spending $25 for one movie and $15 if you got three. You would have unlimited movie watching rights however.
For a cable movie, how much is it a month?
iTunes already gives you refunds for faulty music.
Why not? If it sells a million more movies and 10 million more iPods, why would he complain?
Why is it a strange argument?
Keys are pulled all the time; it happened with HD-DVD, BD-ROM, and CSS. Why hasn't it happened with the iPod? Because the software is lenient enough to work around it. Most people found it simpler to compromise iTunes or QuickTime than to compromise the iPod.
And Apple usually throws in new features into iTunes while updating their software security. I'm sure the next leak will see "performance improvements" or "new visualizers" or whatever engineers have cooked up that have not yet been released.
Apple provides instructions on how to deauthorize computers. I think from within iTunes.
If by "short time" you mean two years, yes Apple will have a fix within a month.
I hope you're wrong. I hope that the Pixar takeover of Disney signals good things for Disney-Ghibli collaboration.
1) Yes
2) Next year
3) More expensive
4) How much are you willing to spend?
Hmm, I think Cars, Monsters Inc, and other Blu-Ray exclusives count towards "exclusive titles" that will make the PS3 profitable.
Most people buy 10x as many movies as they buy games (since most people don't buy games...)
You forgot another bulletpoint:
One year after Intel ships the 2GHz T7200.
By the time the PWRficient is shipped, I'm sure Intell will have the TDP down from 34W tdp, and for much cheaper.
So why would Apple want to wait two years for the PWRficient when they could have (and did sell) something like 3 million laptops using the Core Duo and Core 2 Duo CPUs?
Herbert Spencer, not Darwin, coined "Survival of the fittest".
Modern Darwinism has evolved since Darwin elaborated on "The origin of species".
Again, even in pure non human societies such as wolves, ants, and birds, nonfit are allowed to survive as long as they are "fit enough".
This is allowed, even encouraged, to increase diversity otherwise you get unwanted founder effects, such as all cheetahs being related closely enough that you can perform skin grafts from one to another.
You are missing a crucial aspect of Darwinism if you quote, "Only the strong survive".
The species is lost if there is only one survivor; or even two, three, etc.
The full implication of Darwinism is best captured by, "From a diverse pool of candidates, only the strong thrive."
Right now the effect of current law and modern medicine is to increase the diversity of our gene pool. We now have untold genetic richness what with decreasing disease and infant mortality and high levels of inter-racial mixing. When (not if) a catastrophe occurs we will have a sufficiently rich gene pool to survive such a catastrophe.
Such as, for example, an airborne AIDs epidemic. Until it happens no one (not even you) can predict which gene sequences and which individuals will survive. That is why it is good for as many people to exist before such an event occurs.
No disagreements from me.
Apple has slowed down it's release cycle but even so it has released 4 OS upgrades in the time it has taken Microsoft to release two (if you count Vista and Media Center, both of which are reasonable upgrade paths from Vanilla XP).
In these past five years Apple has added new features and functionality that Microsoft has only now hit with Vista; 3D UI, effective system wide search, widgets, and improved UI. I use RTM at work and it is mostly better than XP. I hate UAC but that is about it. I run Macs at home and Vista at work feels right.
Does that discount Apple's growth and marketshare of 5.8%?
All the players after Dell and HP are Apple sized. Dell and HP combined make up about 50% of the market so Apple's growth is not insignificant when measured against it's peers (Gateway, Fujitsu, NEC, Toshiba, and Lenovo) in the US.
I mean if you want to put things in prespective, Dell is only 17% worldwide and Lenovo is 6%.
Apple's growth is impressive because it is the only manufacturer right now growing at such a strong/fast pace.
Newsflash: This past quarter Apple hit 6% marketshare this past quarter (growing 30% year over year). Every passing quarter they become more relevant. Last year they were 3%. Next year... maybe even 9%!
:)
Apple is the only PC manufacturer right now experiencing solid steady growth.
And all of it is at Microsoft's expense
Which is why this past quarter Dell's PC sales only rose 4%, HP's rose 15%, the market at under 7%, while Apple hit 30% right? For years the market was growing at 11.8%, with Microsoft's growth tapping directly into that. If sales slow down to 6% growth, so too will Microsoft's income.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15322073/
Well, how about this: If Vista isn't compelling, why would someone need to buy a new PC if they have a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 year old functioning XP system?
What does Vista offer that XP does not? What does Vista offer that Mac OS X does not, now that you can legally and simply run your copy of XP on your Mac, and at the same time in as well?
Microsoft can't rely on forced upgrades if you can get newer computers that don't run Windows yet can maintain full compatibility... aka Wine, Parallels, and VMWare. Linux and OS X has progressed enough that Microsoft has to compete against them, even if it is only at the fringes.