Mmm... one nice thing about the UK's way of doing things is that the media embargoes results and exit polls until after the last poll has closed. I'm not sure whether this is a voluntary thing by the media, or whether it's a legal embargo, but it's really in everyone's interests.
Of course, this is much easier to do with only one time zone, as all the polls open and then close at the same time.
Agreed, although I'd point out that it's usually done before the civil servants get into work the next day!
For the foreign-types here, the UK system goes something like this (for a General Election, which decides the Prime Minister, all the MPs, etc.):
Polls open in the morning, usually on a Thursday.
Polls close at 10pm countrywide.
Seconds later, the media start announcing what their exit polls say: that way, the exit polls don't affect the result.
Votes start getting counted by hand immediately.
The first results are announced by 11pm.
Enough results for the winner to declare victory are usually in by 3 or 4am.
Rather than hanging outside with a transition team for a few months waiting for inauguration, the new guy (if there is one) becomes Prime Minister, moves into 10 Downing Street and starts work the next day.
Fast enough? It's a slick, quick, accurate, well-practised procedure compared to the total chaos, corruption and confusion that is Election Day in the US.
Okay, there are far fewer boxes on the UK form, as the posts of assistant dog catcher, etc. aren't directly elected. Even so, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with a paper system. Oh, and no incomplete arrows, butterfly ballots, instructions, etc. A bunch of names with boxes. Put an "X" in the box next to the guy you want.
I personally wouldn't have a problem with an optical scanner being used with hand recounts done only if the result is within the margin of error. Follow up with a leisurely hand count for statistical purposes at a later date. A hand count isn't going to take *that* long if it's resourced correctly, and accuracy is worth the wait. In the case of the UK it would just mean we'd have to wait until after the weekend to find out who's taking us to war.
I also voted in Riverside County, CA last time around, and the ballot I was posted was pretty straightforward: well laid out, well described, simple to follow. Fill the little box next to the one you want. Saying that, I've got no proof it was ever counted, not that my vote would have made any difference in Riverside.
Sony seem to be attempting to work out "the right formula" with the PSP and the range of UMD movies. I can't say I know a lot about this, as I don't have a PSP, but it would be interesting to see the long-term viability of UMD-based movies.
Of course, the PSP platform has a lot of deficiencies that a video iPod would presumably correct. Primarily:
The perception that the PSP is a games platform. Of course it's true, but my elderly mother has an iPod, but I can't see her buying a handheld games console.
Lack of downloadable movies (at fullscreen quality). The "Apple iFlicks Movie Store" or whatever it's called would be pivotal in getting such a device going. Looking at the rumour sites and the opening of iTunes 5 resource files, this might be already happening.
However, the iPod originally wasn't particularly innovative ("Lame.") but it got the formula right. So, the video iPod could still change the whole market merely by getting the formula right this time.
I heard Lord Litchfield on the Today programme a few months ago talking about digital cameras, and the fact that he hasn't used film in *years*. It was a pretty interesting interview. Of course, there are some reasons to still use film: very large blowups, interesting effects, etc., but he was saying that for almost all jobbing professional photography, digital is best. *shrug* All an opinion, but a pretty weighty one.
[Incidentally, it might not have been Lord Litchfield, he might not have been talking about digital cameras, and I might have misheard pretty much everything he said. The Today programme is the radio show that wakes me up in the morning, and so I'm not exactly firing on all cylinders at that time... I think I got the gist of it, though]
It also works with Reuleaux polygons, such as the British 50p which was designed that way for the sake of slot machines.
I'm no mathematician, but since there are an infinite number of Reuleaux polygons (just by increasing the number of sides), that would show that there are an infinite number of shapes that could be used as such.
IIRC, this was specifically to get round UK import tax, with a computer being taxed less than a toy. I think the response was roughly, "Scyeah, right." so I guess they gave up.
Agreed. This just a couple of weeks after Intel's CEO recommends buying a Mac if you want "safety from security woes". In hindsight, that was a whopping hint.
I have a "disconnected" (ie. unsubscribed) BT line in my rented flat in Central London. I don't really want or need a telephone service, as I use my mobile exclusively. However, I do want the Bulldog 8 Mb/s service. To provide a broadband service, Bulldog have to take over the line completely, connect it to their equipment at the exchange and also supply me with a traditional PSTN voice service.
To do this, Bulldog tell me that I need to reconnect and subscribe to BT (for a few hundred pounds) just so it can then be _unsubscribed_ and transferred to Bulldog.
OR, Bulldog can install a new line independent of the existing wiring, which will involve cables going everywhere, and hassles with my landlord and probably the freeholder of the building.
In other words, Bulldog can't reactivate a previously BT line. This is no criticism of Bulldog (although I have a whole bunch of those too, mainly as a result of having a SDSL service with them at work last year). In fact, the Bulldog sales guy mentioned that they are trying to get OFCOM to change this situation.
Oh, and don't suggest going to BT for the broadband service. I made that mistake at my last place!
BT could, if they were nice, just free the line for Bulldog to reconnect: it's probably just one menu option on their system. However, they're holding it hostage just because they can.
The other problem is that when dealing with this, BT acts like a lot of little companies (eg. BT Wholesale, BT Broadband, BT Residential, etc) which slows everything down. In fact, last time we had a line fitted at work (a leased line), three different BT vans turned up at the same time, from different departments.
So, sod it. Instead I rigged up a firmware-hacked, power-output-boosted, parabolic-dished wireless link to my office, blasting a reasonably good 2 Mb/s through my neighbour's bedroom at waist height. I don't think he's noticed yet, or tried to reproduce.
The UK Apple Store includes 17.5% tax, but the US one doesn't. Still not a great exchange rate, but not as bad as it sounds. It should be more like £810 (incl. VAT)
Microsoft pulls out of Europe, but keeps all localisation in the normal products. Ditch the country-specific sites, support, etc.
A few new "independent" companies are set up (perhaps by the wives of the Microsoft directors!), and each buys (in US$) shared exclusive rights to sell all Microsoft products in the EU. They also resell Microsoft support services. Ex-Microsoft EU employees will be "uniquely qualified" to work for these new companies.
Large PC manufacturers negotiate directly with Microsoft in the US.
...
Profit!
That way, Microsoft aren't doing business in the EU, and there's no single monopoly, but a loosely-organised cartel. Microsoft lose out on some profit as a result of middle-men, but it's probably less than the fine and any future sanctions.
IANAL and I really haven't much of a clue about this kind of thing so I don't know if the above scheme would work, but I'm sure there are a lot of ways around this problem if Microsoft would be willing to concede a little bit. I doubt it would work forever, but Microsoft could almost certainly stay one step ahead.
That's not a "responsibility" or an "obligation". It is, however, an incentive, and should be quite a strong one at that.
Nowadays, I purchase equipment based more on its compatibility with FreeBSD (and occasionally OpenBSD) than any other factor (incl. performance and price), as that's what it's going to be used with.
As far as responsibility or obligation is concerned, Adaptec's got none to the Open Source community, unless you can consider it a direct failure of its responsibility to its shareholders. Just because Open Source is "fighting the good fight", doesn't mean anyone owes us anything.
...apart from the fact that A.Gs don't make rulings: judges do. The A.G. is merely advising the Supreme Court not to go there.
As far as I'm concerned, the article title was fine, although I already knew what the case verdict was. In any case, if readers can't even read to the end of the _sentence_, then there's not much more that can be done.
Admittedly, "Dutch A.G. Supports Verdict of Scientology v. Spaink Case" might be a slightly better alternative.
I was thinking about the simple -v- advanced user problem back when they launched the idioty no-button lozenge years ago.
I'm sure they could design it so the one button is actually a removable cover over two (or more) buttons, and then just not point it out to newbies. Advanced users would just unclip the cover as they take the mac out of the box, revealing all the extra buttons.
Have you ever seen a two-headed system, 25+ apps running (with multiple windows and palettes in each) thrown into Expose mode? It's totally useless.
Yeah... my desktop, most of every working day. I usually have at least Photoshop, one or two Emacs windows, 10-15 Terminal windows, OmniGraffle, a few Safaris, iTunes, and a bunch of Finder windows open. Before Expose, most of these would be minimized, and a lot of time wasted hunting for the correct window to open. Now, I just use the thumb buttons on my Logitech MX700, or F9/F11 and keys if I've got my hands on the keyboard.
I guess Expose is one of those things you like or hate. *shrug*
One area I do wish Apple would sort out are the keyboard shortcuts for navigation. Apple-Left/Right for switching between Terminals is nice, but having to resort to Apple-~ -- not a natural chord for me -- for everything else. Shift-Apple-Left/Right for Safari tabs would be better placed on Apple-Left/Right too. Apple-M for Minimize is handy, but a corresponding shortcut for maximize/zoom would be nice too. I like to keep my Mac nice and clean and standard, so 3rd-party fixes aren't ideal.
Saying that, with their control on hardware being what it is, I'd like to see dedicated Expose buttons on Mac laptops and keyboards: ideally small but accessible ones near the trackpad for the laptops. iTunes controls would be good too... extra points for an iPod wheel as part of the keyboard or laptop... especially if it could be reconfigured for other purposes (scrolling, scrubbing, etc).
Yeah.. I would imagine that with the (relatively) high level of abstraction in OS X (Cocoa message passing, Quartz, etc.) would be pretty straightforward to networkize.
As a massive stab in the dark, would that be a big enough deal to constitute "Mac OS XI"? Considering the changes from 10.0 to 10.4 so far, the change to 11 will have to be a whopping great paradigm-shift, or a marketing-driven cop-out.
Would they go as far as a Cocoa-based distributed application architecture to build effectively clustered desktop machines? I could imagine OS XI applications hosted by the "network", ie. a gestalt operating environment formed from the collected resources of all participating desktops and servers. That could presumably be constructed through the message passing architecture of Cocoa.
Whoa. Paradigm and Gestalt in the same post. This post must be Buzzword-compliant by now. Time for sleep.
Putting it in a goofy fixed location takes it away.
How could adding an additional port be taking away functionality?
The annoyance of the wires is irrelevant, because they'll be right behind it and very short if you have a stacking enclosure.
Not irrelevant to me. My hypothetical design is nice and tidy, which is one thing I do care about in my living room. The wires (no matter how short) would be visible from the side, which would be a bad thing. I have a wireless mouse for my iBook, all the cables for my TV, amp, DVD, etc. are neatly cable-tied out of view and I have a fitted ring main for lighting rather than stretched out extension cables. The Mac Mini's power supply and the monitor cables are bad enough, let alone foot-long cables in one end and out the other.
Last week, my boss bought an iBook for his flat, even though it is unlikely to ever leave the table it's on. The reason he bought that over a desktop machine was that it only required the power cable, and so seemed a lot neater. Any computer on sale could do what he wants (email and occasional web browsing), so performance was not relevant to his decision. It was purely on aesthetics, and the clean white iBook with glowing Apple on the back and a single (colour-coordinated) wire fitted in with the decor perfectly.
Apple are one of the (very) few computer manufacturers that realise that to a lot of people, aesthetics matter more than specs or flexibility. Consider Bang and Olufsen entertainment products, Eames chairs, and even Aston-Martins and Porshes. Are they really that much better on paper in terms of power, flexibility and reliability, or is it the aesthetics, the tidiness and the label?
As a techie, I'm in the middle. I like nice looking kit in plain sight for home, and powerful, flexible kit hidden under my desk for work. Apple was rebuilt from near-bankruptcy on the basis of good design, simple lines and aesthetics and a certain amount of fashion sense. They started to recover as soon as they stopped making things beige, wiry, boxy messes with loads of ports and devices, and started building sexy, "lickable" all-in-one iMacs with USB, no floppy, a reasonable price, and fewer cables.
Anyway, I'm not suggesting for a minute that the sole Firewire port on the Mini should be on the bottom... just that there could be an additional "stacking expansion connector" on the bottom. If you want to put the box to the side, use the normal Firewire connector and get an external drive with a Firewire port!
It makes no sense to use 1394 in such a proprietary fashion, even though they invented it.
You could say the same thing about 3rd-gen+ iPods, the Dock Connector and the iPod dock. A far more proprietary implementation of Firewire connector. Similarly, the Firewire PSU for the iPod does something Firewire was never intended for: charging alone, with no data path. *shrug* Big deal. It works well.
The benefit is to reduce the cable count, a strategy that seems to play pretty well for the iMac. Of course, a device like this hypothetical external drive should be constructed with a socket on the back as well. To prevent confusion (ie. "where do I plug it in?"), maybe the stacking connector should be proprietary: possibly even like the dock connector, with USB and Firewire to allow a larger range of devices.
As usual, the bottom line is that if the hardware doesn't suit you, buy something else. For example, I think the iMac is fantastic, but I don't want one. I prefer to pick my own screens and have a higher level of expandability. So, the iMac is unsuitable for me.
On the other hand, I'd like a Mac Mini (as stated in one of my previous posts a couple of days ago) in addition to my PMG4 at work and my iBook, but I'd also want half a terabyte or so of HDD with it. Since it will be in my home, I'd prefer it with as fewer wires as it can be.
Even even better... If I read it correctly, the article is about an unused Firewire interface near the top of the case. A suitably-placed plug on the bottom of such a case could connect to a suitably-placed socket on the top of the Mini, thereby eliminating the Firewire cable.
I thought about this back when I saw the first Mini disassembly photos/videos. I thought the Mini could have done with a Firewire socket on the bottom (covered by a rubber plug) for interfacing cleanly to a stackable Firewire drive with an up-pointing plug below. They could even be daisychained to allow more and more Firewire drives (and other devices) underneath the Mini. By having them under the Mini, the nice Apple top cover wouldn't be sullied by a socket, which I reckon is the main reason this Firewire interface or dock might have been cancelled from the design. In other words, aesthetics.
Web surfing belongs on the dektop, not the sofa and TV.
For you, maybe. I, on the other hand, spend my entire working life at a desktop and I don't particularly feel like doing it at home.
Last night, I checked my email and browsed the web from my sofa while half-watching TV, and then I watched Platoon: Special Edition while having a nice hot bath. Now I reply to your post on my iBook from the comfortable location of my bed on a Sunday lunchtime. In the meantime, an Applescript has spent most of the weekend downloading about 4000 album covers for the iPod Photo I bought on Friday evening.
My plan to have a relaxing, yet completely unproductive weekend has gone swimmingly, in no small part to my iBook. I've spent much of the weekend doing a lot of web browsing, but haven't sat once at a desk. I like the freedom of doing everything on the computer from wherever I want. I would like to feed stuff to my TV from my laptop, but from whatever application I want.
On the other hand, I agree with the other paragraph of your post:
I'd buy one of these hypothetical Airport Express 2 within a week of release. I'd spend at least as much as I currently spend at iTMS on "iShows Video Store" or whatever it is. A good chunk of my regular Amazon.co.uk DVD outlay would be spent there too. Also, if the "iShows Video Store" was stocked well-enough and set at the right price, my BitTorrent activities would disappear.
Knowing Apple UK, I'd probably have to buy $100 gift vouchers for myself when in the States as opposed to having the choice of "Coronation Street (digital box set)" and a Video iMix by Carol Smillie. I'd also consider adding a Mac Mini with one of those Lacie 1TB external drives, too.
In all, what you describe in your second paragraph is perfectly reasonable, technologically within reach of Apple, and I'm sure would be pretty successful. They'd get a big pile of money from me.
I have the whole of Buffy, B5, Farscape, West Wing, and a bunch of other shows, all on (legal) DVD. I had seen every single episode on terrestrial TV or (more recently) on BitTorrent before buying them. Part of the reason I still buy the DVDs is the special features and part is just the accessibility of it.
In fact, with some shows, I've bought twice. The West Wing is almost a year behind on DVD in the States but has better features. So, I buy the Region 2 first, then the Region 1 a year later. In this respect, I've been suckered by studios playing dumb marketing games.
The only reason I download things is when I can't get them somewhere else (release date, stupid channels, etc). However, I can't think of a single thing I've downloaded that I haven't gone and bought the DVD for afterwards. I downloaded all of BSG (not having Sky One), and hit the "Pre Order" button on Amazon.co.uk the same evening.
I would far prefer it if this was made legal in some way, as you suggest. For example, I could buy from Amazon a combination of a download code and the DVD to be delivered later. If that mechanism existed for the content I want, I'd stop downloading TV shows in a heartbeat.
I know the downloading of such content is technically a crime and that authors have the moral right to control their creation, even if that means preventing it being distributed at all. (Incidentally, are the dumb TV execs morally the authors by virtue of being the copyright holders?) However, nowadays these TV shows are being withheld from sale for dumb reasons like scheduling, "synergy" and ratings wars. Screw them. Just let me buy the damn things. In the meantime, I'd prefer not to be called a pirate when I'm making a fair monetary offer for the content in question. It seems that as far as the studios are concerned a loyal viewer is either their bitch, or a criminal.
It would be far easier if "they" just released the damn show on DVD in good time. Then I wouldn't have to rob and plunder on the high seas just to have what I'm prepared to pay full price for. Arrr.
Slashdot Mirror
Mmm... one nice thing about the UK's way of doing things is that the media embargoes results and exit polls until after the last poll has closed. I'm not sure whether this is a voluntary thing by the media, or whether it's a legal embargo, but it's really in everyone's interests.
Of course, this is much easier to do with only one time zone, as all the polls open and then close at the same time.
Agreed, although I'd point out that it's usually done before the civil servants get into work the next day!
For the foreign-types here, the UK system goes something like this (for a General Election, which decides the Prime Minister, all the MPs, etc.):
(more details)
Fast enough? It's a slick, quick, accurate, well-practised procedure compared to the total chaos, corruption and confusion that is Election Day in the US.
Okay, there are far fewer boxes on the UK form, as the posts of assistant dog catcher, etc. aren't directly elected. Even so, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with a paper system. Oh, and no incomplete arrows, butterfly ballots, instructions, etc. A bunch of names with boxes. Put an "X" in the box next to the guy you want.
I personally wouldn't have a problem with an optical scanner being used with hand recounts done only if the result is within the margin of error. Follow up with a leisurely hand count for statistical purposes at a later date. A hand count isn't going to take *that* long if it's resourced correctly, and accuracy is worth the wait. In the case of the UK it would just mean we'd have to wait until after the weekend to find out who's taking us to war.
I also voted in Riverside County, CA last time around, and the ballot I was posted was pretty straightforward: well laid out, well described, simple to follow. Fill the little box next to the one you want. Saying that, I've got no proof it was ever counted, not that my vote would have made any difference in Riverside.
Of course, the PSP platform has a lot of deficiencies that a video iPod would presumably correct. Primarily:
- The perception that the PSP is a games platform. Of course it's true, but my elderly mother has an iPod, but I can't see her buying a handheld games console.
- Lack of downloadable movies (at fullscreen quality). The "Apple iFlicks Movie Store" or whatever it's called would be pivotal in getting such a device going. Looking at the rumour sites and the opening of iTunes 5 resource files, this might be already happening.
However, the iPod originally wasn't particularly innovative ("Lame.") but it got the formula right. So, the video iPod could still change the whole market merely by getting the formula right this time.I think it was Sarah Montague... it was Humphrey's day off.
[Incidentally, it might not have been Lord Litchfield, he might not have been talking about digital cameras, and I might have misheard pretty much everything he said. The Today programme is the radio show that wakes me up in the morning, and so I'm not exactly firing on all cylinders at that time... I think I got the gist of it, though]
If you want real genius with Postscript, I think this qualifies.
It also works with Reuleaux polygons, such as the British 50p which was designed that way for the sake of slot machines.
I'm no mathematician, but since there are an infinite number of Reuleaux polygons (just by increasing the number of sides), that would show that there are an infinite number of shapes that could be used as such.
IIRC, this was specifically to get round UK import tax, with a computer being taxed less than a toy. I think the response was roughly, "Scyeah, right." so I guess they gave up.
Agreed. This just a couple of weeks after Intel's CEO recommends buying a Mac if you want "safety from security woes". In hindsight, that was a whopping hint.
I have a "disconnected" (ie. unsubscribed) BT line in my rented flat in Central London. I don't really want or need a telephone service, as I use my mobile exclusively. However, I do want the Bulldog 8 Mb/s service. To provide a broadband service, Bulldog have to take over the line completely, connect it to their equipment at the exchange and also supply me with a traditional PSTN voice service.
To do this, Bulldog tell me that I need to reconnect and subscribe to BT (for a few hundred pounds) just so it can then be _unsubscribed_ and transferred to Bulldog.
OR, Bulldog can install a new line independent of the existing wiring, which will involve cables going everywhere, and hassles with my landlord and probably the freeholder of the building.
In other words, Bulldog can't reactivate a previously BT line. This is no criticism of Bulldog (although I have a whole bunch of those too, mainly as a result of having a SDSL service with them at work last year). In fact, the Bulldog sales guy mentioned that they are trying to get OFCOM to change this situation.
Oh, and don't suggest going to BT for the broadband service. I made that mistake at my last place!
BT could, if they were nice, just free the line for Bulldog to reconnect: it's probably just one menu option on their system. However, they're holding it hostage just because they can.
The other problem is that when dealing with this, BT acts like a lot of little companies (eg. BT Wholesale, BT Broadband, BT Residential, etc) which slows everything down. In fact, last time we had a line fitted at work (a leased line), three different BT vans turned up at the same time, from different departments.
So, sod it. Instead I rigged up a firmware-hacked, power-output-boosted, parabolic-dished wireless link to my office, blasting a reasonably good 2 Mb/s through my neighbour's bedroom at waist height. I don't think he's noticed yet, or tried to reproduce.
Yeah, that's weird. You're about a block from me.
The UK Apple Store includes 17.5% tax, but the US one doesn't. Still not a great exchange rate, but not as bad as it sounds. It should be more like £810 (incl. VAT)
- Microsoft pulls out of Europe, but keeps all localisation in the normal products. Ditch the country-specific sites, support, etc.
- A few new "independent" companies are set up (perhaps by the wives of the Microsoft directors!), and each buys (in US$) shared exclusive rights to sell all Microsoft products in the EU. They also resell Microsoft support services. Ex-Microsoft EU employees will be "uniquely qualified" to work for these new companies.
- Large PC manufacturers negotiate directly with Microsoft in the US.
- ...
- Profit!
That way, Microsoft aren't doing business in the EU, and there's no single monopoly, but a loosely-organised cartel. Microsoft lose out on some profit as a result of middle-men, but it's probably less than the fine and any future sanctions.IANAL and I really haven't much of a clue about this kind of thing so I don't know if the above scheme would work, but I'm sure there are a lot of ways around this problem if Microsoft would be willing to concede a little bit. I doubt it would work forever, but Microsoft could almost certainly stay one step ahead.
...or tack /foo.pdf on the end. Seems to work for me:
http://xxx.arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0503200/foo.pdf
That's not a "responsibility" or an "obligation". It is, however, an incentive, and should be quite a strong one at that.
Nowadays, I purchase equipment based more on its compatibility with FreeBSD (and occasionally OpenBSD) than any other factor (incl. performance and price), as that's what it's going to be used with.
As far as responsibility or obligation is concerned, Adaptec's got none to the Open Source community, unless you can consider it a direct failure of its responsibility to its shareholders. Just because Open Source is "fighting the good fight", doesn't mean anyone owes us anything.
...apart from the fact that A.Gs don't make rulings: judges do. The A.G. is merely advising the Supreme Court not to go there.
As far as I'm concerned, the article title was fine, although I already knew what the case verdict was. In any case, if readers can't even read to the end of the _sentence_, then there's not much more that can be done.
Admittedly, "Dutch A.G. Supports Verdict of Scientology v. Spaink Case" might be a slightly better alternative.
I was thinking about the simple -v- advanced user problem back when they launched the idioty no-button lozenge years ago.
I'm sure they could design it so the one button is actually a removable cover over two (or more) buttons, and then just not point it out to newbies. Advanced users would just unclip the cover as they take the mac out of the box, revealing all the extra buttons.
Yeah... my desktop, most of every working day. I usually have at least Photoshop, one or two Emacs windows, 10-15 Terminal windows, OmniGraffle, a few Safaris, iTunes, and a bunch of Finder windows open. Before Expose, most of these would be minimized, and a lot of time wasted hunting for the correct window to open. Now, I just use the thumb buttons on my Logitech MX700, or F9/F11 and keys if I've got my hands on the keyboard.
I guess Expose is one of those things you like or hate. *shrug*
One area I do wish Apple would sort out are the keyboard shortcuts for navigation. Apple-Left/Right for switching between Terminals is nice, but having to resort to Apple-~ -- not a natural chord for me -- for everything else. Shift-Apple-Left/Right for Safari tabs would be better placed on Apple-Left/Right too. Apple-M for Minimize is handy, but a corresponding shortcut for maximize/zoom would be nice too. I like to keep my Mac nice and clean and standard, so 3rd-party fixes aren't ideal.
Saying that, with their control on hardware being what it is, I'd like to see dedicated Expose buttons on Mac laptops and keyboards: ideally small but accessible ones near the trackpad for the laptops. iTunes controls would be good too... extra points for an iPod wheel as part of the keyboard or laptop... especially if it could be reconfigured for other purposes (scrolling, scrubbing, etc).
Yeah.. I would imagine that with the (relatively) high level of abstraction in OS X (Cocoa message passing, Quartz, etc.) would be pretty straightforward to networkize.
As a massive stab in the dark, would that be a big enough deal to constitute "Mac OS XI"? Considering the changes from 10.0 to 10.4 so far, the change to 11 will have to be a whopping great paradigm-shift, or a marketing-driven cop-out.
Would they go as far as a Cocoa-based distributed application architecture to build effectively clustered desktop machines? I could imagine OS XI applications hosted by the "network", ie. a gestalt operating environment formed from the collected resources of all participating desktops and servers. That could presumably be constructed through the message passing architecture of Cocoa.
Whoa. Paradigm and Gestalt in the same post. This post must be Buzzword-compliant by now. Time for sleep.
Not irrelevant to me. My hypothetical design is nice and tidy, which is one thing I do care about in my living room. The wires (no matter how short) would be visible from the side, which would be a bad thing. I have a wireless mouse for my iBook, all the cables for my TV, amp, DVD, etc. are neatly cable-tied out of view and I have a fitted ring main for lighting rather than stretched out extension cables. The Mac Mini's power supply and the monitor cables are bad enough, let alone foot-long cables in one end and out the other.
Last week, my boss bought an iBook for his flat, even though it is unlikely to ever leave the table it's on. The reason he bought that over a desktop machine was that it only required the power cable, and so seemed a lot neater. Any computer on sale could do what he wants (email and occasional web browsing), so performance was not relevant to his decision. It was purely on aesthetics, and the clean white iBook with glowing Apple on the back and a single (colour-coordinated) wire fitted in with the decor perfectly.
Apple are one of the (very) few computer manufacturers that realise that to a lot of people, aesthetics matter more than specs or flexibility. Consider Bang and Olufsen entertainment products, Eames chairs, and even Aston-Martins and Porshes. Are they really that much better on paper in terms of power, flexibility and reliability, or is it the aesthetics, the tidiness and the label?
As a techie, I'm in the middle. I like nice looking kit in plain sight for home, and powerful, flexible kit hidden under my desk for work. Apple was rebuilt from near-bankruptcy on the basis of good design, simple lines and aesthetics and a certain amount of fashion sense. They started to recover as soon as they stopped making things beige, wiry, boxy messes with loads of ports and devices, and started building sexy, "lickable" all-in-one iMacs with USB, no floppy, a reasonable price, and fewer cables.
Anyway, I'm not suggesting for a minute that the sole Firewire port on the Mini should be on the bottom... just that there could be an additional "stacking expansion connector" on the bottom. If you want to put the box to the side, use the normal Firewire connector and get an external drive with a Firewire port!
You could say the same thing about 3rd-gen+ iPods, the Dock Connector and the iPod dock. A far more proprietary implementation of Firewire connector. Similarly, the Firewire PSU for the iPod does something Firewire was never intended for: charging alone, with no data path. *shrug* Big deal. It works well.
The benefit is to reduce the cable count, a strategy that seems to play pretty well for the iMac. Of course, a device like this hypothetical external drive should be constructed with a socket on the back as well. To prevent confusion (ie. "where do I plug it in?"), maybe the stacking connector should be proprietary: possibly even like the dock connector, with USB and Firewire to allow a larger range of devices.
As usual, the bottom line is that if the hardware doesn't suit you, buy something else. For example, I think the iMac is fantastic, but I don't want one. I prefer to pick my own screens and have a higher level of expandability. So, the iMac is unsuitable for me.
On the other hand, I'd like a Mac Mini (as stated in one of my previous posts a couple of days ago) in addition to my PMG4 at work and my iBook, but I'd also want half a terabyte or so of HDD with it. Since it will be in my home, I'd prefer it with as fewer wires as it can be.
Even even better... If I read it correctly, the article is about an unused Firewire interface near the top of the case. A suitably-placed plug on the bottom of such a case could connect to a suitably-placed socket on the top of the Mini, thereby eliminating the Firewire cable.
I thought about this back when I saw the first Mini disassembly photos/videos. I thought the Mini could have done with a Firewire socket on the bottom (covered by a rubber plug) for interfacing cleanly to a stackable Firewire drive with an up-pointing plug below. They could even be daisychained to allow more and more Firewire drives (and other devices) underneath the Mini. By having them under the Mini, the nice Apple top cover wouldn't be sullied by a socket, which I reckon is the main reason this Firewire interface or dock might have been cancelled from the design. In other words, aesthetics.
Last night, I checked my email and browsed the web from my sofa while half-watching TV, and then I watched Platoon: Special Edition while having a nice hot bath. Now I reply to your post on my iBook from the comfortable location of my bed on a Sunday lunchtime. In the meantime, an Applescript has spent most of the weekend downloading about 4000 album covers for the iPod Photo I bought on Friday evening.
My plan to have a relaxing, yet completely unproductive weekend has gone swimmingly, in no small part to my iBook. I've spent much of the weekend doing a lot of web browsing, but haven't sat once at a desk. I like the freedom of doing everything on the computer from wherever I want. I would like to feed stuff to my TV from my laptop, but from whatever application I want.
On the other hand, I agree with the other paragraph of your post:
I'd buy one of these hypothetical Airport Express 2 within a week of release. I'd spend at least as much as I currently spend at iTMS on "iShows Video Store" or whatever it is. A good chunk of my regular Amazon.co.uk DVD outlay would be spent there too. Also, if the "iShows Video Store" was stocked well-enough and set at the right price, my BitTorrent activities would disappear.
Knowing Apple UK, I'd probably have to buy $100 gift vouchers for myself when in the States as opposed to having the choice of "Coronation Street (digital box set)" and a Video iMix by Carol Smillie. I'd also consider adding a Mac Mini with one of those Lacie 1TB external drives, too.
In all, what you describe in your second paragraph is perfectly reasonable, technologically within reach of Apple, and I'm sure would be pretty successful. They'd get a big pile of money from me.
I have the whole of Buffy, B5, Farscape, West Wing, and a bunch of other shows, all on (legal) DVD. I had seen every single episode on terrestrial TV or (more recently) on BitTorrent before buying them. Part of the reason I still buy the DVDs is the special features and part is just the accessibility of it.
In fact, with some shows, I've bought twice. The West Wing is almost a year behind on DVD in the States but has better features. So, I buy the Region 2 first, then the Region 1 a year later. In this respect, I've been suckered by studios playing dumb marketing games.
The only reason I download things is when I can't get them somewhere else (release date, stupid channels, etc). However, I can't think of a single thing I've downloaded that I haven't gone and bought the DVD for afterwards. I downloaded all of BSG (not having Sky One), and hit the "Pre Order" button on Amazon.co.uk the same evening.
I would far prefer it if this was made legal in some way, as you suggest. For example, I could buy from Amazon a combination of a download code and the DVD to be delivered later. If that mechanism existed for the content I want, I'd stop downloading TV shows in a heartbeat.
I know the downloading of such content is technically a crime and that authors have the moral right to control their creation, even if that means preventing it being distributed at all. (Incidentally, are the dumb TV execs morally the authors by virtue of being the copyright holders?) However, nowadays these TV shows are being withheld from sale for dumb reasons like scheduling, "synergy" and ratings wars. Screw them. Just let me buy the damn things. In the meantime, I'd prefer not to be called a pirate when I'm making a fair monetary offer for the content in question. It seems that as far as the studios are concerned a loyal viewer is either their bitch, or a criminal.
It would be far easier if "they" just released the damn show on DVD in good time. Then I wouldn't have to rob and plunder on the high seas just to have what I'm prepared to pay full price for. Arrr.