I disagree, especially with the phrase, "lost cause".
People will spend money on value. Can we both agree on that?
Photoshop costs $600, and for some that's too expensive and for other's it isn't. Specifically, for those where a $600 package can get them an easy $30 an hour, it only takes 5 hours of work to make back the cost, and a day's worth of work to make a profit. At the end of the week, if that $600 package enabled them to do in 3 days what would normally take a week, then it's $600 well spent. That's value, right?
However, here's where we start do disagree I think, those same people will be *equally* served if they warez Photoshop for $0. Spend $0, and still get the work done in three days. Is this what you advocate? If you do, then the people who make Photoshop (Adobe) don't get compensated and eventually can't afford to make a version upgrade that cuts down work by 20%, and both parties lose.
However you do say, "giant profits," as if profit were somehow wrong? Shouldn't profit be commensurate with value? Adobe could charge $100 and it could charge $1,000 for Photoshop, and this will net them different levels of profit, but in any case no one has the *right* to share Adobe's work without Adobe's permission, unless you are also advocating for the cessation of copyright (which is amusing because your own site has the OPLA, which relies on copyright).
Break the law because it's wrong, suffer the punishment because it's right, and work to change the system.
It's acceptable to challenge any law you want, but it also means as a responsible individual you also pay the consequences of that law. If everyone breaks the same law, willingly, because the law is wrong, that brings the attention of the lawmakers that the law is wrong, because everyone would be their constituents and voters.
I owned Adobe Premiere 5.1c and After Effects 4.0, and if you're comparing Premiere to Final Cut Pro, I feel sorry for you.
Adobe Premiere 5.1c at least was crap. What version are you running now? At the best it compares to Final Cut Express, which is $299 MSRP, and I dunno how much for EDU version.
The question then is how much better or worse Vegas is than Premiere; but from my experience with 5.1c, and the downloaded version of 6.0 demo, vs Final Cut Express 1.0, which is now at v2.0, you've been cheated.
XSan can 'hide' the complexity of RAID, as well as providing management tools and 'intelligent' cascading failure... but that's just from reading the specs, not from actual experience. I hear XSan is based on CVFS? I should look at that too.
I don't think the article is correct regarding disposable cars, but my question and theory is *right*
Q: "What makes you think a break down in Car C is irraparable compared to Car A?"
The article talks about rising component costs; rising tool costs; and rising skillset requirements to do repairs effectively. This won't make cars disposable nor repairs obsolete. This will guarantee that only authorized dealers/repair shops can service the cars.
There is a very valid computer analogy: iMacs and iBooks are extremely difficult to take apart and service without the training and experience an authorized repair shop has.
Like that, then, a modern car would require more exotic skills, tools, and parts to effectively repair, but it wouldn't make it irreparable, and it especially doesn't make older cars better. The article itself talks about the costs associated with airbags and seat belts since those are one use.
And older car *without* airbags, and *without* automatic seat tensioners is so much more unsafe in an accident it's not funny. Try getting rammed by an SUV, or broadsided by a truck, which car would you prefer?
I have my preferences there, and it *also* comes 'free' with better fuel economy, lower emissions, and higher performance.
It sounds good and I can just drag-n-drop tracks or folders onto it and then burn them - takes about 3 minutes to make a whole new cd, and I can carry CD's pretty easily.
On my iPod it's
"It sounds good and I can just drag-n-drop tracks or folders onto it and then it uploads the playlist - takes about 5 seconds to make a whole new playlist, and then I can carry around the iPod pretty easily."
Another benefit: Live playlists. Imagine this playlist:
Songs rated 3 or higher Songs not played in the last 5 days Songs played less than 10 times
Rendezvous music sharing of libraries between iTunes instances (again driven by the database). Database driven playlists (aka Smart Playlists). Automatic file organization by ID3 tag. Live search field (driven by ID3 and database). Music database (to speed up browsing, playlists, and search). Synch to iPod (plug and synch, with the database file in *both* directions). Support of the entire set of Quicktime audio codecs. The ability to rate songs on a 0-5 scale. The ability to burn audio or data CDs in a single click. The ability to rip audio CDs in a single click. The ability to selectively combine tracks on CDs to rip as a single musical unit. The automatic normalization of your collection without modifying the MP3/AAC/etc data.
The question isn't the implementation: Databases and networking and encoding are solved problems. It's the design of the entire system to accomplish all this simply and usefully, and which is what Apple has succeeded in with iTunes that (I have not seen so far) no one else has.
So be fair. Car C has computer control and Car A does not.
Both cost $15k to build. No difference. Both break down in a freak accident in 5 years. No difference. What makes you think a break down in Car C is irreparable compared to Car A?
If it's a computer failure... that's simple enough to replace and repair. Nothing mechanical.
If it's a mechanical failure... then Car A will be just as irreparable.
So the end result:
You will spend more in fuel and pollution than in Car C, and with no net difference in production, no net difference in failure, and no net difference in disposal.
So yes, the answer has to be "The increased efficiency can counter-balance the environmental impacts of ZERO to build the car, disposing of it and building a new one."
Projects have budgets too, you know. 10 days and XXX dollars. If you can't finish in 10 days, and your contract penalizes you, then what? And how about bonuses if you finish early?
So your whole point is that your 64b Athlon computer is only good for games?
How about XSan? Motion? FCP? FCP HD? DVD SP? Shake? Logic? BLAST?
You forget that some people actually make money with their machines.:)
You also forget that for some people, especially those that earn something in the $40 to $50 an higher an hour range, time is money. Linux, BSD, and Windows is too expensive, and strangely enough, Macs, with their plug and play nature, are cheaper. Literally, if it takes me one day to set up something in Linux, and 10 minutes on my Mac, that's the difference between $500 spent/wasted and $10 spent. Over the course of a month, then, a Mac will have paid itself off.
Especially when you're talking about a $1,400 iBook. Make a DVD? Insert a disk, arrange the menus, and hit burn. 20 minutes later you're done. Make a movie? Plug in the camcorder, import video, arrange the video, and 30 minutes later you're done. Send the DVD off for replication, make 500 copies, and start on your next project.
Right. Except the Pioneer does work in a Mac; not perfectly, granted, but I don't see how this is proof of Apple's control.
And about the colored plastics: They were colored to match Mac colors. Tangerine, grape, blueberry, strawberry, ruby, etc. That isn't a coincidence, and while nothing to do with USB, has everything to do with USB manufacturer's priming the devices for sale with Macs. I can't imagine you can deny that: Color and form designed to mimic the Mac shows exactly the correlation between USB peripherals and the Mac. I don't mean to say it's cause and effect, but there is definitely correlation there.
How do you explain the blueberry translucent USB devices then?
This re: Apple's very small market share and how many USB device vendors don't concern themselves with working with Macs?
As per the OEM version of the DVDR (I've not tried it, but have read about it) they work *fine* thank you very much. DVDs burn wonderfully.
Their only problem is the computer doesn't recognize it as capable of being put to sleep. Change the firmware ID string and then it can be put to sleep properly.
I would suggest the Mac paradigm of usability is less user hostile than Microsoft's
What is implied from listing the massive companies is that Linux usability is only a marketing campaign and a couple dumbed down wizards away. It isn't, sadly, as no Linux organization can match AOL or MS in terms of marketing warchest.
To put it more simply, Apple doesn't have a Linux business plan, that's all. No conspiracy, no idiocy, no MS-like behaviors.
Apple isn't a conscious being; someone has to make the plans and training and data to be transmitted all the way down to the sales people.
Which iPod to sell to Linux users? Which software to use? Would it be bundled with the iPod? Would it include source? Would it include a linux distro on a disk? What are the requirements? What libraries? What toolkits? What scripting languages? What interpreters? What hardware platforms?
Then there's iTunes! How about song management? File management? All the same questions as the above. And then there's support software. Rendezvous, for streaming and networking. Firewire for synching and powering.
Finally iTMS: How would authentication work out?
Apple has to have all of these things in place before it can sell the iPod and iTunes and iTMS to Linux users. They need the support center info, support structure, and training.
Will it pan out? I mean, this is exactly the reason why games have a hard time being ported to the Mac platform. Most companies don't have the resources to pull it off (much less for Linux).
Apple needs to interface with the iPod. Apple has it's pride in design and usability. Profit (tied tightly to the iPod of course)
You attribute to malice and stupidity when there is real, technical, reason. Apple's key to making money is ease of use, high design, and quality, and if it can't do that, why is it Apple? If it is none of those things, then you might as well have a third party reverse engineer and develop the software to browse, buy, manage, play, and synch music files... notably which has happened with regards to:
Quicktime iTMS iPod AAC/iTunes
So whether they are right or wrong, I doubt it was a gut anti-Linux move so much as a simple return on investment calculation. Simply put, without lifting a finger Apple has accomplished all of the goals by relying on the characteristic DIY nature of the Linux and OSS movements.
Your bias works against you; unless you don't believe in thinking intelligently and instead suppose we should always turn first towards our biases and second to external evidence?
Uh, how difficult? You wouldn't believe the answer if you can't imagine it in the first place.
A straight Linux port would require:
Quicktime Carbon/MacOS ToolKit
And Quicktime would require a working audio subsystem, a working video subsystem, as well as their networking, 2d, and maybe even 3d stack, if you do a full Quicktime port.
And if you ask "Why Quicktime?" the answer would have to be, "Why would Apple port iTunes without Quicktime?"
I don't know why Quicktime doesn't work on 98/ME, but I don't think they were omitted lightly.
Hey, it's your money and your 'utility' whether the iPod or the Zen suits you better.
Hold an iPod, and then hold a Zen, and make your own decision. The iPod isn't winning awards because it's more expensive than the Zen, smaller capacity than the Zen, or uglier than the Zen, it's winning awards and accolades because it's user experience is better (weight, UI, size, integration, usability).
If those things don't matter to you... than they don't matter to you.
They just happen to matter to a lot of the population ^^
I use a neat organising app, here's what it does, and then what it does for me:
Assign keywords and meta data Organize into albums and sorted by roll and date Allow one to easily share albums/photos via CD, email, websites, prints, printer services, and books Create slideshows with music Import photos from a variety of sources (cameras and stuff)
What I use mine for: One click import (plug in and hit import) One click organize (album, date, roll) One click export (album, email) Export to slideshow (good for the sentimental types) Organize by keyword, category, type of photo (assigning keywords and metadata) One click burn to CD
And since it is self organizing, a backup is as simple as copying the folder where all the photos live (or using Rsync to capture differences).
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree, especially with the phrase, "lost cause".
People will spend money on value. Can we both agree on that?
Photoshop costs $600, and for some that's too expensive and for other's it isn't. Specifically, for those where a $600 package can get them an easy $30 an hour, it only takes 5 hours of work to make back the cost, and a day's worth of work to make a profit. At the end of the week, if that $600 package enabled them to do in 3 days what would normally take a week, then it's $600 well spent. That's value, right?
However, here's where we start do disagree I think, those same people will be *equally* served if they warez Photoshop for $0. Spend $0, and still get the work done in three days. Is this what you advocate? If you do, then the people who make Photoshop (Adobe) don't get compensated and eventually can't afford to make a version upgrade that cuts down work by 20%, and both parties lose.
However you do say, "giant profits," as if profit were somehow wrong? Shouldn't profit be commensurate with value? Adobe could charge $100 and it could charge $1,000 for Photoshop, and this will net them different levels of profit, but in any case no one has the *right* to share Adobe's work without Adobe's permission, unless you are also advocating for the cessation of copyright (which is amusing because your own site has the OPLA, which relies on copyright).
Like Martin Luther King did, right?
Break the law because it's wrong, suffer the punishment because it's right, and work to change the system.
It's acceptable to challenge any law you want, but it also means as a responsible individual you also pay the consequences of that law. If everyone breaks the same law, willingly, because the law is wrong, that brings the attention of the lawmakers that the law is wrong, because everyone would be their constituents and voters.
But two X chromosomes is 100% sufficient; witness the female population of any species to see how XX works.
There are no viable YY products of any species that I know of.
I owned Adobe Premiere 5.1c and After Effects 4.0, and if you're comparing Premiere to Final Cut Pro, I feel sorry for you.
Adobe Premiere 5.1c at least was crap. What version are you running now? At the best it compares to Final Cut Express, which is $299 MSRP, and I dunno how much for EDU version.
The question then is how much better or worse Vegas is than Premiere; but from my experience with 5.1c, and the downloaded version of 6.0 demo, vs Final Cut Express 1.0, which is now at v2.0, you've been cheated.
XSan can 'hide' the complexity of RAID, as well as providing management tools and 'intelligent' cascading failure... but that's just from reading the specs, not from actual experience. I hear XSan is based on CVFS? I should look at that too.
Sorry for the goose chase then, I focused on the wrong part of your post :)
I don't think the article is correct regarding disposable cars, but my question and theory is *right*
Q: "What makes you think a break down in Car C is irraparable compared to Car A?"
The article talks about rising component costs; rising tool costs; and rising skillset requirements to do repairs effectively. This won't make cars disposable nor repairs obsolete. This will guarantee that only authorized dealers/repair shops can service the cars.
There is a very valid computer analogy: iMacs and iBooks are extremely difficult to take apart and service without the training and experience an authorized repair shop has.
Like that, then, a modern car would require more exotic skills, tools, and parts to effectively repair, but it wouldn't make it irreparable, and it especially doesn't make older cars better. The article itself talks about the costs associated with airbags and seat belts since those are one use.
And older car *without* airbags, and *without* automatic seat tensioners is so much more unsafe in an accident it's not funny. Try getting rammed by an SUV, or broadsided by a truck, which car would you prefer?
I have my preferences there, and it *also* comes 'free' with better fuel economy, lower emissions, and higher performance.
On my iPod it's
"It sounds good and I can just drag-n-drop tracks or folders onto it and then it uploads the playlist - takes about 5 seconds to make a whole new playlist, and then I can carry around the iPod pretty easily."
Another benefit: Live playlists. Imagine this playlist:
Songs rated 3 or higher
Songs not played in the last 5 days
Songs played less than 10 times
That's the iPod for you
I bet not :)
Some non obvious things about iTunes for example:
Rendezvous music sharing of libraries between iTunes instances (again driven by the database).
Database driven playlists (aka Smart Playlists).
Automatic file organization by ID3 tag.
Live search field (driven by ID3 and database).
Music database (to speed up browsing, playlists, and search).
Synch to iPod (plug and synch, with the database file in *both* directions).
Support of the entire set of Quicktime audio codecs.
The ability to rate songs on a 0-5 scale.
The ability to burn audio or data CDs in a single click.
The ability to rip audio CDs in a single click.
The ability to selectively combine tracks on CDs to rip as a single musical unit.
The automatic normalization of your collection without modifying the MP3/AAC/etc data.
The question isn't the implementation: Databases and networking and encoding are solved problems. It's the design of the entire system to accomplish all this simply and usefully, and which is what Apple has succeeded in with iTunes that (I have not seen so far) no one else has.
Except that Apple paid/bought NeXT, and acquired rights to use NeXTStep. So it isn't a 'pale imitation' but a 'weak descendent' to be precise.
So be fair. Car C has computer control and Car A does not.
Both cost $15k to build. No difference.
Both break down in a freak accident in 5 years. No difference.
What makes you think a break down in Car C is irreparable compared to Car A?
If it's a computer failure... that's simple enough to replace and repair. Nothing mechanical.
If it's a mechanical failure... then Car A will be just as irreparable.
So the end result:
You will spend more in fuel and pollution than in Car C, and with no net difference in production, no net difference in failure, and no net difference in disposal.
So yes, the answer has to be "The increased efficiency can counter-balance the environmental impacts of ZERO to build the car, disposing of it and building a new one."
Why is that sad? Don't you like your cheap sneakers and cheap silverware?
This is just a logical extension of offshoring to cut costs.
Projects have budgets too, you know. 10 days and XXX dollars. If you can't finish in 10 days, and your contract penalizes you, then what? And how about bonuses if you finish early?
Your sig is ironic.
:)
So your whole point is that your 64b Athlon computer is only good for games?
How about XSan? Motion? FCP? FCP HD? DVD SP? Shake? Logic? BLAST?
You forget that some people actually make money with their machines.
You also forget that for some people, especially those that earn something in the $40 to $50 an higher an hour range, time is money. Linux, BSD, and Windows is too expensive, and strangely enough, Macs, with their plug and play nature, are cheaper. Literally, if it takes me one day to set up something in Linux, and 10 minutes on my Mac, that's the difference between $500 spent/wasted and $10 spent. Over the course of a month, then, a Mac will have paid itself off.
Especially when you're talking about a $1,400 iBook. Make a DVD? Insert a disk, arrange the menus, and hit burn. 20 minutes later you're done. Make a movie? Plug in the camcorder, import video, arrange the video, and 30 minutes later you're done. Send the DVD off for replication, make 500 copies, and start on your next project.
They drop prices all the time. You just never noticed. You know the eMac dropped in price, right? And a couple bumps ago, the PowerBooks too.
After a year's time, what is the difference between a price drop or a feature increase?
Right. Except the Pioneer does work in a Mac; not perfectly, granted, but I don't see how this is proof of Apple's control.
And about the colored plastics: They were colored to match Mac colors. Tangerine, grape, blueberry, strawberry, ruby, etc. That isn't a coincidence, and while nothing to do with USB, has everything to do with USB manufacturer's priming the devices for sale with Macs. I can't imagine you can deny that: Color and form designed to mimic the Mac shows exactly the correlation between USB peripherals and the Mac. I don't mean to say it's cause and effect, but there is definitely correlation there.
How do you explain the blueberry translucent USB devices then?
This re: Apple's very small market share and how many USB device vendors don't concern themselves with working with Macs?
As per the OEM version of the DVDR (I've not tried it, but have read about it) they work *fine* thank you very much. DVDs burn wonderfully.
Their only problem is the computer doesn't recognize it as capable of being put to sleep. Change the firmware ID string and then it can be put to sleep properly.
I would suggest the Mac paradigm of usability is less user hostile than Microsoft's
What is implied from listing the massive companies is that Linux usability is only a marketing campaign and a couple dumbed down wizards away. It isn't, sadly, as no Linux organization can match AOL or MS in terms of marketing warchest.
To put it more simply, Apple doesn't have a Linux business plan, that's all. No conspiracy, no idiocy, no MS-like behaviors.
Apple isn't a conscious being; someone has to make the plans and training and data to be transmitted all the way down to the sales people.
Which iPod to sell to Linux users?
Which software to use? Would it be bundled with the iPod? Would it include source? Would it include a linux distro on a disk?
What are the requirements? What libraries? What toolkits? What scripting languages? What interpreters? What hardware platforms?
Then there's iTunes! How about song management? File management? All the same questions as the above. And then there's support software. Rendezvous, for streaming and networking. Firewire for synching and powering.
Finally iTMS: How would authentication work out?
Apple has to have all of these things in place before it can sell the iPod and iTunes and iTMS to Linux users. They need the support center info, support structure, and training.
Will it pan out? I mean, this is exactly the reason why games have a hard time being ported to the Mac platform. Most companies don't have the resources to pull it off (much less for Linux).
Just like all million iPods Apple has sold, Firewire is *clearly* a dead technology.
Haha, FUD? DVD-R is still cheaper per GB at $0.20. $37 of DVD-R media is 150gb or so of data, and it's still (probably) faster than tape.
You forgot three things:
Apple needs to interface with the iPod.
Apple has it's pride in design and usability.
Profit (tied tightly to the iPod of course)
You attribute to malice and stupidity when there is real, technical, reason. Apple's key to making money is ease of use, high design, and quality, and if it can't do that, why is it Apple? If it is none of those things, then you might as well have a third party reverse engineer and develop the software to browse, buy, manage, play, and synch music files... notably which has happened with regards to:
Quicktime
iTMS
iPod
AAC/iTunes
So whether they are right or wrong, I doubt it was a gut anti-Linux move so much as a simple return on investment calculation. Simply put, without lifting a finger Apple has accomplished all of the goals by relying on the characteristic DIY nature of the Linux and OSS movements.
Your bias works against you; unless you don't believe in thinking intelligently and instead suppose we should always turn first towards our biases and second to external evidence?
Uh, how difficult? You wouldn't believe the answer if you can't imagine it in the first place.
A straight Linux port would require:
Quicktime
Carbon/MacOS ToolKit
And Quicktime would require a working audio subsystem, a working video subsystem, as well as their networking, 2d, and maybe even 3d stack, if you do a full Quicktime port.
And if you ask "Why Quicktime?" the answer would have to be, "Why would Apple port iTunes without Quicktime?"
I don't know why Quicktime doesn't work on 98/ME, but I don't think they were omitted lightly.
Hey, it's your money and your 'utility' whether the iPod or the Zen suits you better.
Hold an iPod, and then hold a Zen, and make your own decision. The iPod isn't winning awards because it's more expensive than the Zen, smaller capacity than the Zen, or uglier than the Zen, it's winning awards and accolades because it's user experience is better (weight, UI, size, integration, usability).
If those things don't matter to you... than they don't matter to you.
They just happen to matter to a lot of the population ^^
I use a neat organising app, here's what it does, and then what it does for me:
Assign keywords and meta data
Organize into albums and sorted by roll and date
Allow one to easily share albums/photos via CD, email, websites, prints, printer services, and books
Create slideshows with music
Import photos from a variety of sources (cameras and stuff)
What I use mine for:
One click import (plug in and hit import)
One click organize (album, date, roll)
One click export (album, email)
Export to slideshow (good for the sentimental types)
Organize by keyword, category, type of photo (assigning keywords and metadata)
One click burn to CD
And since it is self organizing, a backup is as simple as copying the folder where all the photos live (or using Rsync to capture differences).
Most file and web browsers can't do that.