"Typically, companies with high R&D charge more for their stuff. MS is a pure software development company and as such has lots of R&D. iPad may be lots of R&D and iPhone to, but selling commodity hardware at exuberant costs with no benefit other than it runs a custom UI on top of BSD?"
So you don't think it costs money to develop two separate OS's? Design custom chips? Manufacturing techniques? Do you realize how much of the MacOS/iOS is not BSD? Actually, it's an Apple (Next) developed microkernal with a BSD userland and on top of that Apple's own frameworks. The Gui framework, the media framework, the iO framework, etc. are all built by Apple.
So what is "commodity" about the iPad and iPhone and if they are commodity hardware, then why have PC makers still not been able to produce a tablet with the specs of the iPad at comparable prices.
"Profit Margins" are the difference between price and cost of goods sold. So if MS's margins are higher that means it's "overcharging" more.
"They have no reason to price gouge on their PC hardware. Really, an Apple computer is just a status symbol, you can afford the ridiculous extra cost."
I keep forgetting that OS development doesn't cost anything.
"Well, I did find a decent amount of i5 notebooks for very close to 1/2 the price of the Macbook core duos. Pretty sure the i5(32nm+core parking) has a decent lead on the duos(45nm) for power savings."
Okay, so it shouldn't be that hard to find a laptop that can match the battery life of the MacBook.... So where is it --- handwaving aside?
"Are you implying that a bunch of people with PHDs and experimental hardware doing pure research and communicating their findings to other experts haven't contributed anything?"
You made the claim. Show one real world example of how MS R&D has helped the industry. Xerox Parc in the early days was famous for not being able to productize their research. You remember all of the money that MS spends on grand OS ideas that always get cut from their released products?
Because we all know spending millions to develop an OS and claiming it's free to copy it is a great business strategy. [sarcasm]Hey, it only cost us 200mil to make this, but because it's digital means it should be free![/sarcasm]
So it's okay for MS to have large profit margins but not Apple? Besides, I thought the "Free Software Mantra" was that MS should give the software away and sell support?
Some of MS's R&D is not to just make their OS better, but to make the PC platform better for all OSes. The changes MS wants to have happen will give Linux/BSD/etc the same advantages. We're talking about a completely new way CPU cores will communicate. MS is the one that is dumping money into research on what's good/bad from an operating system standpoint and giving feed back to Intel/AMD, so they can refine their chips.
So how much has all of the R&D money that MS spent actually benefited the users? Or even Windows?
no, I can't build a laptop, but I can buy one for 1/2 the price from nearly anyone else and it would also be faster and have better battery life.
Find one laptop that is equivalent to a Macbook and has better battery life for half the price.
But my political opinion on AppStores is not relevant to the legality of VLC on those AppStores. And guess what, nor is FSF political opinion!
I really dislike when people use VLC to advance their _own_ political agenda. And that is true when it is Apple, Microsoft, Google or the FSF. There is a minimum of politeness that is essential and that was not respected... And I HATE bullshitors...
I really like RMS past work and actions, but I don't like how the FSF is using the situation here.
I also strongly believe that the freedom is to open VLC on as many platforms as possible.
And as VideoLAN does not force copyright assignments, I believe VLC is more open that many FSF/GNU projects...
Finally, and more importantly, if there is any actual legal issue regarding VLC and one AppStore term, it should be removed from this AppStore.
Oh, and btw, I do not thank people who force me to write such posts, when I have better to do, like working on Blu-Ray playback... Oh, and btw, the next person that says it is obvious and simple, I will force them to compile VLC+Contribs for Win32 3 times......
And guess what, the AppStore terms have changed!
Try to grep "Products contain security technology" and "in addition to any other" on the above document. If you don't know how to grep, try "man grep" and "man curl"
Maybe the FSF statements made Apple change the ToS, maybe Rémi's complaint, maybe... $(put whatever you want here).
Well, yesterday I saw an article on how Apple now has a higher total revenue than Microsoft, but much smaller profits. I guess that's the big con of being a hardware-selling company...
AAPL Net Income last quarter $4.308 billion MSFT Net Income last quarter $5.4 Billion
A 20% difference is not what I would call "much smaller".
I'm assuming Apple has a lot of user-interface R&D, but MS has R&D for nearly every facet of computing, not to mention that Apple makes most of it's profits from price gouging on hardware.
So how much do you think it costs MS to sell a software license? The marginal cost of a software license is essentially 0.
Last I heard, Microsoft was playing around with a 128core CPUs and also got an experimental computer that had fiber interconnects instead of copper traces for high IO. Using all this research to create new ways to scale into the future and also giving useful feedback to hardware vendors on what does and doesn't work. Think Apple does this kind of R&D, or do they just use BSD and just worry about the UI?
There is no evidence that there is such a thing as a "natural monopoly". The "natural monopoly" theory was popularized to justify the government creating the AT&T telephone monopoly back in the beginning of the 20th Century. The government wanted a telephone monopoly because a monopoly is easier for the government to control than a host of competitors.
really want 10 companies having the right of way to lay infrastructure for power, gas, cable, phone lines, etc......
After all, if Microsoft wins this one, what's to stop them from contriving other overly-broad patents against Apple's iPhone at the first convenient moment?
One of the first things that Steve Jobs did when he came back as Apple's CEO is signed a cross licensing deal with Microsoft. They basically can't sue each other for any patents.
I had a cite but then realized it was from RoughlyDrafted so I didn't bother.....
UNIX compliance is decided by the Open Group. Posix compliance is an IEEE standard. Windows can have a POSIX layer without being POSIX compliance and Posix compliance doesn't imply UNIX(tm) compliance.
I'm not making a decision here, it's obvious, it is not UNIX and it's no more based on UNIX than Windows is, they both hold certifications and they both contain UNIX code, which doesn't happen to be even close to the majority of code in either.
There is no such thing as "being based on UNIX" and the amount of code that comes from Unix doesn't matter. UNIX is a specification and a trademark. If it meets their specification and the Open Group says that it is UNIX then it is. It doesn't matter what else Apple puts on top of it.
If a program meets all of the requirements of RFC959 it is an FTP program. It doesn't matter if the code was written in QBasic.
hey disagree with me that the "XNU" kernel stands for "X is Not Unix"? I doubt that
NeXTStep was created in the 80's. The first version of OS X that received UNIX(tm) certification was 10.5:
"Mac OS X Server is built on a fully compliant UNIX foundation. This battle-tested core provides the stability, performance, and security that organizations require. And full UNIX conformance ensures compatibility with existing server and application software."
As far as the fork without exec. Are you sure that's not a POSIX requirement?
Now here is the kicker. Windows' POSIX subsystem actually does this correctly, has UNIX certification too. OS X amusingly is lesser of a UNIX than Windows is and I don't particularly consider Windows to be a UNIX either and look how much of being a "UNIX" apparently protected Windows, right?
Well you don't get to decide what is and is not Unix(tm). The Open Group does. Has the Open Group certified Windows as being Unix(tm)?
"Apple has paid $1 billion to developers." - is a half truth. That's maybe why the editor of the article put in the full sentence:
So what did Apple say -- not an editors interpretation.
Apple said one simple phrase -- "$1 Billion paid to developers". If my company claimed that they paid me $100,000 that means they paid me that much after taking their cut from my billable hours, not before.
It is clear that the $1B is referring to the money users paid for the apps. Apple says that they paid it b/c it is given to Apple and then immediately forwarded to the developers.
So exactly which part of the big slide in the background that says "$1 Billion paid to developers!!!!" don't you understand? Nowhere on the slide is there a little asterisk that says (after Apple takes it's 30% cut).
It's only five words and $1 in the whole sentence. I didn't post a third party interpretation. I posted a picture of the slide that Apple used in the WWDC.
USERS paid developers over $1 billion, and Apple snatched over $300,000. Saying Apple has paid $1 billion to developers is like saying VISA has paid companies $1 zillion dollars. Nice try, Steve Jobs!
Reading is fundamental. Apple clearly stated they paid $1 Billion to developers not that users paid them $1 Billion. It's in big letters and everything!
. This last reason says it all, Apple is unable to compete with other manufacturers so they are suing them to prevent anyone else from getting a competitive advantage and ultimately its a losing battle as 1.
So hasn't Slashdot been waiting on iPod Killers for a decade now?
If you've marketed a product, it needs to meet a release date. With Apple you cant control things like that, they have obscure rules, bad days and a myriad of other strange reasons why your application can be rejected, if you're going to put money into development, you at least want some assurance about release. But right now, money is starting to head towards Android because Android is selling 200,000 units a day and 75% of iphone4 owners had Iphone 3G/S's.
Considering that Flash runs passably (not great, but not horridly) on Android devices (which run on the same cores as iOS devices), I'm having a hard time buying this argument.
That will sure make a great ad. Buy a new iPhone! Flash runs passably but not great
"The iPhone developed the way a lot of cool things do: with a notion. A few years ago Jobs noticed how many development dollars were being spent--particularly in the greater Seattle metropolitan area--on what are called tablet PCs: flat, portable computers that work with a touchscreen instead of a mouse and keyboard. Jobs, being Jobs, figured he could do better, so he had Apple engineers noodle around with a better touchscreen. When they showed him the screen they came up with, he got excited. So excited that he thought he had the beginnings of a new product.
Slashdot Mirror
And then all you have to do is fool your phone into thinking that it has a port of Silverlight installed.....
"Typically, companies with high R&D charge more for their stuff. MS is a pure software development company and as such has lots of R&D. iPad may be lots of R&D and iPhone to, but selling commodity hardware at exuberant costs with no benefit other than it runs a custom UI on top of BSD?"
So you don't think it costs money to develop two separate OS's? Design custom chips? Manufacturing techniques? Do you realize how much of the MacOS/iOS is not BSD? Actually, it's an Apple (Next) developed microkernal with a BSD userland and on top of that Apple's own frameworks. The Gui framework, the media framework, the iO framework, etc. are all built by Apple.
So what is "commodity" about the iPad and iPhone and if they are commodity hardware, then why have PC makers still not been able to produce a tablet with the specs of the iPad at comparable prices.
"Profit Margins" are the difference between price and cost of goods sold. So if MS's margins are higher that means it's "overcharging" more.
"They have no reason to price gouge on their PC hardware. Really, an Apple computer is just a status symbol, you can afford the ridiculous extra cost."
I keep forgetting that OS development doesn't cost anything.
"Well, I did find a decent amount of i5 notebooks for very close to 1/2 the price of the Macbook core duos. Pretty sure the i5(32nm+core parking) has a decent lead on the duos(45nm) for power savings."
Okay, so it shouldn't be that hard to find a laptop that can match the battery life of the MacBook.... So where is it --- handwaving aside?
"Are you implying that a bunch of people with PHDs and experimental hardware doing pure research and communicating their findings to other experts haven't contributed anything?"
You made the claim. Show one real world example of how MS R&D has helped the industry. Xerox Parc in the early days was famous for not being able to productize their research. You remember all of the money that MS spends on grand OS ideas that always get cut from their released products?
So it's okay for MS to have large profit margins but not Apple? Besides, I thought the "Free Software Mantra" was that MS should give the software away and sell support?
So how much has all of the R&D money that MS spent actually benefited the users? Or even Windows?
Find one laptop that is equivalent to a Macbook and has better battery life for half the price.
http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/077457.html
Apple's fiscal year ends in September. Last quarter was Apple's fiscal fourth quarter, not their third quarter.
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AAPL&fstype=ii
Microsoft just released their latest quarterly results. Google Finance hasn't updated MSFT's earnings yet.
AAPL Net Income last quarter $4.308 billion
MSFT Net Income last quarter $5.4 Billion
A 20% difference is not what I would call "much smaller".
So how much do you think it costs MS to sell a software license? The marginal cost of a software license is essentially 0.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL
"Real artists ship"
http://blogs.computerworld.com/apple_buys_p_a_semi
70%+ of computer users are buying laptops. You can build laptops?
http://gigaom.com/2010/08/17/apple-snags-48-of-mobile-profit-pie/
MSFT FY 2010 -18,760 Billion
AAPL FY 2010 - 14,031 Billion
from finance.google.com
Enough said.
Do I really need to quote finance.google.com for the quarter before that to also show you that MS's profits weren't twice as high?
Apple's profits last quarter - 4.308 Billion
MS profits last quarrer - 4.518 Billion
From finance.google.com
As Ron Gilbert just put it
"For you Apple apologists claiming Apple will never lock down the Mac, step one is in place and you all let it happen."
And we all know that there is no difference between a phone and a computer and that Apple treats the Mac just like the iPhone.
How did the parent post get marked insightful?
So because Apple has an app store that means that they will lock down the Mac? Based on what?
really want 10 companies having the right of way to lay infrastructure for power, gas, cable, phone lines, etc......
One of the first things that Steve Jobs did when he came back as Apple's CEO is signed a cross licensing deal with Microsoft. They basically can't sue each other for any patents.
I had a cite but then realized it was from RoughlyDrafted so I didn't bother.....
UNIX compliance is decided by the Open Group. Posix compliance is an IEEE standard. Windows can have a POSIX layer without being POSIX compliance and Posix compliance doesn't imply UNIX(tm) compliance.
There is no such thing as "being based on UNIX" and the amount of code that comes from Unix doesn't matter. UNIX is a specification and a trademark. If it meets their specification and the Open Group says that it is UNIX then it is. It doesn't matter what else Apple puts on top of it.
If a program meets all of the requirements of RFC959 it is an FTP program. It doesn't matter if the code was written in QBasic.
NeXTStep was created in the 80's. The first version of OS X that received UNIX(tm) certification was 10.5:
And yes Apple would disagree with you:
http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/technology/unix.html
"Mac OS X Server is built on a fully compliant UNIX foundation. This battle-tested core provides the stability, performance, and security that organizations require. And full UNIX conformance ensures compatibility with existing server and application software."
As far as the fork without exec. Are you sure that's not a POSIX requirement?
Well you don't get to decide what is and is not Unix(tm). The Open Group does. Has the Open Group certified Windows as being Unix(tm)?
The Open Group, you know the people who certify a system as Unix, disagrees with you.....
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2007/08/mac-os-x-leopard-receives-unix-03-certification.ars
So what did Apple say -- not an editors interpretation.
Apple said one simple phrase -- "$1 Billion paid to developers". If my company claimed that they paid me $100,000 that means they paid me that much after taking their cut from my billable hours, not before.
So exactly which part of the big slide in the background that says "$1 Billion paid to developers!!!!" don't you understand? Nowhere on the slide is there a little asterisk that says (after Apple takes it's 30% cut).
It's only five words and $1 in the whole sentence. I didn't post a third party interpretation. I posted a picture of the slide that Apple used in the WWDC.
Reading is fundamental. Apple clearly stated they paid $1 Billion to developers not that users paid them $1 Billion. It's in big letters and everything!
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20007010-260.html
"Paid to Developers!!!!!!"
So hasn't Slashdot been waiting on iPod Killers for a decade now?
Android app store is 2% of Apple's:
http://larvalabs.com/blog/android/android-market-payouts-total-2-of-app-stores-1b/
Half of iPhone users buy at least one app per month. Only 21% of Android users
http://www.fiercemobilecontent.com/story/admob-half-iphone-users-buy-paid-apps-every-month/2010-02-25
That will sure make a great ad. Buy a new iPhone! Flash runs passably but not great
From the article.
"The iPhone developed the way a lot of cool things do: with a notion. A few years ago Jobs noticed how many development dollars were being spent--particularly in the greater Seattle metropolitan area--on what are called tablet PCs: flat, portable computers that work with a touchscreen instead of a mouse and keyboard. Jobs, being Jobs, figured he could do better, so he had Apple engineers noodle around with a better touchscreen. When they showed him the screen they came up with, he got excited. So excited that he thought he had the beginnings of a new product.