Well, it wouldn't need fuel for the planes. Just the sweet smelling farts of the self-righteous smug. There'd be no coach class, all seats are first class but cost roughly the same as a coach seat on another airline.
Unfortunately, each seat also requires a separate support agreement when you're in the ground than one in the air if you want a flight attendant in both locations. Oh, and the button to put the seat back doesn't actually do anything except strengthen the reality distortion field around your seat so you THINK that the seat's gone back.
18 months? Come on... my MBP has a battery that's two years old and it's still charging to 90% capacity according to Coconut Battery. Oh, and my battery life went up with Leopard so I still get about the same runtime as I do when I bought it. And I'm not particularly careful with the battery. I know I should condition it... but I keep forgetting:)
Here's a thought... and something I do with my Macbook Pro... I have an Airport Express in my bag along with my power adapter. It allows me to have my own isolated wireless network, secured MY way (WPA2 Personal FTW!) and gives me the ability to have an hardware firewall on my network connection that's under my control... just in case someone has some virus screaming on the customer's network. Not necessarily for my Mac mind you... but for my Parallels XP VM that I sometimes have to run at client locations.
Small, portable and a bit of peace of mind that I can have a connection so long as my clients don't mind me plugging it in. Then again, if they mind me plugging in the APE, they probably don't want my laptop plugged into their network, anyway... though I do understand some wireless concerns.
As a result, I use wireless at my client sites... I can move my laptop around and even have my APE configured so that it's tied to the MAC of my laptop (the MAC of my Mac?) and thus no-one else can use it. Very handy and allows me to move my laptop around quite a bit... within range.
Seriously... this is aimed at the person who spends much of his working life in a coach or "coach plus" seat with a laptop on a tray table. This would be a bit of a cramp... the size of the screen means that it'll be tough to get it to sit nice on a tray table... but I have sometimes been quite able to get some work done sitting in a coach seat with my Macbook Pro (15"), although it usually involves some machinations with putting my seat back to at least the same angle as the guy in front of me:)
The perfect example of one who is not the target market, and who does not get it.
Me? I'm not the target market, either but I used to be. The target for the Macbook Air is the road-warrior, the person who racks up enough frequent flyer miles in a year to fly to Paris for Christmas. I know, I used to be that guy and I would've killed for this device. As it was, I had a Toshiba Portege that was awesome, though underpowered even when it was state of the art. It did me perfectly, and fit like a champ in a briefcase that I could carry into the cabin of the flight. The 5 hour battery life was also more than enough for 99% of the flights I took in the mainland US, and the flights I took within Europe. The only time I would have used the laptop more would've been on an international flight... and most of them either have rather good in flight entertainment options these days, power sockets in the seats or I had my iPod.
I have a Macbook Pro which I love to death, but I have no need of a laptop like the Air in my current job or my life. I like the expandable, heavy and reliable Pro which has run like a champ for me for two years and has given me very little trouble. If I were back in the road-warrior business, I'd be all over the Air as a primary laptop for business, using home networking for the majority of my big file storage and just keeping the necessities on the Air.
This isn't an audio studio laptop... Apple has one for that; it's the Pro. It's also not a consumer laptop... Apple has one of those; the Macbook. This is one aimed at a very specific market segment; those who need an ultra-portable computer but are less than impressed with the options available elsewhere. And at 3lbs with a 13" screen, this is just an incredible piece of technology. Hell, I'd consider one of these for the geek value if I had $2K to drop on it right now. The price point and the name say it's not for the average consumer... the lack of optical, CPU speed, expandability and so forth say it's not for the A/V pro. Like every Apple product except the iPod, it's aimed at a very specific market segment... and one that's been screaming out for exactly this for a long time.
Oh, and if you want to bring issue with the lack of an optical drive... well, I have one in my Pro which I rarely use except when I'm at "home base". And if I'm at home base, what's wrong with me hooking up a USB drive to do the same? Oh, and there's a $99 external drive available as an option if it's really important.
Really, I have no idea how to respond to TFA. It's wrong on so many levels.
While there is a point here that IT is changing in radical ways, didn't it always? IT has been a moving target for decades and will continue to be. Doesn't mean it's going away.
There's also the big problem he doesn't even seem to fathom; that any company worth its salt would rather have an IT department of employees. Why? Well, what happens if your primary production database goes down? Well, if you have an army of employees, you'll have an army of people mobilized in an instant to resolve the issue as quickly and reliably as possible because their jobs depend on it. If you have the same happen with "cloud IT" then you've got some call center rep in the Philippines who only knows you as customer X and really doesn't have a sense of ownership of the problem.
I must admit, I work in a Corporate IT environment after years of working as a consultant. I see the vast difference between the mindset of a consultant and an employee as a sense of ownership and a sense of being part of something bigger. Consultants (and cloud IT people) are tactical; they fill a need today. Employees are strategic; they try to do the best job they can to ensure they've still got a job tomorrow. Sure, it doesn't always work out and not everyone's of that mindset. However, I tend to find that those who do not have the strategic mindset tend not to last long in IT.
As much as I'd like to "ride the wave" of Cloud IT... knows I have the know-how to set up something truly great... I don't think it's going to be much more than an interesting aside to the IT industry as a whole. It'll provide some services to companies in the same way as consultants do; they'll fill a need in the interim until they can put in a permanent solution. The only place I see "Cloud IT" becoming a force to be reckoned with is the small company; less than 250 employees perhaps... where it's usually not cost-effective to maintain an IT department. A lot of the smaller end of this (100 employees) tend to hire consultants to deal with their IT needs... this won't be that different. However, there'll still be a need for the consultants in question to put in and maintain the local hardware.
But then there's the aspect of reliability; what if you can't get to your applications? Who do you call? The app vendor? Your ISP? The consultant who maintains your routers and may not be available until after 3pm? I know the small companies I still do consulting for like having local IT infrastructure (email, web and file servers) so that in the event something's really messed up and the apps don't work, worst case a phone call to me where I can talk a secretary through rebooting the file server usually does the trick. However, this isn't cloud IT... this is local IT supported by someone who's remote. Doable, but not something you need to rely on for your business!
Your comment about CD's... well... as a UK resident you might already be familiar with this (or you might not, depending on how old you are), but this YouTube clip has one of the funniest jokes about CD's as an almost throwaway line right in the last 30 seconds of the clip. Worth watching because it's funny...
Sorry, had to post... I was just reminded of this joke by your post and had to look it up on YouTube to see if I could find it again:)
Or perhaps like calling adhesive bandages, Band-Aids. Or perhaps that terrible crime of calling all computers, PC's (when it's quite clear the last PC rolled off IBM's production line more than 25 years ago).
Like it or not, in the western world brand names and generic terms from specific products are all finding niches in language. And I don't know how many non-technical people you've dealt with lately, but to be sure I notice that many non-technical people *do* refer to digital music players as iPods, or sometimes MP3 players. Like it or not, MP3 as well as being a specific technology has also become a generic term for digital music. This is an ongoing process as evidenced here, and isn't going to go away just because some people don't like it. It may seem like a mistake, but it's the way people talk outside of technical circles.
I'll just go now and fire up the Gimp so I can "photoshop" some images.:)
Also remember that most Brits gave up measuring their petrol in imperial gallons some years ago, and the conversion from litres to US gallons hasn't changed.
For reference, I live in the US (though I'm a Brit) and on a recent trip home I was flabbergasted at the difference in efficiency between US and UK cars. Even the rental car I was driving got me fantastic efficiency that I wish I could get in the US but they don't sell those cars here. I also noticed that even the cars that were sold here were sold in the UK with smaller engines and often diesels. Of course, I knew this but it was interesting to note that my home-driven BMW 330i was non-existent on UK streets where it's quite common here. Instead, the 323 seemed to be the common car of the same era as mine. Similarly, the number of diesels was incredible and I was offered the opportunity during my stay to drive an Alfa Romeo diesel... a car slightly bigger than my bimmer that netted mpg equivalents somewhere in the 40's.
Americans got spoiled on cheap gasoline in the 80's and 90's. We've seen the price skyrocket by our standards, but no, we're nowhere near the cost being paid by the British (about 3 times as much when you do the mathematics). Of course, most of that is tax, not oil import costs but it goes to pay for public transport.
Bear in mind when comparing the UK to the US that UK residents drive a whole lot less. Partly because it's expensive, partly because the British walk more, and partly because when traveling it's often easier and cheaper to hop on a train or bus. When I lived in England I owned a car that I maybe drove 8000 miles in a year. Now I live in the US I drive over 20,000 miles even though my commute is the same distance (21 miles each way). I do this because I have to... because in every city in the US in which I have spent time the public transport system sucks. The only real exception to this is New York... but I'm not ready to convince my wife we need to raise our kids in New York:)
Uh... yeah you can. OSX Leopard and Ubuntu both run great on Intel CPU's... and can dual boot. The days of PowerPC are over on the desktop (unless Amiga returns from its current purgatory), the only thing you can't do with OSX that you can with Ubuntu is install on arbitrary hardware. At least, not officially.
You know, some of us consider an integrated product offering to be an advantage rather than a flaw. I used to think so in the 80's when I was an Atari ST / Amiga guy. I enjoyed the choices available with the PC, but to be honest those choices are long since gone. If you want a consumer OS then you have no other choice on the PC platform than Windows. Yes, I'm a Linux user too. However, after trying to get my wife (who is, by the way relatively technically competent) to switch to Linux for her desktop environment recently I've decided that although I find Linux incredibly powerful and flexible, it's not for everyone.
She complains often about the default behaviors of Linux apps because they don't work like she expects. Or they work inconsistently with one another and become frustrating for her. She just wants to get her work done, not battle the work environment to get it done. I spent a month working with her on Linux before I threw up my hands in frustration and put XP back on her laptop.
However, I put her down in front of OSX for two hours on my laptop and she was running wonderfully... and in fact asked me why her laptop doesn't run OSX. When I told her, she just said "Well, in the new year I want a new laptop; a Macbook." That's quite reasonable, her laptop is rather old and falling apart at this point, anyway (won't run Vista worth a damn).
I too once thought like you did, but I find the integrated, controlled environment in an OSX machine to be an asset. I really do find myself getting more work done and less playing with the operating system. And finding software? Please... have you heard of Google? I have had NO problem finding software to get my work done. In fact, most of it was already installed. I use Garage Band for my music stuff, I use iWork to do my word processing, spreadsheets and so forth... I use iTunes to manage my music. Those few things I needed I had no problems finding; iRatchet for my small business financial management, Adium for my IM needs... though yes, I installed Firefox instead of Safari because I was tired of Safari chowing down every scrap of RAM in my machine just to display a few tabs.
Every Mac app that I have does automatic updates. Periodically an application will pop up a window asking if I want to upgrade. I never have to think about it; I just either click "Upgrade Now" or "Upgrade Later". That way my apps are always as up to date as I need them to be. The only apps that don't get upgraded are the ones that I don't use!
Yes, I'm a tinkerer by nature, but OSX caters to me too. I installed Quicksilver and use it all the time... I have X installed so that I can run apps from my remote UNIX boxes... I run an NX client... in other words the exact same stuff I used to run on my Linux boxes.
Then there's the support aspect; if you have a problem with a Linux app, then you have to search the app name, then the OS type, then the desktop framework you use (Gnome, KDE, insert other here) before you even come close to finding anything that relates specifically to your problem. If I have an issue with an OSX app it's as simple as typing a quick Google search. Hell, even if I have a problem with Office (which I don't any more since I uninstalled it), I can just search google for "(insert problem) OSX" or "Mac" and I'll almost be guaranteed to get a result that relates.
I will continue to use Linux as my choice of server, and I'll continue to do Windows at work (because that's what I do)... but for a home system that just gets out of my way and lets me get my work done, OSX has it.
Pattern recognition is certainly a facet of intelligence, but it's also present in just about every animal we have ever studied. Those that don't have simple, quick pattern recognition are either living in an environment with few natural predators or will rapidly find themselves extinct.
I am not claiming that the conclusions drawn from this experiment are flawed, I'm just saying that there's no evidence here that leads me to believe that the conclusions match with the experimental results.
Granted, all I read were summaries of the experiment and therefore may well be missing something, but every summary I've read shows the experiment as shown in TFA. I'm not a cognitive scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but my first thought on reading the summaries in question was that the test showed only simple response to stimuli, namely pattern recognition. Now, since pattern recognition is present in most organisms capable of acting on said stimuli (animals; plants can't respond) it seems that all they did was train the chimps to respond to the stimuli of numbers in a set way.
It also occurred to me that my experience with human beings is that when we see numbers, our first impulse is not to react, but to process. The reason for this is that we understand numbers on a very deep level and we assign those numbers a certain importance. Because numbers are important to us, we see numbers and want to understand or assign meaning to those numbers. It seems that in the tests described humans are almost invariably going to be slower than other animals because we first try to understand and process the numbers, another animal is more likely to react in a learned fashion since they don't assign meaning or importance to numbers.
And yes, getting chimps to play Tetris would be an interesting experiment in pattern recognition, but not a very good one. In fact, I'd say it's probably a better test of intelligence than the one in TFA simply because there is processing involved rather than reacting.
Of course, as I pointed out I don't know all the details of the experiment. I just think given the information I have to-hand that drawing the stated conclusion is a stretch at best.
I didn't say pattern recognition wasn't a facet of intelligence, I just pointed out that it does not necessarily denote intelligence.
Besides, the IQ test does not measure intelligence, only our compliance to societal norms. I know a number of people who are incredibly intelligent but couldn't score more than probably about 90 on an IQ test. That's another discussion, though:)
The article itself contains a flawed summary. This does nothing to prove the ability of chimps to memorize numbers better than humans, but it does show a greater ability toward pattern recognition. That's not intelligence. In fact, I'd expect that given that pattern recognition is primarily a function of the ability to recognize a predator and/or food that isn't good for you. Given that we as human beings haven't had any significant predators and really don't forage for food (generally, there are exceptions) for thousands of years, you'd expect those lesser-used parts of the brain to "grow limp". A chimp, on the other hand has a certain biological imperative to be able to recognize predators early in life. Chimps that don't, don't perpetuate.
There's also a factor that there are some biological differences between our species; like the physical fact that chimps can move their eyes faster and have physically smaller bodies therefore nerve impulses don't take so long to travel to the limbs.
Frankly, I fail to see what has been proven here. Maybe I'm missing something because I'm not a chimp:)
Interesting that you point this out, because I can say from my own experience that when I bought a Mac (Macbook Pro, first gen), one of the first apps I bought was Parallels. I created a nice little Windows VM, and have been quite happy.
Of course, the reason I bought it is because I thought I would need a lot more Windows support than I actually ended up needing. In fact, I rarely even boot it any more unless I need to VPN into work (Cisco VPN software and they won't give me a Mac native version)... but even that is mitigated by the fact that they provide me a work laptop for exactly that reason. Most times these days if I get called on a weekend when I'm at a coffee shop I just tell them to call someone else who has the ability to dial in because my Mac won't.:)
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that you're right; that Parallels is cool when you need it, but pretty quickly you find you don't need it nearly as much as you thought you did. Generally I use Parallels these days mostly to stand up quick and dirty virtual machines for dev purposes. I have done a few installs of car PC's for friends, and when I'm staging the OS I do it in a VM in Parallels, that way I can crank it up and test it nicely to make sure it's stable before I dump it down to the hardware. As long as the hardware's pretty generic (mostly is for Car PC's) then a quick port is easy. Even with Windows XP Embedded:)
I don't get it. What will you end up with at the end of these hacks? Realistically, you'll end up with a rip-off variant on OSX that looks vaguely like it and runs the risk of being less stable than Windows usually is. I don't get it.
OK, I'm a Mac user. Honestly, I tried to make my old Linux laptop more Mac-like even though it was not a very powerful laptop. It worked... and it worked quite well for my needs, but honestly it was problematic. After I finally replaced it with a Macbook Pro I discovered that my Mac-Like desktop was really just a second-rate imitation that required a little too much "care and feeding" in order to run decently and really wasn't all that good. I'm not saying I couldn't have done better, but it still remains that I'm MUCH more efficient with my Mac than I ever was with that Linux desktop.
OK, so all of these products are about making Windows more Mac-Like. Fair enough... I understand some people use Windows who dislike some of the way it works and I'm all for customization. However, the problems with Windows aren't just the Windows shell; they're application and API problems that either kill usability or cause issues and inconsistencies that will render this "Mac Like Experience" more like Windows XP/Vista with a fresh coat of paint. Nothing more.
The strength of OSX is not in the "shiny" stuff, nor is it in the look and feel. The key strength of OSX is the foundations upon which the OS is based. The APIs are nice and well documented, the UNIX core gives you incredible flexibility, and the fact that Apple as a company is not afraid to make tough decisions about their APIs but still provide reasonable paths to migrate to new API sets. They will even continue to provide an API long past its theoretical sell-by date, but do so in such a way that a clear migration path is mapped out and even simple to port to.
Yes, the shiny stuff is cool for all of about 5 minutes. It gets old... I have most of the visual effects turned off on my Mac, I just want to get work done. How does any of this increase the efficiency of working with the OS?
Oh, and by the time you've paid for your Windows box, Windows license and the shareware fees for each of these applications (no, ripping them off does not count), you may as well have gone out and at least bought a Mac Mini or iMac. Hell, if you're in laptop-land you may as well have bought a Macbook.
And in answer to my own question; no the Zune does not work with the Mac by default. Note that this doesn't automatically exclude it from my decision making process... I don't like iTunes all that much, either:)
The Zune will work with Macs with third party software. Google around... it's out there.
Actually, no. The discussion is whether or not the Zune is/was/will be a successful product. I still stand by my initial opinion, which is that it is still too early to tell. The Zune is a newbie to the marketplace. I may not necessarily be a Microsoft fan, but in their history they have usually had great success in markets where they WANT success. Their initial forays into said markets are usually buggy, unstable or just plain crap... but they rapidly learn from their mistakes and eventually surpass the competition, hence putting them out of business. Windows, for all its warts did this. So did Microsoft Office. Do I like either? No, I use OSX and iWork 08 for everything these days and uninstalled Office from my Mac several months ago. If Microsoft want the market, they will continue to produce a product that will be better at each iteration.
Right now, the iPod has inertia and the Zune does not. The Zune also suffers from a terrible advertising campaign; if I weren't a tech geek I probably would never have heard of it. The radio receiver conversation came up because somebody else bought it up... I just disagreed. I think the fact that it has one is a positive, even if others don't. I was merely expressing an opinion.
And from my perspective, the inclusion of an FM receiver IS a good decision on Microsoft's part because it does increase the odds that my next media player will be a Zune. Doesn't guarantee it, but it would be enough to break a tie in my decision making process.
And for the record, as I have said elsewhere; the Zune version 2 is a damned good product. You can disbelieve me if you like, but I really think that Apple would be fools not to take notice. The Zune is every bit as good as the 2nd Gen Nanos and 5G iPods. That's in a year of development. This tells me that it took Microsoft a year to do what took Apple five. If this doesn't concern Apple then it should.
RoughlyDrafted often has the distinction of having an Ostrich mentality. Rather than try to figure out how to beat the competition or how to better the market, the site prefers to create inflammatory articles. It's like the New York style of comedy that I despise so much, where in order to better themselves, New York comedians feel they must break someone else down, either with facts or FUD. Yeah, Microsoft is often guilty of this too thanks to Ballmer, but only Apple has a fanbase that does the exact same thing in Daniel Eran... in my opinion. Unfortunately, too many people on this site often take the same track, particularly when talking about RD(F)'s articles.
Actually, the Zune works fine with iTunes for managing your music, videos and podcasts... so yeah, it works fine with the Mac as far as I know (if someone knows otherwise, please let me know!) If not, well that'll just feed into my decision-making process but is not a deal-breaker. I run Windows in a Parallels session a lot of the time anyway. As a hobby I do soundtracker music, and I have not found a solution as good as Modplug Tracker for the Mac that helps out so much. Yes, I do final mixes with Garage Band, but the actual composition is a lot better in Windows right now. As a result, I already have Windows running; I can run Zune management software as well without too much hassle. Yes, I love the flexibility of my Mac and Parallels.:D
Maybe I'm an exception around here... but I actually fail to care particularly about the red ink on a corporate bottom line. Honestly I don't care who makes the device as long as it works for me, and if they're honestly dumb enough to think they'll extract further monies from me in the future after I've bought the device then they may be quite deluded. That's their problem, not mine.
Oh, support ongoing for the device you say? Have you tried getting support on either a Zune or iPod? It sucks and is next to worthless. So what if they stop selling the devices, if there's a market someone else will come along and fill the void with a device that's good enough for my money. Now, getting support on a Mac is a completely different kettle of fish, but beyond the scope of this argument.
So the Zune made a loss in its first year. *SO DID THE iPOD*. The iPod was really a market dud until about the third generation when it finally became hip and became the market leader. Hell, I still suspect (and a friend who has worked at Apple as an engineer for 15 years or so agrees) that the only reason that the iPod was (a) made to support USB and (b) made to support Windows is because the first generation Firewire/Mac Only version didn't even cover its R&D costs... not even close. In fact, each unit only made a very small profit, and sold in small enough numbers that it was only really a blip on the radar. Yes, the market's bigger now, but the Zune's only been out for a year and has only now gotten to its second generation. A second generation that I might add is significantly better, more reliable and more enticing than the first.
I can't believe I'm defending the Zune to be honest. I'm as anti-Microsoft as you can find but even I have to admit when they make a good product. The 2G Zune is one, and I've had an XBox 360 for a while which I really enjoy playing games on.
But back to the subject at hand; I don't care if Microsoft makes money on the Zune or not. That's not my problem, that's theirs. If I buy a Zune then ongoing care and feeding of the device is going to be in my hands anyway. Same is true of the iPod. If Microsoft or Apple disappear tomorrow, I personally won't mourn their passing. The dynamics of the free market mean that the loss of both companies would create a void, a void that someone would fill and perhaps do a better job. I won't say that would happen, in fact I can't think of a scenario less likely than that above (except that one of them has a risk of coming true within, say 20 years... though I won't say which at this point). Simply put, my only question to which either device is a solution is "How can I listen to my music collection while I'm out and about or at the gym?" If I start thinking to myself "How can I feed part of my bank account into the coffers of Steve Jobs?" then please shoot me in the head.
Your presumption falls apart when you realize I'm (a) an iPod owner and (b) a Mac user. I'm probably an exception to the general rule about Mac owners though simply because I do technology for a living.
As for your comment about 100 year old tech... well that's an opinion (and therefore no better than mine ) which I will have to agree to disagree about. Myself, I like having a portable radio as well, the flexibility inherent is nice. I rarely listen to the radio in my car; I listen to Podcasts downloaded to my iPod. Ironic, I know. However, as I pointed out there are times I *do* like to listen to the radio. Typically, when I'm at the gym is a prime example. I work out two or three times a week, and said workouts can run up to about 3 hours if I do a complete cardio and weights workout. Three hours of nothing but solid music or chatter on a narrow range of subjects is boring. I like to be able to grab my iPod while I'm on the treadmill, go up a few menu levels and select "Radio", then tune into NPR or sometimes local college radio.
I love Podcasts, though not always when I work out. The problem with podcasting is that by their very nature the podcasts contained on a single person's device will usually only reflect a very narrow range of interest. I know my podcasts are mostly tech related (Leo Laporte is my friend:) ) and I know that friends of mine who listen to podcasts have similarly narrow focus in their podcast choices. I listen to particular radio stations because they give me a much wider range of interest, and sometimes while listening I'll find myself fascinated by something else. Who'd have thought that I would become a huge fan of the writings of Yeats had I not heard some readings of his material on NPR? I would never have considered download a Yeats Poetry Podcast (is there even one? Should I maybe start one?:) ), but on NPR I caught some readings while I was on a stationary bike and found myself loving the material.
And as for your final comment, the Zune actually works as advertised as well (getting back on subject). The times I've had my hands on one of the 2G devices I've been nicely impressed. The 1G... well, I wasn't exactly a fan of the 1G iPod, either. Or the 2G for that matter... it was in the third generation the iPod started to get interesting... but even then my first iPod was the first gen Nano. Now, do I think that Microsoft plays up the wireless thing? Yeah, they did in the first gen... but the second gen less so. That doesn't matter to me anyway; that's something that is a pretty neutral feature... to me the radio actually adds value to the Zune. Having to pay $30 for the iPod radio adapter felt like being taxed for something I wanted and knew I would use. As I also pointed out, I'm not going to run out and buy a Zune just because it's got a radio adapter. And in fact, when I finally kill my 5G iPod Video I will then look at what's on the market and make an informed decision based upon my own criteria. Maybe the Zune will win, maybe the iPod will. Who knows? The simple fact remains that I think the Zune is reasonable competition for the iPod, and it does happen to have one feature I wish my iPod had integrated.
Now, if the 7G iPods come with an HD Radio tuner...;)
But there's no punishment for the customer. Both the Zune and iPod sell for about equivalent prices... the only person paying for the FM tuner addition is Microsoft by eating into their profits by a couple of pennies per device. I would probably never use the wifi on the Zune, but does that mean that Microsoft shouldn't include it and should instead make it a $30 accessory? I'd rather have it there on the off chance I might use it one day, just switched off to save battery power.
No, I'm not saying the FM tuner is a deal killer or deal maker... but it's a nice to have. It's certainly one thing I will weigh into my shopping decision when I eventually kill the hard drive in my 5G iPod. I already killed one battery and replaced that, but if the HD goes then I'll probably just replace the device. All I'm saying is that to me as a customer it doesn't hurt or hinder me to have the FM hardware there, and in fact having it there does give me one extra bullet point that I *might* use one day, thereby increasing my likelihood of buying a Zune. Now, in all probability since I already have all my music in iTunes and manage my music on my Mac, I will probably buy another iPod. However, that's not guaranteed. It wouldn't be the first time I've moved platform (Windows to Linux to Mac, Diamond Rio to Creative Zen to iPod etc.) and it may not be the last.
Like everything on RoughlyDrafted. Yes, it's a site I enjoy reading, and he's often had some insightful or amusing articles... but don't be confused it's a personal blog and as such is full of just opinions.
Now, before I continue; I would like to point out that I'm a happy 5G iPod owner (now renamed the "Classic"), and happy Mac owner... so I'm as Apple-centric as they come these days. I do like their products, and use them every day and am extremely happy with them.
However, I have to say that I disagree with the article. I think it's still too early to call the Zune a failure. The Zune's been out for a year. Look at the iPod sales figures for the first 3 years; they were miserable. They were an also-ran in a market that was eaten up by Diamond and Creative. Now, a part of this can be attributed to the Mac-only state of the 1G iPod for the first year... sales definitely accelerated after they went to Windows also... and the change to USB instead of Firewire opened it up a little more. However, the Zune's sales today are far outstripping the iPod even in its third year. Yes, the market's a lot larger, prices are a lot more reasonable and our lives as tech people have changed to include an MP3 player as an optional extra.
Now, I don't own a Zune, but I have used them. I play with a lot of tech stuff through friends and just because I want to, and I have to say that I didn't like the 1G Zune very much. However, their second attempt is MUCH better. The form factor's nicer, the interface is completely revamped and I am really quite impressed with the device now. That doesn't mean I'm going to run out and buy one though; I'm quite happy with my iPod, and it does everything I need it to do with aplomb. However, I used a new Zune recently when a friend loaned me his to check out at the gym. I have to say I was really impressed. The display was nice and clear, and much more readable than the rather pokey font used on the iPod. When selecting music, it worked fantastically well. Now, I've grown extremely accustomed to the click wheel so the Zune's control method seems a little clunky... but I have to say I thought the control method on the iPod was annoying at first and I still occasionally have issues with it's sensitivity.
Plus, during my workout I really appreciated the FM receiver. I have the FM receiver for the iPod as well, but it's rather annoying to have an extra length of cable hanging off the back of my iPod which I tend to leave wrapped up in the headphone loop on my case. I use the FM of my iPod often while working out when I get bored of the music or I just want to listen to NPR or the news or something. Having it integrated in such a small form factor is nice, though not a deal breaker for me since most of the time I listen to music or audio books.
Don't discount the Zune. I think it's really good competition for the iPod and will catch up quickly. In the US at least it's selling well, and the 2G is a huge improvement on the 1G. It's also fantastic to see that the 2G software is actually available for those who bought the 1G... for some reason that's something Apple has refused to do with their older iPods. For example, when exactly do you think Apple is going to release the iPod Classic software for my iPod Video? Despite the fact that the hardware's identical they're unlikely to release that since in some instances people are refusing to upgrade. I know I won't upgrade until I kill the hard drive in my iPod because I have no compelling need to... and though in my opinion the Classic software gives me nothing I need (coverflow is a nice idea, but impractical when you're running on a treadmill and trying to select a song or playlist) it's simply the prinicple of the thing.
For you, perhaps. On my iPod, one of my first purchases was the FM tuner. Why? Because when I'm working out at the gym, sometimes I want more than just music; sometimes I want to listen to the TV's around the room (they have FM transmitters), or I want to listen to the news. Hell, sometimes I'm just out walking and I like to listen to NPR. Just because the FM tuner doesn't work for you doesn't make it a bad idea. I would say enough people use the FM antenna to make it worthwhile. Hell, look at the sales of the FM adapter for the iPod. If it were a bad idea, it wouldn't sell and Apple wouldn't sell it any more.
It's a little bit of a conceptual shift from datacenters of old... and it's not for everyone. Having said that, this is exactly the sort of thing we've been talking about for a while where I work ever since Sun talked about their product.
Data center processing capabilities have increased dramatically over the years, but generally the problem I have seen in most datacenters these days is simply that they are not designed for the heat and power load per square foot that blades and high-density systems require. Most modern datacenters were designed and/or built in the 80s and 90s when they had very specific requirements as regards power and heat load per square foot... and that was reasonable at the time. The higher density systems such as blades are a great idea, and provide much more processing capability per square foot than traditional racked servers... however, it has become tough to keep up with the heat output and power requirements of these on a per rack basis. I know our datacenter where I work that was built in 1995 has been retrofitted no less than four times in the last few years to increase cooling capacity, and we're rapidly reaching the limits of what we can do with the physically constrained space we have. At the moment, if we add a new power feed or AC unit, we will actually need to remove racks to put it in. Given our racks are currently running at an average 85% physical capacity already you can see where we have a problem.
These sort of portable datacenters though are only for those who design their systems correctly. Most applications these days can leverage "fat" back end systems (databases and so forth) with "thin" front-end application servers. My proposal that's going through the mill right now was to invest in one of these containers to migrate all of the front-end systems into that datacenter, leaving only the data and storage (SAN) sitting in the existing datacenter. That way, we can eliminate approximately 60% of our servers, which themselves make up about 40% of the heat and power load in our datacenter today. That way we can continue to expand the storage (which is desperately needed, we just have no more floor space for SAN) and leverage either powerful blade servers or powerful standard rack servers as consolidated database clusters and possibly virtual machine space. Where we need application-server space, we can put a server out in the "trailer" and connect it across a fat link into the existing datacenter (bonded gigabit), thereby providing incredible flexibility.
The cost may seem prohibitive, but what are our other options? Right now, our only other option is to actually build a new dedicated datacenter building. The cost of that is incredibly prohibitive, and we've been playing catchup for a long time as far as trying to meet our user demand in a rapidly growing user base while being seriously constrained on space. The cost of one of these trailers is actually an incredible bargain compared to the cost of proper design, architecture, engineering and actually constructing a new building to house our ever growing application requirements.
So what about server failures? Personally, I feel that the best way to proceed is to run up the trailer to about 85% utilized, leaving lots of idle servers in-place. Network boots and stuff like that ought to provide rapid provisioning within the trailered data center, so in the event of a failure you just use network boot to bring up another node and call for service. Hey, we already have all of our servers under maintenance with the manufacturer anyway, and most of the time this is exactly what we do. Plus, what if we grow again? Add another trailer. Simple, cost-effective and efficient.
The security aspect? Leverage your already existing datacenter. Use that as your data source, leave as little actual customer data on the trailered servers as you can. If you start getting constrained on space, start moving your database servers out to the trailers as well, but connect them back to your SAN in the old DC. By doing s
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it wouldn't need fuel for the planes. Just the sweet smelling farts of the self-righteous smug. There'd be no coach class, all seats are first class but cost roughly the same as a coach seat on another airline.
;)
Unfortunately, each seat also requires a separate support agreement when you're in the ground than one in the air if you want a flight attendant in both locations. Oh, and the button to put the seat back doesn't actually do anything except strengthen the reality distortion field around your seat so you THINK that the seat's gone back.
And this from a Mac owner...
18 months? Come on... my MBP has a battery that's two years old and it's still charging to 90% capacity according to Coconut Battery. Oh, and my battery life went up with Leopard so I still get about the same runtime as I do when I bought it. And I'm not particularly careful with the battery. I know I should condition it... but I keep forgetting :)
Here's a thought... and something I do with my Macbook Pro... I have an Airport Express in my bag along with my power adapter. It allows me to have my own isolated wireless network, secured MY way (WPA2 Personal FTW!) and gives me the ability to have an hardware firewall on my network connection that's under my control... just in case someone has some virus screaming on the customer's network. Not necessarily for my Mac mind you... but for my Parallels XP VM that I sometimes have to run at client locations.
Small, portable and a bit of peace of mind that I can have a connection so long as my clients don't mind me plugging it in. Then again, if they mind me plugging in the APE, they probably don't want my laptop plugged into their network, anyway... though I do understand some wireless concerns.
As a result, I use wireless at my client sites... I can move my laptop around and even have my APE configured so that it's tied to the MAC of my laptop (the MAC of my Mac?) and thus no-one else can use it. Very handy and allows me to move my laptop around quite a bit... within range.
Truly, one who does not fly coach often ;)
:)
Seriously... this is aimed at the person who spends much of his working life in a coach or "coach plus" seat with a laptop on a tray table. This would be a bit of a cramp... the size of the screen means that it'll be tough to get it to sit nice on a tray table... but I have sometimes been quite able to get some work done sitting in a coach seat with my Macbook Pro (15"), although it usually involves some machinations with putting my seat back to at least the same angle as the guy in front of me
The perfect example of one who is not the target market, and who does not get it.
Me? I'm not the target market, either but I used to be. The target for the Macbook Air is the road-warrior, the person who racks up enough frequent flyer miles in a year to fly to Paris for Christmas. I know, I used to be that guy and I would've killed for this device. As it was, I had a Toshiba Portege that was awesome, though underpowered even when it was state of the art. It did me perfectly, and fit like a champ in a briefcase that I could carry into the cabin of the flight. The 5 hour battery life was also more than enough for 99% of the flights I took in the mainland US, and the flights I took within Europe. The only time I would have used the laptop more would've been on an international flight... and most of them either have rather good in flight entertainment options these days, power sockets in the seats or I had my iPod.
I have a Macbook Pro which I love to death, but I have no need of a laptop like the Air in my current job or my life. I like the expandable, heavy and reliable Pro which has run like a champ for me for two years and has given me very little trouble. If I were back in the road-warrior business, I'd be all over the Air as a primary laptop for business, using home networking for the majority of my big file storage and just keeping the necessities on the Air.
This isn't an audio studio laptop... Apple has one for that; it's the Pro. It's also not a consumer laptop... Apple has one of those; the Macbook. This is one aimed at a very specific market segment; those who need an ultra-portable computer but are less than impressed with the options available elsewhere. And at 3lbs with a 13" screen, this is just an incredible piece of technology. Hell, I'd consider one of these for the geek value if I had $2K to drop on it right now. The price point and the name say it's not for the average consumer... the lack of optical, CPU speed, expandability and so forth say it's not for the A/V pro. Like every Apple product except the iPod, it's aimed at a very specific market segment... and one that's been screaming out for exactly this for a long time.
Oh, and if you want to bring issue with the lack of an optical drive... well, I have one in my Pro which I rarely use except when I'm at "home base". And if I'm at home base, what's wrong with me hooking up a USB drive to do the same? Oh, and there's a $99 external drive available as an option if it's really important.
Really, I have no idea how to respond to TFA. It's wrong on so many levels.
While there is a point here that IT is changing in radical ways, didn't it always? IT has been a moving target for decades and will continue to be. Doesn't mean it's going away.
There's also the big problem he doesn't even seem to fathom; that any company worth its salt would rather have an IT department of employees. Why? Well, what happens if your primary production database goes down? Well, if you have an army of employees, you'll have an army of people mobilized in an instant to resolve the issue as quickly and reliably as possible because their jobs depend on it. If you have the same happen with "cloud IT" then you've got some call center rep in the Philippines who only knows you as customer X and really doesn't have a sense of ownership of the problem.
I must admit, I work in a Corporate IT environment after years of working as a consultant. I see the vast difference between the mindset of a consultant and an employee as a sense of ownership and a sense of being part of something bigger. Consultants (and cloud IT people) are tactical; they fill a need today. Employees are strategic; they try to do the best job they can to ensure they've still got a job tomorrow. Sure, it doesn't always work out and not everyone's of that mindset. However, I tend to find that those who do not have the strategic mindset tend not to last long in IT.
As much as I'd like to "ride the wave" of Cloud IT... knows I have the know-how to set up something truly great... I don't think it's going to be much more than an interesting aside to the IT industry as a whole. It'll provide some services to companies in the same way as consultants do; they'll fill a need in the interim until they can put in a permanent solution. The only place I see "Cloud IT" becoming a force to be reckoned with is the small company; less than 250 employees perhaps... where it's usually not cost-effective to maintain an IT department. A lot of the smaller end of this (100 employees) tend to hire consultants to deal with their IT needs... this won't be that different. However, there'll still be a need for the consultants in question to put in and maintain the local hardware.
But then there's the aspect of reliability; what if you can't get to your applications? Who do you call? The app vendor? Your ISP? The consultant who maintains your routers and may not be available until after 3pm? I know the small companies I still do consulting for like having local IT infrastructure (email, web and file servers) so that in the event something's really messed up and the apps don't work, worst case a phone call to me where I can talk a secretary through rebooting the file server usually does the trick. However, this isn't cloud IT... this is local IT supported by someone who's remote. Doable, but not something you need to rely on for your business!
Your comment about CD's... well... as a UK resident you might already be familiar with this (or you might not, depending on how old you are), but this YouTube clip has one of the funniest jokes about CD's as an almost throwaway line right in the last 30 seconds of the clip. Worth watching because it's funny...
:)
Sorry, had to post... I was just reminded of this joke by your post and had to look it up on YouTube to see if I could find it again
Or perhaps like calling adhesive bandages, Band-Aids. Or perhaps that terrible crime of calling all computers, PC's (when it's quite clear the last PC rolled off IBM's production line more than 25 years ago).
:)
Like it or not, in the western world brand names and generic terms from specific products are all finding niches in language. And I don't know how many non-technical people you've dealt with lately, but to be sure I notice that many non-technical people *do* refer to digital music players as iPods, or sometimes MP3 players. Like it or not, MP3 as well as being a specific technology has also become a generic term for digital music. This is an ongoing process as evidenced here, and isn't going to go away just because some people don't like it. It may seem like a mistake, but it's the way people talk outside of technical circles.
I'll just go now and fire up the Gimp so I can "photoshop" some images.
Also remember that most Brits gave up measuring their petrol in imperial gallons some years ago, and the conversion from litres to US gallons hasn't changed.
:)
For reference, I live in the US (though I'm a Brit) and on a recent trip home I was flabbergasted at the difference in efficiency between US and UK cars. Even the rental car I was driving got me fantastic efficiency that I wish I could get in the US but they don't sell those cars here. I also noticed that even the cars that were sold here were sold in the UK with smaller engines and often diesels. Of course, I knew this but it was interesting to note that my home-driven BMW 330i was non-existent on UK streets where it's quite common here. Instead, the 323 seemed to be the common car of the same era as mine. Similarly, the number of diesels was incredible and I was offered the opportunity during my stay to drive an Alfa Romeo diesel... a car slightly bigger than my bimmer that netted mpg equivalents somewhere in the 40's.
Americans got spoiled on cheap gasoline in the 80's and 90's. We've seen the price skyrocket by our standards, but no, we're nowhere near the cost being paid by the British (about 3 times as much when you do the mathematics). Of course, most of that is tax, not oil import costs but it goes to pay for public transport.
Bear in mind when comparing the UK to the US that UK residents drive a whole lot less. Partly because it's expensive, partly because the British walk more, and partly because when traveling it's often easier and cheaper to hop on a train or bus. When I lived in England I owned a car that I maybe drove 8000 miles in a year. Now I live in the US I drive over 20,000 miles even though my commute is the same distance (21 miles each way). I do this because I have to... because in every city in the US in which I have spent time the public transport system sucks. The only real exception to this is New York... but I'm not ready to convince my wife we need to raise our kids in New York
Uh... yeah you can. OSX Leopard and Ubuntu both run great on Intel CPU's... and can dual boot. The days of PowerPC are over on the desktop (unless Amiga returns from its current purgatory), the only thing you can't do with OSX that you can with Ubuntu is install on arbitrary hardware. At least, not officially.
You know, some of us consider an integrated product offering to be an advantage rather than a flaw. I used to think so in the 80's when I was an Atari ST / Amiga guy. I enjoyed the choices available with the PC, but to be honest those choices are long since gone. If you want a consumer OS then you have no other choice on the PC platform than Windows. Yes, I'm a Linux user too. However, after trying to get my wife (who is, by the way relatively technically competent) to switch to Linux for her desktop environment recently I've decided that although I find Linux incredibly powerful and flexible, it's not for everyone.
She complains often about the default behaviors of Linux apps because they don't work like she expects. Or they work inconsistently with one another and become frustrating for her. She just wants to get her work done, not battle the work environment to get it done. I spent a month working with her on Linux before I threw up my hands in frustration and put XP back on her laptop.
However, I put her down in front of OSX for two hours on my laptop and she was running wonderfully... and in fact asked me why her laptop doesn't run OSX. When I told her, she just said "Well, in the new year I want a new laptop; a Macbook." That's quite reasonable, her laptop is rather old and falling apart at this point, anyway (won't run Vista worth a damn).
I too once thought like you did, but I find the integrated, controlled environment in an OSX machine to be an asset. I really do find myself getting more work done and less playing with the operating system. And finding software? Please... have you heard of Google? I have had NO problem finding software to get my work done. In fact, most of it was already installed. I use Garage Band for my music stuff, I use iWork to do my word processing, spreadsheets and so forth... I use iTunes to manage my music. Those few things I needed I had no problems finding; iRatchet for my small business financial management, Adium for my IM needs... though yes, I installed Firefox instead of Safari because I was tired of Safari chowing down every scrap of RAM in my machine just to display a few tabs.
Every Mac app that I have does automatic updates. Periodically an application will pop up a window asking if I want to upgrade. I never have to think about it; I just either click "Upgrade Now" or "Upgrade Later". That way my apps are always as up to date as I need them to be. The only apps that don't get upgraded are the ones that I don't use!
Yes, I'm a tinkerer by nature, but OSX caters to me too. I installed Quicksilver and use it all the time... I have X installed so that I can run apps from my remote UNIX boxes... I run an NX client... in other words the exact same stuff I used to run on my Linux boxes.
Then there's the support aspect; if you have a problem with a Linux app, then you have to search the app name, then the OS type, then the desktop framework you use (Gnome, KDE, insert other here) before you even come close to finding anything that relates specifically to your problem. If I have an issue with an OSX app it's as simple as typing a quick Google search. Hell, even if I have a problem with Office (which I don't any more since I uninstalled it), I can just search google for "(insert problem) OSX" or "Mac" and I'll almost be guaranteed to get a result that relates.
I will continue to use Linux as my choice of server, and I'll continue to do Windows at work (because that's what I do)... but for a home system that just gets out of my way and lets me get my work done, OSX has it.
Pattern recognition is certainly a facet of intelligence, but it's also present in just about every animal we have ever studied. Those that don't have simple, quick pattern recognition are either living in an environment with few natural predators or will rapidly find themselves extinct.
I am not claiming that the conclusions drawn from this experiment are flawed, I'm just saying that there's no evidence here that leads me to believe that the conclusions match with the experimental results.
Granted, all I read were summaries of the experiment and therefore may well be missing something, but every summary I've read shows the experiment as shown in TFA. I'm not a cognitive scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but my first thought on reading the summaries in question was that the test showed only simple response to stimuli, namely pattern recognition. Now, since pattern recognition is present in most organisms capable of acting on said stimuli (animals; plants can't respond) it seems that all they did was train the chimps to respond to the stimuli of numbers in a set way.
It also occurred to me that my experience with human beings is that when we see numbers, our first impulse is not to react, but to process. The reason for this is that we understand numbers on a very deep level and we assign those numbers a certain importance. Because numbers are important to us, we see numbers and want to understand or assign meaning to those numbers. It seems that in the tests described humans are almost invariably going to be slower than other animals because we first try to understand and process the numbers, another animal is more likely to react in a learned fashion since they don't assign meaning or importance to numbers.
And yes, getting chimps to play Tetris would be an interesting experiment in pattern recognition, but not a very good one. In fact, I'd say it's probably a better test of intelligence than the one in TFA simply because there is processing involved rather than reacting.
Of course, as I pointed out I don't know all the details of the experiment. I just think given the information I have to-hand that drawing the stated conclusion is a stretch at best.
I didn't say pattern recognition wasn't a facet of intelligence, I just pointed out that it does not necessarily denote intelligence.
:)
Besides, the IQ test does not measure intelligence, only our compliance to societal norms. I know a number of people who are incredibly intelligent but couldn't score more than probably about 90 on an IQ test. That's another discussion, though
The article itself contains a flawed summary. This does nothing to prove the ability of chimps to memorize numbers better than humans, but it does show a greater ability toward pattern recognition. That's not intelligence. In fact, I'd expect that given that pattern recognition is primarily a function of the ability to recognize a predator and/or food that isn't good for you. Given that we as human beings haven't had any significant predators and really don't forage for food (generally, there are exceptions) for thousands of years, you'd expect those lesser-used parts of the brain to "grow limp". A chimp, on the other hand has a certain biological imperative to be able to recognize predators early in life. Chimps that don't, don't perpetuate.
:)
There's also a factor that there are some biological differences between our species; like the physical fact that chimps can move their eyes faster and have physically smaller bodies therefore nerve impulses don't take so long to travel to the limbs.
Frankly, I fail to see what has been proven here. Maybe I'm missing something because I'm not a chimp
Interesting that you point this out, because I can say from my own experience that when I bought a Mac (Macbook Pro, first gen), one of the first apps I bought was Parallels. I created a nice little Windows VM, and have been quite happy.
:)
:)
Of course, the reason I bought it is because I thought I would need a lot more Windows support than I actually ended up needing. In fact, I rarely even boot it any more unless I need to VPN into work (Cisco VPN software and they won't give me a Mac native version)... but even that is mitigated by the fact that they provide me a work laptop for exactly that reason. Most times these days if I get called on a weekend when I'm at a coffee shop I just tell them to call someone else who has the ability to dial in because my Mac won't.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that you're right; that Parallels is cool when you need it, but pretty quickly you find you don't need it nearly as much as you thought you did. Generally I use Parallels these days mostly to stand up quick and dirty virtual machines for dev purposes. I have done a few installs of car PC's for friends, and when I'm staging the OS I do it in a VM in Parallels, that way I can crank it up and test it nicely to make sure it's stable before I dump it down to the hardware. As long as the hardware's pretty generic (mostly is for Car PC's) then a quick port is easy. Even with Windows XP Embedded
I don't get it. What will you end up with at the end of these hacks? Realistically, you'll end up with a rip-off variant on OSX that looks vaguely like it and runs the risk of being less stable than Windows usually is. I don't get it.
OK, I'm a Mac user. Honestly, I tried to make my old Linux laptop more Mac-like even though it was not a very powerful laptop. It worked... and it worked quite well for my needs, but honestly it was problematic. After I finally replaced it with a Macbook Pro I discovered that my Mac-Like desktop was really just a second-rate imitation that required a little too much "care and feeding" in order to run decently and really wasn't all that good. I'm not saying I couldn't have done better, but it still remains that I'm MUCH more efficient with my Mac than I ever was with that Linux desktop.
OK, so all of these products are about making Windows more Mac-Like. Fair enough... I understand some people use Windows who dislike some of the way it works and I'm all for customization. However, the problems with Windows aren't just the Windows shell; they're application and API problems that either kill usability or cause issues and inconsistencies that will render this "Mac Like Experience" more like Windows XP/Vista with a fresh coat of paint. Nothing more.
The strength of OSX is not in the "shiny" stuff, nor is it in the look and feel. The key strength of OSX is the foundations upon which the OS is based. The APIs are nice and well documented, the UNIX core gives you incredible flexibility, and the fact that Apple as a company is not afraid to make tough decisions about their APIs but still provide reasonable paths to migrate to new API sets. They will even continue to provide an API long past its theoretical sell-by date, but do so in such a way that a clear migration path is mapped out and even simple to port to.
Yes, the shiny stuff is cool for all of about 5 minutes. It gets old... I have most of the visual effects turned off on my Mac, I just want to get work done. How does any of this increase the efficiency of working with the OS?
Oh, and by the time you've paid for your Windows box, Windows license and the shareware fees for each of these applications (no, ripping them off does not count), you may as well have gone out and at least bought a Mac Mini or iMac. Hell, if you're in laptop-land you may as well have bought a Macbook.
And in answer to my own question; no the Zune does not work with the Mac by default. Note that this doesn't automatically exclude it from my decision making process... I don't like iTunes all that much, either :)
The Zune will work with Macs with third party software. Google around... it's out there.
Actually, no. The discussion is whether or not the Zune is/was/will be a successful product. I still stand by my initial opinion, which is that it is still too early to tell. The Zune is a newbie to the marketplace. I may not necessarily be a Microsoft fan, but in their history they have usually had great success in markets where they WANT success. Their initial forays into said markets are usually buggy, unstable or just plain crap... but they rapidly learn from their mistakes and eventually surpass the competition, hence putting them out of business. Windows, for all its warts did this. So did Microsoft Office. Do I like either? No, I use OSX and iWork 08 for everything these days and uninstalled Office from my Mac several months ago. If Microsoft want the market, they will continue to produce a product that will be better at each iteration.
Right now, the iPod has inertia and the Zune does not. The Zune also suffers from a terrible advertising campaign; if I weren't a tech geek I probably would never have heard of it. The radio receiver conversation came up because somebody else bought it up... I just disagreed. I think the fact that it has one is a positive, even if others don't. I was merely expressing an opinion.
And from my perspective, the inclusion of an FM receiver IS a good decision on Microsoft's part because it does increase the odds that my next media player will be a Zune. Doesn't guarantee it, but it would be enough to break a tie in my decision making process.
And for the record, as I have said elsewhere; the Zune version 2 is a damned good product. You can disbelieve me if you like, but I really think that Apple would be fools not to take notice. The Zune is every bit as good as the 2nd Gen Nanos and 5G iPods. That's in a year of development. This tells me that it took Microsoft a year to do what took Apple five. If this doesn't concern Apple then it should.
RoughlyDrafted often has the distinction of having an Ostrich mentality. Rather than try to figure out how to beat the competition or how to better the market, the site prefers to create inflammatory articles. It's like the New York style of comedy that I despise so much, where in order to better themselves, New York comedians feel they must break someone else down, either with facts or FUD. Yeah, Microsoft is often guilty of this too thanks to Ballmer, but only Apple has a fanbase that does the exact same thing in Daniel Eran... in my opinion. Unfortunately, too many people on this site often take the same track, particularly when talking about RD(F)'s articles.
Actually, the Zune works fine with iTunes for managing your music, videos and podcasts... so yeah, it works fine with the Mac as far as I know (if someone knows otherwise, please let me know!) If not, well that'll just feed into my decision-making process but is not a deal-breaker. I run Windows in a Parallels session a lot of the time anyway. As a hobby I do soundtracker music, and I have not found a solution as good as Modplug Tracker for the Mac that helps out so much. Yes, I do final mixes with Garage Band, but the actual composition is a lot better in Windows right now. As a result, I already have Windows running; I can run Zune management software as well without too much hassle. Yes, I love the flexibility of my Mac and Parallels. :D
Maybe I'm an exception around here... but I actually fail to care particularly about the red ink on a corporate bottom line. Honestly I don't care who makes the device as long as it works for me, and if they're honestly dumb enough to think they'll extract further monies from me in the future after I've bought the device then they may be quite deluded. That's their problem, not mine.
Oh, support ongoing for the device you say? Have you tried getting support on either a Zune or iPod? It sucks and is next to worthless. So what if they stop selling the devices, if there's a market someone else will come along and fill the void with a device that's good enough for my money. Now, getting support on a Mac is a completely different kettle of fish, but beyond the scope of this argument.
So the Zune made a loss in its first year. *SO DID THE iPOD*. The iPod was really a market dud until about the third generation when it finally became hip and became the market leader. Hell, I still suspect (and a friend who has worked at Apple as an engineer for 15 years or so agrees) that the only reason that the iPod was (a) made to support USB and (b) made to support Windows is because the first generation Firewire/Mac Only version didn't even cover its R&D costs... not even close. In fact, each unit only made a very small profit, and sold in small enough numbers that it was only really a blip on the radar. Yes, the market's bigger now, but the Zune's only been out for a year and has only now gotten to its second generation. A second generation that I might add is significantly better, more reliable and more enticing than the first.
I can't believe I'm defending the Zune to be honest. I'm as anti-Microsoft as you can find but even I have to admit when they make a good product. The 2G Zune is one, and I've had an XBox 360 for a while which I really enjoy playing games on.
But back to the subject at hand; I don't care if Microsoft makes money on the Zune or not. That's not my problem, that's theirs. If I buy a Zune then ongoing care and feeding of the device is going to be in my hands anyway. Same is true of the iPod. If Microsoft or Apple disappear tomorrow, I personally won't mourn their passing. The dynamics of the free market mean that the loss of both companies would create a void, a void that someone would fill and perhaps do a better job. I won't say that would happen, in fact I can't think of a scenario less likely than that above (except that one of them has a risk of coming true within, say 20 years... though I won't say which at this point). Simply put, my only question to which either device is a solution is "How can I listen to my music collection while I'm out and about or at the gym?" If I start thinking to myself "How can I feed part of my bank account into the coffers of Steve Jobs?" then please shoot me in the head.
Your presumption falls apart when you realize I'm (a) an iPod owner and (b) a Mac user. I'm probably an exception to the general rule about Mac owners though simply because I do technology for a living.
:) ) and I know that friends of mine who listen to podcasts have similarly narrow focus in their podcast choices. I listen to particular radio stations because they give me a much wider range of interest, and sometimes while listening I'll find myself fascinated by something else. Who'd have thought that I would become a huge fan of the writings of Yeats had I not heard some readings of his material on NPR? I would never have considered download a Yeats Poetry Podcast (is there even one? Should I maybe start one? :) ), but on NPR I caught some readings while I was on a stationary bike and found myself loving the material.
;)
As for your comment about 100 year old tech... well that's an opinion (and therefore no better than mine ) which I will have to agree to disagree about. Myself, I like having a portable radio as well, the flexibility inherent is nice. I rarely listen to the radio in my car; I listen to Podcasts downloaded to my iPod. Ironic, I know. However, as I pointed out there are times I *do* like to listen to the radio. Typically, when I'm at the gym is a prime example. I work out two or three times a week, and said workouts can run up to about 3 hours if I do a complete cardio and weights workout. Three hours of nothing but solid music or chatter on a narrow range of subjects is boring. I like to be able to grab my iPod while I'm on the treadmill, go up a few menu levels and select "Radio", then tune into NPR or sometimes local college radio.
I love Podcasts, though not always when I work out. The problem with podcasting is that by their very nature the podcasts contained on a single person's device will usually only reflect a very narrow range of interest. I know my podcasts are mostly tech related (Leo Laporte is my friend
And as for your final comment, the Zune actually works as advertised as well (getting back on subject). The times I've had my hands on one of the 2G devices I've been nicely impressed. The 1G... well, I wasn't exactly a fan of the 1G iPod, either. Or the 2G for that matter... it was in the third generation the iPod started to get interesting... but even then my first iPod was the first gen Nano. Now, do I think that Microsoft plays up the wireless thing? Yeah, they did in the first gen... but the second gen less so. That doesn't matter to me anyway; that's something that is a pretty neutral feature... to me the radio actually adds value to the Zune. Having to pay $30 for the iPod radio adapter felt like being taxed for something I wanted and knew I would use. As I also pointed out, I'm not going to run out and buy a Zune just because it's got a radio adapter. And in fact, when I finally kill my 5G iPod Video I will then look at what's on the market and make an informed decision based upon my own criteria. Maybe the Zune will win, maybe the iPod will. Who knows? The simple fact remains that I think the Zune is reasonable competition for the iPod, and it does happen to have one feature I wish my iPod had integrated.
Now, if the 7G iPods come with an HD Radio tuner...
But there's no punishment for the customer. Both the Zune and iPod sell for about equivalent prices... the only person paying for the FM tuner addition is Microsoft by eating into their profits by a couple of pennies per device. I would probably never use the wifi on the Zune, but does that mean that Microsoft shouldn't include it and should instead make it a $30 accessory? I'd rather have it there on the off chance I might use it one day, just switched off to save battery power.
No, I'm not saying the FM tuner is a deal killer or deal maker... but it's a nice to have. It's certainly one thing I will weigh into my shopping decision when I eventually kill the hard drive in my 5G iPod. I already killed one battery and replaced that, but if the HD goes then I'll probably just replace the device. All I'm saying is that to me as a customer it doesn't hurt or hinder me to have the FM hardware there, and in fact having it there does give me one extra bullet point that I *might* use one day, thereby increasing my likelihood of buying a Zune. Now, in all probability since I already have all my music in iTunes and manage my music on my Mac, I will probably buy another iPod. However, that's not guaranteed. It wouldn't be the first time I've moved platform (Windows to Linux to Mac, Diamond Rio to Creative Zen to iPod etc.) and it may not be the last.
Like everything on RoughlyDrafted. Yes, it's a site I enjoy reading, and he's often had some insightful or amusing articles... but don't be confused it's a personal blog and as such is full of just opinions.
Now, before I continue; I would like to point out that I'm a happy 5G iPod owner (now renamed the "Classic"), and happy Mac owner... so I'm as Apple-centric as they come these days. I do like their products, and use them every day and am extremely happy with them.
However, I have to say that I disagree with the article. I think it's still too early to call the Zune a failure. The Zune's been out for a year. Look at the iPod sales figures for the first 3 years; they were miserable. They were an also-ran in a market that was eaten up by Diamond and Creative. Now, a part of this can be attributed to the Mac-only state of the 1G iPod for the first year... sales definitely accelerated after they went to Windows also... and the change to USB instead of Firewire opened it up a little more. However, the Zune's sales today are far outstripping the iPod even in its third year. Yes, the market's a lot larger, prices are a lot more reasonable and our lives as tech people have changed to include an MP3 player as an optional extra.
Now, I don't own a Zune, but I have used them. I play with a lot of tech stuff through friends and just because I want to, and I have to say that I didn't like the 1G Zune very much. However, their second attempt is MUCH better. The form factor's nicer, the interface is completely revamped and I am really quite impressed with the device now. That doesn't mean I'm going to run out and buy one though; I'm quite happy with my iPod, and it does everything I need it to do with aplomb. However, I used a new Zune recently when a friend loaned me his to check out at the gym. I have to say I was really impressed. The display was nice and clear, and much more readable than the rather pokey font used on the iPod. When selecting music, it worked fantastically well. Now, I've grown extremely accustomed to the click wheel so the Zune's control method seems a little clunky... but I have to say I thought the control method on the iPod was annoying at first and I still occasionally have issues with it's sensitivity.
Plus, during my workout I really appreciated the FM receiver. I have the FM receiver for the iPod as well, but it's rather annoying to have an extra length of cable hanging off the back of my iPod which I tend to leave wrapped up in the headphone loop on my case. I use the FM of my iPod often while working out when I get bored of the music or I just want to listen to NPR or the news or something. Having it integrated in such a small form factor is nice, though not a deal breaker for me since most of the time I listen to music or audio books.
Don't discount the Zune. I think it's really good competition for the iPod and will catch up quickly. In the US at least it's selling well, and the 2G is a huge improvement on the 1G. It's also fantastic to see that the 2G software is actually available for those who bought the 1G... for some reason that's something Apple has refused to do with their older iPods. For example, when exactly do you think Apple is going to release the iPod Classic software for my iPod Video? Despite the fact that the hardware's identical they're unlikely to release that since in some instances people are refusing to upgrade. I know I won't upgrade until I kill the hard drive in my iPod because I have no compelling need to... and though in my opinion the Classic software gives me nothing I need (coverflow is a nice idea, but impractical when you're running on a treadmill and trying to select a song or playlist) it's simply the prinicple of the thing.
For you, perhaps. On my iPod, one of my first purchases was the FM tuner. Why? Because when I'm working out at the gym, sometimes I want more than just music; sometimes I want to listen to the TV's around the room (they have FM transmitters), or I want to listen to the news. Hell, sometimes I'm just out walking and I like to listen to NPR. Just because the FM tuner doesn't work for you doesn't make it a bad idea. I would say enough people use the FM antenna to make it worthwhile. Hell, look at the sales of the FM adapter for the iPod. If it were a bad idea, it wouldn't sell and Apple wouldn't sell it any more.
It's a little bit of a conceptual shift from datacenters of old... and it's not for everyone. Having said that, this is exactly the sort of thing we've been talking about for a while where I work ever since Sun talked about their product.
Data center processing capabilities have increased dramatically over the years, but generally the problem I have seen in most datacenters these days is simply that they are not designed for the heat and power load per square foot that blades and high-density systems require. Most modern datacenters were designed and/or built in the 80s and 90s when they had very specific requirements as regards power and heat load per square foot... and that was reasonable at the time. The higher density systems such as blades are a great idea, and provide much more processing capability per square foot than traditional racked servers... however, it has become tough to keep up with the heat output and power requirements of these on a per rack basis. I know our datacenter where I work that was built in 1995 has been retrofitted no less than four times in the last few years to increase cooling capacity, and we're rapidly reaching the limits of what we can do with the physically constrained space we have. At the moment, if we add a new power feed or AC unit, we will actually need to remove racks to put it in. Given our racks are currently running at an average 85% physical capacity already you can see where we have a problem.
These sort of portable datacenters though are only for those who design their systems correctly. Most applications these days can leverage "fat" back end systems (databases and so forth) with "thin" front-end application servers. My proposal that's going through the mill right now was to invest in one of these containers to migrate all of the front-end systems into that datacenter, leaving only the data and storage (SAN) sitting in the existing datacenter. That way, we can eliminate approximately 60% of our servers, which themselves make up about 40% of the heat and power load in our datacenter today. That way we can continue to expand the storage (which is desperately needed, we just have no more floor space for SAN) and leverage either powerful blade servers or powerful standard rack servers as consolidated database clusters and possibly virtual machine space. Where we need application-server space, we can put a server out in the "trailer" and connect it across a fat link into the existing datacenter (bonded gigabit), thereby providing incredible flexibility.
The cost may seem prohibitive, but what are our other options? Right now, our only other option is to actually build a new dedicated datacenter building. The cost of that is incredibly prohibitive, and we've been playing catchup for a long time as far as trying to meet our user demand in a rapidly growing user base while being seriously constrained on space. The cost of one of these trailers is actually an incredible bargain compared to the cost of proper design, architecture, engineering and actually constructing a new building to house our ever growing application requirements.
So what about server failures? Personally, I feel that the best way to proceed is to run up the trailer to about 85% utilized, leaving lots of idle servers in-place. Network boots and stuff like that ought to provide rapid provisioning within the trailered data center, so in the event of a failure you just use network boot to bring up another node and call for service. Hey, we already have all of our servers under maintenance with the manufacturer anyway, and most of the time this is exactly what we do. Plus, what if we grow again? Add another trailer. Simple, cost-effective and efficient.
The security aspect? Leverage your already existing datacenter. Use that as your data source, leave as little actual customer data on the trailered servers as you can. If you start getting constrained on space, start moving your database servers out to the trailers as well, but connect them back to your SAN in the old DC. By doing s