It's a strategic position, but it's trading known present income/market for future unknown income/market.
It's quite possible that the XBox 360 and the Revolution totally tank, which isn't good for IBM. It's not unlikely, given past performance, that only one of the three consoles really takes off; then couple that with the low margin, high volume characteristics that describe the console market, vs the low volume but high margin characteristics that describe the Apple market.
"The problem with design is that you really can't anticipate everything. There are too many variables to consider!"
You think when you design something that you can anticipate everything?
"I don't think there's a lack of attention to detail, so much as so many details are looked at, with only a few details get missed."
You think there is a lack of attention to detail?
So let's take the hockey puck mouse. I think, from the problems you note, not that it suffered from lack of attention to detail, but that there was a lack of user feedback; they didn't adequately test the mouse to note that there was inherent problems due to it's round shape. No amount of "attention to detail" would discover this until someone not familiar with the mouse picked it up to use it for extended periods of time. A design flaw can result from lack of attention to detail, but this looks more like a design flaw because of a lack of understanding user requirements.
You need only look at the Pro Mouse to see the additional design requirements were factored in. The same basic elemental shape is involved, but instead of confusingly symmetric design, they elongate the mouse so there is a definite orientation by feel. They also added height cues, making the rear higher than the front, so you can tell by feel that you have the right side of the mouse under your hand.
If you want to call that "paying attention to details", you run into the problem that your speech is unclear because you mix up two different concepts: Lack of attention to detail means not exploring the design requirements thoroughly enough, and not collecting the appropriate requirements means designing a solution to an inaccurate or incomplete problem.
The mouse, per attention to detail, worked correctly as a mouse. It fit in the hand, it moved the cursor on the monitor, it plugged into the USB port, it matched the iMac design aesthetic, and it didn't leave the user confused as to what the device was.
Where it failed (I don't disagree that it had problems, after all), was that it wasn't designed to be immediately obvious what direction the mouse and the cursor moved because it was radially symmetric.
The problem with design is that you really can't anticipate everything. There are too many variables to consider!
Consider this: The iMac had the hockey puck mouse, but it also had the handle, the clear polycarbonate shell, the gumdrop shape, the silent fanless design, and the color. Five positives to one negative. The PowerBook G4 had the loose battery latch (I have that), the weak hinges, and the wireless-blocking enclosure, but it also had the widescreen display, the carbon-fiber magnesium case, the thin design, the light weight, the magnetic latch, the built in wireless network antenna and card, and the magnetic port cover. Seven positives to three negatives. The original iPod had the scroll wheel, but it also had the high speed interface, the simple one handed UI, the small form factor, the ID3 based interface, the super-fast UI, and the long battery life. Six positives to one negative. The third gen iPod had the silly touch sensitive buttons, but it also had on top of that the touchpad scroll wheel (fixed in the second gen iPod), the thinner design, and a lower price point. Three additional advantages over the original iPod, plus one new negative. The Cube had it's cracking enclosure, but it also had a brilliant sense of aesthetics, fanless operation, and tiny design. That's three positives for one negative in the Cube's design.
So yes, there are problems that were fixed later, but there are also positives that were part of the design in the first place. I don't think there's a lack of attention to detail, so much as so many details are looked at, with only a few details get missed.
If by price fixing you mean the iTMS negotiated a price that everyone else copied, then no, that's called market economics. If you mean price fixing when the different organizations collude and say, "The iTMS has too much power, let's all hold out on Apple until they agree to raise prices", then yes, they would be guilty of price fixing.
Apple's success is not called price fixing, any more than the iPod's success SET the price for all competitive mp3 players; too expensive, and you aren't competitive. Too cheap, and you can't profit!
Steadfast in allegiance to one's homeland, government, or sovereign. Faithful to a person, ideal, custom, cause, or duty. Of, relating to, or marked by loyalty. See Synonyms at faithful.
You can't be 'faithful' if you intend on dropping AMD when they hit a rough patch. Perhaps you mean a different word, perhaps, "support", or "belief", or "trust".
If you use the word loyalty, then you imply the concept of "to the death", because that's almost exactly what it means.
So if for some reason AMD produces a string of over priced underpowered CPUs, you're going to stick with AMD?
Loyalty to a principle is great. Loyalty to a person is fine. Loyalty to a company is kind of stupid especially when you have a competitor as powerful as Intel and AMD in the battle.
The question you should be asking is, "Shouldn't a desktop CPU be more powerful than a laptop CPU?"
The comparison is being made because the Yonah is roughly equivalent to an Athlon X2 in performance while consuming less power.
Put another way, the Athlon X2 is not more powerful; Intel's performance deficit has been corrected, and we now await a DESKTOP variation of a Yonah with comparable power consumption to an Athlon X2.
If you are salaried and aren't paid compensation, your boss has stolen, arguably, the most valuable substance known to man.
Time.
It is one of the most priceless things in existence because it cannot be manufactured, reclaimed, or regained. It can only be used, lost, and given, and you have a limited amount of it.
Because theft is about what one loses, the loss of a sale is therefore theft to the seller.
If you want to argue that copying isn't theft, you also have to agree that any idea you have should be shared for everyone because it isn't theft even if the act of sharing it strips you of the ability to profit from that idea, no matter how brilliant or cool.
According to the prevalent beliefs of the society at large, these men did something wrong. You may disagree, but that is your right. Just like if I took your credit card number and used it; you believe I did something wrong, but maybe I don't. I didn't steal anything; you still have your credit card in your wallet, you still have your money, you still have your stuff. I just copied 12 numbers!
They arguably did do something wrong; whether the punishment was just is a different argument.
They copied 77 games onto harddrives; just because they didn't actually go into Target and take 77 cases from the shelves doesn't stop it from being some sort of theft.
Design without an engineer is not at all the same as a decorator.
Do you need an engineer to arrange a room to be optimal? If you do, you must have a bedroom inside a submarine.
On the other hand anyone/everyone can 'design' a room. For example some design constraints: 1) Don't block entrance and exit paths with furniture. 2) Imagine walking through the room in the dark and place furniture to not stub toes and shins 3) Imagine walking through the room during a power outage and place furniture appropriately, especially places to keep flashlights and candles. 4) Do not place beds next to drafts caused by cold windows 5) Imagine you are sick in bed; place furniture where trays, food, and medicine can be reached by both an assistant as well as yourself
Do you need to engineer, or an engineer, for this problem? Or is it merely enough to 'design' the solution? Are these problems so superficial that you would relegate them to 'decorators'?
It doesn't sound like we disagree in principle. It also sounds like you read Christopher Lloyd Alexander.
You can have excellent design with no engineering, just as you can have lots of engineering effort without any design. The two are NOT synonymous behaviors, so they have separate words for each behavior.
If you want to conflate the two behaviors you can, but it isn't the default behavior.
Designers do not need to be engineers, though engineers need to be designers. The problem space is so large, however, that it is difficult to be both a good engineer AND a good designer.
Here is a design only situation: Where to place a bed, a dresser, a mirror, and a chair in a bedroom. There is no engineering necessary. Here is an engineering only situation: What material to use in a bridge to withstand certain live and dead forces on the structure.
Here is a combination design/engineering situation: What kind of bridge can span this distance with the fewest structural members? What kind of bridge can span this distance with the least material? What materials and structures can we use to implement such a bridge?
Perhaps in the future design and engineering can be undertaken simultaneously, but right now they are not, I think.
Like being able to click on a filename in tile mode to initiate a rename action, but then having the filename move away from your mouse so when you click again to select the entry point, you deselect the filename.
Or how the only way to access the tile and cascade window functions of the OS is by right-clicking the taskbar, when half the users out there don't know the difference between right and left click.
As far as I can tell, engineering is trying to create a solution for a problem. Design, on the other hand, extends engineering by trying to figure out the problem first.
For things like bridges, the problem is fairly self evident: There is a gap or chasm to cross. It is synonymous to design or engineer a bridge. Airports, on the other hand, are much tougher problems to tackle. You don't engineer an airport, you design an airport.
Maybe a better way to put it is: Designers work around the requirements of people. Engineers work around the requirements of the problem.
If you have a designer involved, the engineers will have already taken into account the requirements of the people. If you don't have a designer around, then the engineers have to fake it and come up with ad hoc solutions to meet the unexpected needs of the people you are trying to help.
You know, when Apple released the nano to such popular acclaim that they suffered SHORTAGES, they delayed the worldwide release by a couple months to make sure the customers that were waiting were able to acquire a nano in a timely manner.
Microsoft had options they didn't take; however I wouldn't be impressed. If they are facing shortages, I really do think Microsoft underpriced their console and essentially cheated themselves out of extra profit. They could have set $399 and $499 price points and still have sold out, and probably $499 and $599 pricepoints and have a comfortable amount on shelves for all buyers.
Okay, there's a threshold where sold out is successful and where sold out is poor planning.
Apple sells out of iPods regularly, but has them restocked with the next week's shipment; supply is mostly matched by demand, and that is good.
Microsoft sells out of XBoxes, but doesn't have any in stock for three weeks, and with no indication of any more coming back in stock until after Christmas? That is stupid.
So IF Microsoft can get more in stock before Christmas and can consistently keep stock levels up to meet demand, they will have done well. Otherwise Microsoft will be competing with al the game consoles that ARE in stock: Redesigned GBA New GBA Micro Nintendo DS Sony PSP Sony PS2-slim Nintendo Gamecube
If your 8 year old wants an XBox 360 and they aren't any in stock, and time's running out, won't you instead get them a cheaper PS2 and a Nintendo DS, rather than waiting till, say, February, for their Christmas present?
The name is an attribute describing the file, but is not actually the file itself; the name can be changed without actually changing the data in the file.
So if you had any folders with names, and files with names, and viewed them in column view, you have a hierarchical organization of DATA automatically sorted by metadata; name. Of course you could have folders and folders of music files, and then you'd have music organized by the column view.
Of course I don't remember that Creative actually implemented any hierarchical categorization by metadata when my co-worker had an original Nomad Jukebox; by metadata I mean ID3 tags. What I do remember was that Creative sorted files by folder, name, and playlist; so if I am right and folder name and file name are metadata, then column view folder name and file name is meta data.
Install NeXTStep on a laptop and fire up the file browser.
Make sure it's in column view.
NeXTStep's column view has been around since 1986; on a laptop since at least 1992, maybe later.
NeXTStep was bought by Apple in 1996.
Apple releases the iPod in 2001.
You may not believe that the column view and the iPod menu is the same... but owning both a Mac and iPod and using NeXT machines in college, I can say the iPod hierarchical menu is exactly like the column view in the file browser and now the Finder. That's nearly 15 years of prior art against Creative.
You broadcast to your TV You podcast to your MP3 player
Where did you get the definition "Casting to your pod"? The article itself says, "a digital recording of a radio broadcast or similar program, made available on the internet for downloading to a personal audio player".
Slashdot Mirror
It's a strategic position, but it's trading known present income/market for future unknown income/market.
It's quite possible that the XBox 360 and the Revolution totally tank, which isn't good for IBM. It's not unlikely, given past performance, that only one of the three consoles really takes off; then couple that with the low margin, high volume characteristics that describe the console market, vs the low volume but high margin characteristics that describe the Apple market.
What? You disagree?
"The problem with design is that you really can't anticipate everything. There are too many variables to consider!"
You think when you design something that you can anticipate everything?
"I don't think there's a lack of attention to detail, so much as so many details are looked at, with only a few details get missed."
You think there is a lack of attention to detail?
So let's take the hockey puck mouse. I think, from the problems you note, not that it suffered from lack of attention to detail, but that there was a lack of user feedback; they didn't adequately test the mouse to note that there was inherent problems due to it's round shape. No amount of "attention to detail" would discover this until someone not familiar with the mouse picked it up to use it for extended periods of time. A design flaw can result from lack of attention to detail, but this looks more like a design flaw because of a lack of understanding user requirements.
You need only look at the Pro Mouse to see the additional design requirements were factored in. The same basic elemental shape is involved, but instead of confusingly symmetric design, they elongate the mouse so there is a definite orientation by feel. They also added height cues, making the rear higher than the front, so you can tell by feel that you have the right side of the mouse under your hand.
If you want to call that "paying attention to details", you run into the problem that your speech is unclear because you mix up two different concepts: Lack of attention to detail means not exploring the design requirements thoroughly enough, and not collecting the appropriate requirements means designing a solution to an inaccurate or incomplete problem.
The mouse, per attention to detail, worked correctly as a mouse. It fit in the hand, it moved the cursor on the monitor, it plugged into the USB port, it matched the iMac design aesthetic, and it didn't leave the user confused as to what the device was.
Where it failed (I don't disagree that it had problems, after all), was that it wasn't designed to be immediately obvious what direction the mouse and the cursor moved because it was radially symmetric.
The problem with design is that you really can't anticipate everything. There are too many variables to consider!
Consider this:
The iMac had the hockey puck mouse, but it also had the handle, the clear polycarbonate shell, the gumdrop shape, the silent fanless design, and the color. Five positives to one negative.
The PowerBook G4 had the loose battery latch (I have that), the weak hinges, and the wireless-blocking enclosure, but it also had the widescreen display, the carbon-fiber magnesium case, the thin design, the light weight, the magnetic latch, the built in wireless network antenna and card, and the magnetic port cover. Seven positives to three negatives.
The original iPod had the scroll wheel, but it also had the high speed interface, the simple one handed UI, the small form factor, the ID3 based interface, the super-fast UI, and the long battery life. Six positives to one negative.
The third gen iPod had the silly touch sensitive buttons, but it also had on top of that the touchpad scroll wheel (fixed in the second gen iPod), the thinner design, and a lower price point. Three additional advantages over the original iPod, plus one new negative.
The Cube had it's cracking enclosure, but it also had a brilliant sense of aesthetics, fanless operation, and tiny design. That's three positives for one negative in the Cube's design.
So yes, there are problems that were fixed later, but there are also positives that were part of the design in the first place. I don't think there's a lack of attention to detail, so much as so many details are looked at, with only a few details get missed.
If by price fixing you mean the iTMS negotiated a price that everyone else copied, then no, that's called market economics. If you mean price fixing when the different organizations collude and say, "The iTMS has too much power, let's all hold out on Apple until they agree to raise prices", then yes, they would be guilty of price fixing.
Apple's success is not called price fixing, any more than the iPod's success SET the price for all competitive mp3 players; too expensive, and you aren't competitive. Too cheap, and you can't profit!
Considering this is the definition of loyal:
Steadfast in allegiance to one's homeland, government, or sovereign.
Faithful to a person, ideal, custom, cause, or duty.
Of, relating to, or marked by loyalty. See Synonyms at faithful.
You can't be 'faithful' if you intend on dropping AMD when they hit a rough patch. Perhaps you mean a different word, perhaps, "support", or "belief", or "trust".
If you use the word loyalty, then you imply the concept of "to the death", because that's almost exactly what it means.
That's stupid.
So if for some reason AMD produces a string of over priced underpowered CPUs, you're going to stick with AMD?
Loyalty to a principle is great. Loyalty to a person is fine. Loyalty to a company is kind of stupid especially when you have a competitor as powerful as Intel and AMD in the battle.
The question you should be asking is, "Shouldn't a desktop CPU be more powerful than a laptop CPU?"
The comparison is being made because the Yonah is roughly equivalent to an Athlon X2 in performance while consuming less power.
Put another way, the Athlon X2 is not more powerful; Intel's performance deficit has been corrected, and we now await a DESKTOP variation of a Yonah with comparable power consumption to an Athlon X2.
Final Cut Pro, on a PowerBook, in the field, while filming "Lord of the Rings".
If you are salaried and aren't paid compensation, your boss has stolen, arguably, the most valuable substance known to man.
Time.
It is one of the most priceless things in existence because it cannot be manufactured, reclaimed, or regained. It can only be used, lost, and given, and you have a limited amount of it.
Credit cards are not debit cards. If I had taken your debit card number I would have taken your money.
With your credit card number I have taken NONE of your money.
Your credit rating, maybe, but not your money.
I'm only copying a number here, not STEALING.
Just like these guys; copying bits onto a harddrive, not stealing.
Because theft is about what one loses, the loss of a sale is therefore theft to the seller.
If you want to argue that copying isn't theft, you also have to agree that any idea you have should be shared for everyone because it isn't theft even if the act of sharing it strips you of the ability to profit from that idea, no matter how brilliant or cool.
According to the prevalent beliefs of the society at large, these men did something wrong. You may disagree, but that is your right. Just like if I took your credit card number and used it; you believe I did something wrong, but maybe I don't. I didn't steal anything; you still have your credit card in your wallet, you still have your money, you still have your stuff. I just copied 12 numbers!
Yet don't you still think it's wrong?
They arguably did do something wrong; whether the punishment was just is a different argument.
They copied 77 games onto harddrives; just because they didn't actually go into Target and take 77 cases from the shelves doesn't stop it from being some sort of theft.
No, of course not.
You have to start somewhere.
Ignorance can be corrected with a little bit of training.
Being an asshole, on the other hand... can that be fixed, or will you always be an asshole?
Design without an engineer is not at all the same as a decorator.
Do you need an engineer to arrange a room to be optimal? If you do, you must have a bedroom inside a submarine.
On the other hand anyone/everyone can 'design' a room. For example some design constraints:
1) Don't block entrance and exit paths with furniture.
2) Imagine walking through the room in the dark and place furniture to not stub toes and shins
3) Imagine walking through the room during a power outage and place furniture appropriately, especially places to keep flashlights and candles.
4) Do not place beds next to drafts caused by cold windows
5) Imagine you are sick in bed; place furniture where trays, food, and medicine can be reached by both an assistant as well as yourself
Do you need to engineer, or an engineer, for this problem? Or is it merely enough to 'design' the solution? Are these problems so superficial that you would relegate them to 'decorators'?
It doesn't sound like we disagree in principle. It also sounds like you read Christopher Lloyd Alexander.
You can have excellent design with no engineering, just as you can have lots of engineering effort without any design. The two are NOT synonymous behaviors, so they have separate words for each behavior.
If you want to conflate the two behaviors you can, but it isn't the default behavior.
Designers do not need to be engineers, though engineers need to be designers. The problem space is so large, however, that it is difficult to be both a good engineer AND a good designer.
Here is a design only situation:
Where to place a bed, a dresser, a mirror, and a chair in a bedroom. There is no engineering necessary.
Here is an engineering only situation:
What material to use in a bridge to withstand certain live and dead forces on the structure.
Here is a combination design/engineering situation:
What kind of bridge can span this distance with the fewest structural members?
What kind of bridge can span this distance with the least material?
What materials and structures can we use to implement such a bridge?
Perhaps in the future design and engineering can be undertaken simultaneously, but right now they are not, I think.
Oh, right. Good computer human interaction.
Like being able to click on a filename in tile mode to initiate a rename action, but then having the filename move away from your mouse so when you click again to select the entry point, you deselect the filename.
Or how the only way to access the tile and cascade window functions of the OS is by right-clicking the taskbar, when half the users out there don't know the difference between right and left click.
Right, that Microsoft.
As far as I can tell, engineering is trying to create a solution for a problem.
Design, on the other hand, extends engineering by trying to figure out the problem first.
For things like bridges, the problem is fairly self evident: There is a gap or chasm to cross. It is synonymous to design or engineer a bridge.
Airports, on the other hand, are much tougher problems to tackle. You don't engineer an airport, you design an airport.
Maybe a better way to put it is: Designers work around the requirements of people. Engineers work around the requirements of the problem.
If you have a designer involved, the engineers will have already taken into account the requirements of the people. If you don't have a designer around, then the engineers have to fake it and come up with ad hoc solutions to meet the unexpected needs of the people you are trying to help.
You know, when Apple released the nano to such popular acclaim that they suffered SHORTAGES, they delayed the worldwide release by a couple months to make sure the customers that were waiting were able to acquire a nano in a timely manner.
Microsoft had options they didn't take; however I wouldn't be impressed. If they are facing shortages, I really do think Microsoft underpriced their console and essentially cheated themselves out of extra profit. They could have set $399 and $499 price points and still have sold out, and probably $499 and $599 pricepoints and have a comfortable amount on shelves for all buyers.
Okay, there's a threshold where sold out is successful and where sold out is poor planning.
Apple sells out of iPods regularly, but has them restocked with the next week's shipment; supply is mostly matched by demand, and that is good.
Microsoft sells out of XBoxes, but doesn't have any in stock for three weeks, and with no indication of any more coming back in stock until after Christmas? That is stupid.
So IF Microsoft can get more in stock before Christmas and can consistently keep stock levels up to meet demand, they will have done well. Otherwise Microsoft will be competing with al the game consoles that ARE in stock:
Redesigned GBA
New GBA Micro
Nintendo DS
Sony PSP
Sony PS2-slim
Nintendo Gamecube
If your 8 year old wants an XBox 360 and they aren't any in stock, and time's running out, won't you instead get them a cheaper PS2 and a Nintendo DS, rather than waiting till, say, February, for their Christmas present?
What, a file name is not metadata?
The name is an attribute describing the file, but is not actually the file itself; the name can be changed without actually changing the data in the file.
So if you had any folders with names, and files with names, and viewed them in column view, you have a hierarchical organization of DATA automatically sorted by metadata; name. Of course you could have folders and folders of music files, and then you'd have music organized by the column view.
Of course I don't remember that Creative actually implemented any hierarchical categorization by metadata when my co-worker had an original Nomad Jukebox; by metadata I mean ID3 tags. What I do remember was that Creative sorted files by folder, name, and playlist; so if I am right and folder name and file name are metadata, then column view folder name and file name is meta data.
Install NeXTStep on a laptop and fire up the file browser.
Make sure it's in column view.
NeXTStep's column view has been around since 1986; on a laptop since at least 1992, maybe later.
NeXTStep was bought by Apple in 1996.
Apple releases the iPod in 2001.
You may not believe that the column view and the iPod menu is the same... but owning both a Mac and iPod and using NeXT machines in college, I can say the iPod hierarchical menu is exactly like the column view in the file browser and now the Finder. That's nearly 15 years of prior art against Creative.
You broadcast to your TV
You podcast to your MP3 player
Where did you get the definition "Casting to your pod"? The article itself says, "a digital recording of a radio broadcast or similar program, made available on the internet for downloading to a personal audio player".
Apple had implemented their 'column view' interface as far back as 1986 in NeXTStep. Did you forget that Apple IS NeXTStep now?
Creative did not have anything implemented even close in 1986.
Perhaps I don't understand your requirement for a 'single board' solution?