Well, the whole argument was about two companies and two products; the Nintendo Gameboy and the Apple iPod, so there's really no talking about other products and scenarios. I wasn't really trying to make a generic statement, because that's a lot harder to qualify/defend.
The iPod of 2001 was bought and sold on sound purchasing decisions. It's not easy to part with $399 for a DAP, but for whatever reason people did. Four years later you don't HAVE to make a sound informed decision because everyone has already done the hard work for you.
The fact that people continue buying these products over and over again seems to refute your argument.
If competitors are releasing music AND video players 'for cheaper', and not making money, maybe it means two things:
1) Bad product 2) No market
If the competitors make a bad product, then of course the only remainging good product (iPod) will win. Apple just has to wait, review the market, and keep designing until it has a good product, even if it's a couple years late. Would you rather have a bad product now, or a good one next year?
If that's not a course correction, what do you think is?
You may dismiss power consumption improvements, but if you think about it carefully, improving power consumption IS improving performance.
If you can halve the power consumption of a chip, it means you have the energy budget to now 'double' the power consumption of a chip, and possible double the performance.
Their netburst architecture hit a power wall; its pretty difficult to operate 120W CPUs. If they can get the same performance at 12W, and then increase the available power to 120, they can now get upwards of 10x the performance, barring process inefficiencies.
Power consumption is a big deal. Think of it this way: A car that doubles it's fuel efficiency from 12mpg to 24mpg can now go twice as far on the same tank of gas. So with CPUs; double the power efficiency, and double the available amount of compute resources.
On basic principle? Because the proliferation of DVD merely means it hastens the breaking of CSS and region coding. It's great you decided to stick to VHS and beta, but what did you do about Macrovision coding on VHS? DRM isn't new, it's merely an extension of an old, old, concept. I expect all books in the future to be printed on micro-printed paper, such that scanning or photocopying of the text will produce large watermarks to appear.
Why is this not a problem?
Because scanners will continue to advance in quality, such that scans of said text will include the microprint and not generate watermarks.
The same of DRM protected music files, DRM protected bluray files, and DRM protected CDs. Basic technology, that makes these things possible, will also make the protections untenable. To give a token amount of resistance is good, but protesting for 18 years seems stupid.
I have bought iTMS files, and there are already several ways around the DRM; and as they become more popular and widespread, there will be even more cracks. The same will be true of all DRM. There has never been theorized or proposed an uncrackable protection scheme, so to get so... worked up about it seems unproductive.
In other words, we will never lose the ability to unlock encumbered music and videos, because even though all DVDs are CSS and region encoded, we have several widespread mechanisms to defeat said mechanisms.
DRM get's accepted because DRM doesn't work. DRM also gets accepted because the media does work. The content providers get a flimsy, but good enough, protection system and the purchasers get a flimsy, but breakable, restriction system.
Windows: nothing included, pay for every upgrade (What, every version of Office or Windows is free after you buy the first one?) Mac: some included, pay for every upgrade Ubuntu: everything included, some of it doesn't work for several versions, but each upgrade is free.
Since when did Netscape or Real set legal precedent? Our legal system never said Microsoft couldn't bundle free stuff, it was threatening to raise the licensing costs (abuse of monopoly since no one else can offer Windows) if Compaq bundled Netscape as the default web browser on their machines.
It isn't monopoly abuse if Microsoft bundles Office for free, it's monopoly abuse if Microsoft raises the price of Windows (their convicted monopoly) to Sony for bundling WordPerfect as the default word processor.
Bloat is when MS Office allows you to import DV, edit movies, and burn DVDs
Monopoly abuse is when Microsoft raises the price of Windows for Gateway or Sony because they bundle their own DVD makers to replace or supplement MS Office DV+
iChat is bundled with the Mac Gaim I think is similarly bundled with Linux distros; at least some kind of Jabber-chat
NONE are bundled with Windows; the user has to download them
In which case, it makes sense for Google to release one to 'rule them all'. On the other platforms, Google has to compete with the 'built-ins'. Not so on Windows
Microsoft chooses to license it's OS to PC manufacturers, because it's not in the PC business. (your logic, but to justify Microsoft's OS business). On the flipside, Microsoft chooses not to license it's DirectX for PS2/PS3/Revolution because it is in the console hardware business. Microsoft however does adopt the PPC CPU for it's console because it apparently dominates the console CPU market, and not Intel.
Apple chooses not to license it's OS to PC manufacturers because it is in the PC business. Apple chooses to adopt Intel CPUs because Intel CPUs dominate the market.
You can actually use the same argument for Apple that you do for Walmart.
Apple is at 99 per song. Lets see how far the music industry gets by leaning on Apple.
Apple pushed the labels into $9.99 retail price for albums. Expect them to start signing deals with artists on their own; pressing a CD for Trent Reznor isn't more difficult for Apple than it is for Sony or BGM.
It's hard to cheer for either side here, but from the music industry's perspective, Apple is scarier than WalMart. The music industry needs Apple. Apple is in the business of content creation; see Logic, Final Cut, Motion, DVD Studio, and XGrid. Apple provides tools both big AND small studios use to make movies, music, and money. For Apple, iTMS is a minor business ($500 million since opening; $3.5 billion in sales of iPods and computers last quarter). Apple only makes about $5 per iPod from iTMS, which they could more than make up if they decided to push indy content by dropping prices for indy labels to 49! Drop the price, double the volume (theoretically).
It's possible that other manufacturers could put together product lines that have most of the features and appeal of the iPod and force the prices in the market ever downward. At that point, maybe the term "iPod" would effectively become generic, as well. But right now Apple has a helluva lead and I haven't seen anything that I'd expect to give the iPod a serious run for its money.
If Creative's latest press release is any indicator, it seems that it is Apple that is forcing the prices of the market ever downward, and everyone else is losing money trying to compete. Two ideas come to mind:
Apple commands the best prices (volume purchases of HDs, flash, controllers, etc), effectively controlling the price of mp3 players by controlling the price of the components.
Apple also commands the premiums; to price any higher, and you can't effectively sell your product. The problem is that all of Apple's competitors try to kill Apple by adding more features, and more features == higher development and production costs. So they are hemmed in at the low end by component costs and at the high end by Apple's prices, meaning they can't make money.
If someone developed an Apple iPod CLONE, and charged less, they could probably steal marketshare... but Apple probably has enough capacity to guarantee no one could charge less.
One of my Japanese co-workers had this to say about Sony:
They are masters of selling you expensive things you don't need. Case in point: TVs, Walkmen, Discmen, speakers, DVD players, boomboxes, and Playstations.
I think, of DAPs and Apple, something similar can be said:
Apple is master of making things you didn't know you need, at prices you didn't think you were willing to pay.
You got a Creative JB2 in Christmas 2001 INSTEAD of an Apple iPod, 5gb (which is what I bought). Yours is 10gb, but is also the same size as a Mac mini. I later sold my 5gb iPod to a friend, and got a 10gb iPod, which I STILL have as well. I now have a 512mb iPod shuffle.
You bought an iRiver H320 instead of an iPod; I suppose, from your admission, that you use it to record, and you wonder, "Why would I ever buy an iPod?" because you assume it's a lateral move. Apple's positioning is that there are TWO products that you don't own yet, and that is the mini and the shuffle.
Well, lets put it another way; Your iRiver replaces your JB2 in both size and capacity; the mini replaces your iRiver in terms of 'carriability'. You can fit a mini in your breast pocket, your jeans pocket, your back pocket, etc. It's smaller than many cellphones, and is useful because it's size allows it to be lighter and easier to carry. It's not meant to record (which is why you use your iRiver), but only for strict playback.
In other terms, it is a portable laptop to your iRiver desktop.
The shuffle is even smaller, more rugged, and lighter; it is a PDA to your iPod mini laptop!
Well, IBM has done both; the beauty of it's auto-layout design is that the POWER and PPC 970 both have the cores. They also happen to share the same ISA.
Intel could design cores that are common to all their CPUs, and Intel has no choice but to implement a common x86 ISA.
All our car engines fundamentally operate the same, with only two variations: Diesel and Gas, with the various biofuels being one or the other.
Now for CPUs: There is no reason you can't have one unified architecture across all CPUs and still specialize them for niches and form factors. Just having the same architecture has not stopped IBM and Motorola from having 5 different 'niche' implementations:
PPC 750 (32 bit, low power) PPC 7448 (32 bit, high power) PPC 950 (64 bit, high power) POWER 4 (64 bit, highest power)
The comment was that Keynote was featureful AND works better. Are you arguing that PowerPoint has less features and works better, or that Keynote has less features and works better?
The square foot of the opening may be smaller, but the number strips increases the surface area of every interface; I imagine that the door can't be airtight when closed!
Also doesn't this require multiple motors? Another failure mode if the door doesn't open the strip at eye level and smacks someone in the face.
He works on Microsoft/XBox games, which are FAR from dominant. If you specialize in DX, you are limited to Windows and XBox, both of which are dwarfed by: PS1 PS2 GBA
So it just exposes his bias, without actually providing any weight to his claims.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the whole argument was about two companies and two products; the Nintendo Gameboy and the Apple iPod, so there's really no talking about other products and scenarios. I wasn't really trying to make a generic statement, because that's a lot harder to qualify/defend.
The iPod of 2001 was bought and sold on sound purchasing decisions. It's not easy to part with $399 for a DAP, but for whatever reason people did. Four years later you don't HAVE to make a sound informed decision because everyone has already done the hard work for you.
The fact that people continue buying these products over and over again seems to refute your argument.
If competitors are releasing music AND video players 'for cheaper', and not making money, maybe it means two things:
1) Bad product
2) No market
If the competitors make a bad product, then of course the only remainging good product (iPod) will win. Apple just has to wait, review the market, and keep designing until it has a good product, even if it's a couple years late. Would you rather have a bad product now, or a good one next year?
If there is no market, then what's the point?
If that's not a course correction, what do you think is?
You may dismiss power consumption improvements, but if you think about it carefully, improving power consumption IS improving performance.
If you can halve the power consumption of a chip, it means you have the energy budget to now 'double' the power consumption of a chip, and possible double the performance.
Their netburst architecture hit a power wall; its pretty difficult to operate 120W CPUs. If they can get the same performance at 12W, and then increase the available power to 120, they can now get upwards of 10x the performance, barring process inefficiencies.
Power consumption is a big deal. Think of it this way: A car that doubles it's fuel efficiency from 12mpg to 24mpg can now go twice as far on the same tank of gas. So with CPUs; double the power efficiency, and double the available amount of compute resources.
Why?
On basic principle? Because the proliferation of DVD merely means it hastens the breaking of CSS and region coding. It's great you decided to stick to VHS and beta, but what did you do about Macrovision coding on VHS? DRM isn't new, it's merely an extension of an old, old, concept. I expect all books in the future to be printed on micro-printed paper, such that scanning or photocopying of the text will produce large watermarks to appear.
Why is this not a problem?
Because scanners will continue to advance in quality, such that scans of said text will include the microprint and not generate watermarks.
The same of DRM protected music files, DRM protected bluray files, and DRM protected CDs. Basic technology, that makes these things possible, will also make the protections untenable. To give a token amount of resistance is good, but protesting for 18 years seems stupid.
I have bought iTMS files, and there are already several ways around the DRM; and as they become more popular and widespread, there will be even more cracks. The same will be true of all DRM. There has never been theorized or proposed an uncrackable protection scheme, so to get so... worked up about it seems unproductive.
In other words, we will never lose the ability to unlock encumbered music and videos, because even though all DVDs are CSS and region encoded, we have several widespread mechanisms to defeat said mechanisms.
If everyone did what you suggested, there would be nothing to download. Gnutella would be worthless.
Like not buying DVDs, right?
You mean if we don't stop DRM 20 years ago, there will be no alternative now, right?
Where were you when everyone started buying CSS region coded DVDs?
What doesn't work?
The DRM doesn't work? Or the DVD doesn't work?
DRM get's accepted because DRM doesn't work. DRM also gets accepted because the media does work. The content providers get a flimsy, but good enough, protection system and the purchasers get a flimsy, but breakable, restriction system.
Because it will be bundled with BluRay, like it was bundled with DVD and iTMS files, and no one will care because it works?
Windows: nothing included, pay for every upgrade (What, every version of Office or Windows is free after you buy the first one?)
Mac: some included, pay for every upgrade
Ubuntu: everything included, some of it doesn't work for several versions, but each upgrade is free.
Since when did Netscape or Real set legal precedent? Our legal system never said Microsoft couldn't bundle free stuff, it was threatening to raise the licensing costs (abuse of monopoly since no one else can offer Windows) if Compaq bundled Netscape as the default web browser on their machines.
It isn't monopoly abuse if Microsoft bundles Office for free, it's monopoly abuse if Microsoft raises the price of Windows (their convicted monopoly) to Sony for bundling WordPerfect as the default word processor.
Bloat is when MS Office allows you to import DV, edit movies, and burn DVDs
Monopoly abuse is when Microsoft raises the price of Windows for Gateway or Sony because they bundle their own DVD makers to replace or supplement MS Office DV+
That sounds like a good reason NOT to switch to Vista. Just let it go, like a lingering painful memory. Release, and keep moving onward.
iChat is bundled with the Mac
Gaim I think is similarly bundled with Linux distros; at least some kind of Jabber-chat
NONE are bundled with Windows; the user has to download them
In which case, it makes sense for Google to release one to 'rule them all'. On the other platforms, Google has to compete with the 'built-ins'. Not so on Windows
At least for the Mac, the sad truth is that there is already a native, free, supported, Jabber compatible chat program provided by Apple.
:)
No such luck on Windows
I suspect Linux has a similar program too.
So this was the case of 'upgrading' the Windows OS to match everyone else
Your logic seems screwy.
Microsoft chooses to license it's OS to PC manufacturers, because it's not in the PC business. (your logic, but to justify Microsoft's OS business). On the flipside, Microsoft chooses not to license it's DirectX for PS2/PS3/Revolution because it is in the console hardware business. Microsoft however does adopt the PPC CPU for it's console because it apparently dominates the console CPU market, and not Intel.
Apple chooses not to license it's OS to PC manufacturers because it is in the PC business. Apple chooses to adopt Intel CPUs because Intel CPUs dominate the market.
You can actually use the same argument for Apple that you do for Walmart.
Apple is at 99 per song. Lets see how far the music industry gets by leaning on Apple.
Apple pushed the labels into $9.99 retail price for albums. Expect them to start signing deals with artists on their own; pressing a CD for Trent Reznor isn't more difficult for Apple than it is for Sony or BGM.
It's hard to cheer for either side here, but from the music industry's perspective, Apple is scarier than WalMart. The music industry needs Apple. Apple is in the business of content creation; see Logic, Final Cut, Motion, DVD Studio, and XGrid. Apple provides tools both big AND small studios use to make movies, music, and money. For Apple, iTMS is a minor business ($500 million since opening; $3.5 billion in sales of iPods and computers last quarter). Apple only makes about $5 per iPod from iTMS, which they could more than make up if they decided to push indy content by dropping prices for indy labels to 49! Drop the price, double the volume (theoretically).
If Creative's latest press release is any indicator, it seems that it is Apple that is forcing the prices of the market ever downward, and everyone else is losing money trying to compete. Two ideas come to mind:
Apple commands the best prices (volume purchases of HDs, flash, controllers, etc), effectively controlling the price of mp3 players by controlling the price of the components.
Apple also commands the premiums; to price any higher, and you can't effectively sell your product. The problem is that all of Apple's competitors try to kill Apple by adding more features, and more features == higher development and production costs. So they are hemmed in at the low end by component costs and at the high end by Apple's prices, meaning they can't make money.
If someone developed an Apple iPod CLONE, and charged less, they could probably steal marketshare... but Apple probably has enough capacity to guarantee no one could charge less.
One of my Japanese co-workers had this to say about Sony:
They are masters of selling you expensive things you don't need. Case in point: TVs, Walkmen, Discmen, speakers, DVD players, boomboxes, and Playstations.
I think, of DAPs and Apple, something similar can be said:
Apple is master of making things you didn't know you need, at prices you didn't think you were willing to pay.
You got a Creative JB2 in Christmas 2001 INSTEAD of an Apple iPod, 5gb (which is what I bought). Yours is 10gb, but is also the same size as a Mac mini. I later sold my 5gb iPod to a friend, and got a 10gb iPod, which I STILL have as well. I now have a 512mb iPod shuffle.
You bought an iRiver H320 instead of an iPod; I suppose, from your admission, that you use it to record, and you wonder, "Why would I ever buy an iPod?" because you assume it's a lateral move. Apple's positioning is that there are TWO products that you don't own yet, and that is the mini and the shuffle.
Well, lets put it another way; Your iRiver replaces your JB2 in both size and capacity; the mini replaces your iRiver in terms of 'carriability'. You can fit a mini in your breast pocket, your jeans pocket, your back pocket, etc. It's smaller than many cellphones, and is useful because it's size allows it to be lighter and easier to carry. It's not meant to record (which is why you use your iRiver), but only for strict playback.
In other terms, it is a portable laptop to your iRiver desktop.
The shuffle is even smaller, more rugged, and lighter; it is a PDA to your iPod mini laptop!
Well, IBM has done both; the beauty of it's auto-layout design is that the POWER and PPC 970 both have the cores. They also happen to share the same ISA.
Intel could design cores that are common to all their CPUs, and Intel has no choice but to implement a common x86 ISA.
Think of a CPU like a car engine
All our car engines fundamentally operate the same, with only two variations: Diesel and Gas, with the various biofuels being one or the other.
Now for CPUs: There is no reason you can't have one unified architecture across all CPUs and still specialize them for niches and form factors. Just having the same architecture has not stopped IBM and Motorola from having 5 different 'niche' implementations:
PPC 750 (32 bit, low power)
PPC 7448 (32 bit, high power)
PPC 950 (64 bit, high power)
POWER 4 (64 bit, highest power)
etc.
What, so is this a point for or against Keynote?
The comment was that Keynote was featureful AND works better. Are you arguing that PowerPoint has less features and works better, or that Keynote has less features and works better?
The square foot of the opening may be smaller, but the number strips increases the surface area of every interface; I imagine that the door can't be airtight when closed!
Also doesn't this require multiple motors? Another failure mode if the door doesn't open the strip at eye level and smacks someone in the face.
Which makes his comments even more suspect :)
He works on Microsoft/XBox games, which are FAR from dominant. If you specialize in DX, you are limited to Windows and XBox, both of which are dwarfed by:
PS1
PS2
GBA
So it just exposes his bias, without actually providing any weight to his claims.
Too bad their contributions to society can be measured in terms of:
Clippy
Wizards
Exploits
GUI inconsistencies
Flight simulators
BASIC