Discrete graphics is going away, they seem to be leaning increasingly towards the HPC market but that is tiny compared to the consumer graphics market that their company was built on. I just don't see it. Anyone?
but I would be shocked if there wasn't a technical reason for Apple limiting compatibility with older chargers or speakers. I know that in at least one case the reason they broke compatibility was because when they transitioned from iPod -> iPhone there was some noise issues that would have compromised the use of the phone while attached to an older charger or speaker. Another time there was some issue when they started exporting video over that connector, presumably another noise thing.
Apple could change the connector every generation if they wanted to, and they don't. They pushed for DRM-free music and they continue pushing for DRM-free movies/TV--there are so many things they could do to create artificial lockin but in nearly all cases their focus is on making a better device that people want to buy rather than tricking them into buying something.
I'm sure there's a little fiscal gamesmanship here and there; but generally less so than other companies as near as I can tell.
Making something easy to jailbreak implies that non-technical people will do it, knowlingly or not ("Re: Re: RE: Hey, try this out!"). That leads to malware/viruses/buggy software being run on Apple devices which leads those non-technical people to blame Apple, not themselves, and value their Apple device less.
Similarly, from Apple's perspective, for marketing purposes they would rather be known as the device which is simple & safe for nontechnical users--and even a small fraction of jailbroken Apple devices can serve to tarnish that reputation.
How about a car analogy? what if there was a button to manually deploy the airbag on the dash of a new car. Anyone who doesn't want to push it doesn't have to; we've only added a degree of freedom here, so how could that possibly subtract value. Who's going to buy that car?
for not sharing their DRM protocol. The short story is that they were obligated via contract with the record companies to prevent unauthorized breaking or cracking of their protocol (or to roll out fixes quickly in the case of breakage). All DRM security is based on some secrets; secrets they would have to divulge to the third parties for them to implement their protocol. Apple didn't feel like they could meet their contractual obligations if they let a dozen different vendors have access to those secrets.
A far better approach would be to drop DRM entirely (which is what they said at the time)--and that's exactly what Apple was eventually successful in convincing the record companies to do. Why would they have done that if they were so desperate to preserve the lockin from having proprietary DRM?
In case you haven't noticed, Apple isn't still doing pretty well with the music thing even though they've been DRM-free for several years now--that kinda shoots the whole 'lockin' argument down, doesn't it?
That's the point I was trying to make. There are all these crazy conspiracy theories about how Apple is using Siri to listen in to all your conversations and thus somehow rule the world--but the same people never fabricate those kinds of conspiracies around all the snooping that Google does.
that you have to preface your post with a disclaimer about the intensity of your dislike for a major corporation that doesn't know you exist? It speaks to something very sad about this community when you have pledge your intifada-like hatred for Apple as the intro to any post which is even tangentially related to Apple.
It would save time if you could just use a quick arm gesture and short phrase to make your allegiance clear. Maybe just shoot out your right arm straight at a 45 degree angle above the shoulder and say, "Heil, Google"--something like that.
The unfaltering adolation of the smug technorati has destroyed any sense of shame or social awareness Stallman ever had; what's left is a barely functional self-absorbed idealogue.
Slashdot Mirror
Discrete graphics is going away, they seem to be leaning increasingly towards the HPC market but that is tiny compared to the consumer graphics market that their company was built on. I just don't see it. Anyone?
but I would be shocked if there wasn't a technical reason for Apple limiting compatibility with older chargers or speakers. I know that in at least one case the reason they broke compatibility was because when they transitioned from iPod -> iPhone there was some noise issues that would have compromised the use of the phone while attached to an older charger or speaker. Another time there was some issue when they started exporting video over that connector, presumably another noise thing.
Apple could change the connector every generation if they wanted to, and they don't. They pushed for DRM-free music and they continue pushing for DRM-free movies/TV--there are so many things they could do to create artificial lockin but in nearly all cases their focus is on making a better device that people want to buy rather than tricking them into buying something.
I'm sure there's a little fiscal gamesmanship here and there; but generally less so than other companies as near as I can tell.
Making something easy to jailbreak implies that non-technical people will do it, knowlingly or not ("Re: Re: RE: Hey, try this out!"). That leads to malware/viruses/buggy software being run on Apple devices which leads those non-technical people to blame Apple, not themselves, and value their Apple device less.
Similarly, from Apple's perspective, for marketing purposes they would rather be known as the device which is simple & safe for nontechnical users--and even a small fraction of jailbroken Apple devices can serve to tarnish that reputation.
How about a car analogy? what if there was a button to manually deploy the airbag on the dash of a new car. Anyone who doesn't want to push it doesn't have to; we've only added a degree of freedom here, so how could that possibly subtract value. Who's going to buy that car?
forgiven for not remembering the Newton.
and I don't see this printing press thing working out, either.
that's why they are losing so much money lately.
You could surf the web while talking on the phone or listening to music.
What if you decided to become one later? We've got our eyes on you.
Denying it just makes you look more guilty.
for not sharing their DRM protocol. The short story is that they were obligated via contract with the record companies to prevent unauthorized breaking or cracking of their protocol (or to roll out fixes quickly in the case of breakage). All DRM security is based on some secrets; secrets they would have to divulge to the third parties for them to implement their protocol. Apple didn't feel like they could meet their contractual obligations if they let a dozen different vendors have access to those secrets.
A far better approach would be to drop DRM entirely (which is what they said at the time)--and that's exactly what Apple was eventually successful in convincing the record companies to do. Why would they have done that if they were so desperate to preserve the lockin from having proprietary DRM?
In case you haven't noticed, Apple isn't still doing pretty well with the music thing even though they've been DRM-free for several years now--that kinda shoots the whole 'lockin' argument down, doesn't it?
in the USA by union labor.
I've ever heard of. Swapping out gigantic car batteries as the method of recharge?
That's just so wildly impractical. Why does that idea continue to hang around?
Apple makes money selling hardware. Google makes money selling you.
standard is ruthlessly cut down in its prime by an evil corporation pushing open standards.
what Apple does?
That's the point I was trying to make. There are all these crazy conspiracy theories about how Apple is using Siri to listen in to all your conversations and thus somehow rule the world--but the same people never fabricate those kinds of conspiracies around all the snooping that Google does.
Why would they need to "grasp at straws"? they are dominating the market.
Two big corporations both mining data.
One of them is doing it so they can better target ads at you.
The other is doing it so they can make a product you will like better.
Yet somehow, Google wins?
Lame.
I get all my predictions about Apple's impending failure from Slashdot.
You know what I haven't done in a while, check Apple's market cap--they must be near death by now. Let's just take a quick look.
I buy more Apple stock.
Apple is cutting out middlemen. That's technology and progress.
You don't see many milkmen around anymore, do you?
Develop for Android, for example.
Apple isn't the reason you are a failure.
brick and mortar resellers charge far more than 30%.
nt
that you have to preface your post with a disclaimer about the intensity of your dislike for a major corporation that doesn't know you exist? It speaks to something very sad about this community when you have pledge your intifada-like hatred for Apple as the intro to any post which is even tangentially related to Apple.
It would save time if you could just use a quick arm gesture and short phrase to make your allegiance clear. Maybe just shoot out your right arm straight at a 45 degree angle above the shoulder and say, "Heil, Google"--something like that.
The unfaltering adolation of the smug technorati has destroyed any sense of shame or social awareness Stallman ever had; what's left is a barely functional self-absorbed idealogue.
Apple is doomed.