The story about the Linux geek who got burnt by a fault that affects less than 0.2% of units shipped hits the front page, letting him complain about "hardware lock in". The vendor response about replacing the faulty part, and reimbursing people who've paid to get it fixed, makes only the apple.slashdot pages (ie buried in the paper).
Apple have just implemented an iBook repair program, that among other things will fix any of the stated problems or refund people that have had to pay for the problem.
Say what you like about Apple, but they're willing to stand behind their problems once they recognise a fault (witness the whitespots on the Powerbook G4).
Here's the really interesting "hidden outrage": A few months ago, when the iPod line was 10 / 15 / 30 and the 15 was the $399 midrange instead of the $299 low end, the 15 did have all those extras (since Apple includes them with the midrange and high end, while making them optional for the low end). Apple sells each of those items for $39 (overpriced, but there you go). That means that a few months ago one could have bought a 15 GB that included all the extras for $399; now it would cost you $416, or $17 more, to get the same stuff (!), since you buy the extras separately - yet remarkably, they achieved this not by actually raising the price of anything, but by simply improving everything - they just replaced the midrange 15 with a 20, and then the low end 10 with a 15, while keeping all the other specs (prices and included extras) the same. Pretty damn clever of them, if you ask me...
This is in no way uncommon, and doesn't necessarily mean you're getting a bad deal. Basically, it comes down to whether you want all the superfluous stuff - like the dock and whatever - that, in the final summation, is not really needed for the iPod to do it's job. If you don't, then you're getting the iPod cheaper and less crap to clutter up your desk.
Where this has a basis in another commercial area is the automotive industry. It's not uncommon for the "next model up" in a luxury car (generally same shape but bigger engine) to be cheaper once you add in all the options to the cheaper model. I know BMW do it.
There's also a distribution cost in selling the additional iPod accessories, because no longer are they all in the one iPod box, instead they come with their own packaging and must be distributed separately. of course that's going to make it more expensive.
Also, a savvy Slashdot reader, leaked the plans some time before the upgrade was officially announced.
On the topic, I tried to submit this two weeks ago (I submitted the first story to/. about the VT cluster), but oh no, the editors weren't having anything of it, were they?
2004-01-15 17:12:02 Virginia Tech to switch to Xserves (articles,apple) (rejected)
I probably would go so far... and what's more, from a strategic standpoint I don't see why Apple wants to do this.
People are buying iPods - not WMA players. If that's the case, it *makes sense* to tie them to the Apple store.
The number of people downloading from the other stores, when all combined and added up, do not match those downloading from the iTunes store.
So, you're tacitly acknowledging the other standard (and there are no other players that do the same for the AAC standard), and you're encouraging people to download from the other stores.
There are two potential explanations I can come up with: Apple is looking at the iTunes store as nothing more than a figurehead, it's not going to make them money and they want to transfer customers out; or two (and way out in leftfield) HP is acting as a proxy for MS so as to get the #1 portable music player compatible with WMA.
Whilst sure, WMA on the iPod is a good trick to have up your sleeve, right now it just doesn't make sense for Apple to do it...
I wanted it. My brother wanted it. I own a Neuros and he now owns a Karma. Entirely because of the Ogg Vorbis support (I got my Neuros a few days before it became the first player to support Ogg Vorbis because they said they were supporting it and I said I'd buy the first player with support so I did). I spent a bit over $400 on my Neuros, which is what an iPod would have run me. Apple would have gotten my money if they had had Ogg Vorbis support because I don't use MP3.
Whilst they might make a lot of noise here on/. , people who want Vorbis support in their MP3 players are akin to people who want MiniDisc player support in their cars.
No matter what anybody says about the PC vendors having grown up, it's still a fact that Microsoft and Apple sell software meant to run on little computers that sit on your desk like paperweights.
How can this honestly surprise anybody? Since when HASNT Apple been overcharging for things that are comparitively cheaper with non-Apple branded products?
Somebody obviously forgot to tell Virginia Tech about your unsubstantiated garbage. It just so happens that the third fastest computer in the world is based on Apples.
You do know why they picked Apples, don't you? Because Dell, IBM, HP and everyone else selling non-Apple branded products were more expensive.
MS, on the other hand, are a great example of a Co that overcharges. Their OSes are more, their gaming consoles are more, even their mice cost more than the competition.
It's easy to add everything. Problem is, you end up with a "fat" product. Just ask MS. Apple know what to cut - and that's why people are comfortable carrying around an iPod in their pocket.
Oh, and the reason that those batteries are so cheap (relatively) is because they're AAs. Failed to mention that bit. Interestingly enough, it's Nintendo that are making the $$$ on the batteries - that's way too much for a set of rechargables.
Apple's engineering Wizards could have designed an easy-to-service battery if they had wanted to. Rather, it seems the decision was made to turn an EASY replacement into a revenue stream. Why are so many posters (not the parent in particular) trying to rationalize corporate greed? Just be honest, and call an elephant an elephant when you see one.
I call bullshit. The battery service has only been offered in the last couple of months. How long has the iPod been around for? If it was designed to be a revenue stream, the battery service would have been around for almost as long as the iPod itself. It hasn't been.
then do what everyone else does when offered WMA files.
Just say no.
The first to take on Apple was BuyMusic.com in July. It expected 1 million daily song downloads. "We're not achieving that at all," says BuyMusic CEO Scott Blum. "I've spoken with my competitors, and we're nowhere near (Apple's) numbers."
This will work just fine with MP3's, but won't work with Apple's DRM'ed files. For those, you need to actually authorize the computer so it can play the AAC file.
that won't be enough to stop the ensuing shit storm. Last time something like this happened (iTunes 4.0 on the mac) it was discovered that you could enable music sharing over the entire internet. The RIAA jumped down Apple's throat.
This will be no different - it's the akin to setting up shared file folders all over a network (think of a college dorm...), except that iTunes is a pretty interface. I think when the RIAA gets wind of this (won't be long now, and I *bet* that's why CNet published in the first place) they'll be down Apple's throat like pavlova down a fat lady's gullet.
The endgame: I'm now concerned that the feature is going to get pulled. Which is a shame, because it's innovative and it's cool.
What bugs me the most about these Photoshop is superior to GIMP posts, is that they're mostly written by some web-designer who deems himself the MichaelAngelo of online arts, and refuses to use anything but the best of the best, or at least what his arty-friends tell him what's best.
They culture their self-proclaimed god-of-arts status, and what they use/must/ be the ultimate and everything that isn't exactly what they use is worthless for creating truly artistic web-sites. GIMP is great, can do most of what Photoshop can (although sometimes in a different way) and is thanks to its build in scripting ability in some areas brutally more powerfull than Photoshop.
I am a computer science student. I don't touch art, I have used both however to a moderate level for those inevitable moments where something shiny must be developed. I have worked in a big ISP, and have many friends who are web designers (still, none claiming to be Leo DaVinci or any such crap). There is a feature level that PS has that the GIMP has not matched. I've never met a real person (as opposed to some A-C probably on the dev team) that says that Gimp is better. It's not. Not by a long shot. However, I think we're starting to get closer to the truth around here:
instead of going to the "imprison people 'cause we don't like what they do" law-fund of Adobe.
Ahh, you don't like adobe hey? I don't like 'em much either. But I'm not putting my rose-coloured specs on; just because the company sucks, it doesn't mean the product does as well.
Full credit to 'em for trying. Competition is good etc
you were fine up to here, but this went off mark. stick to what you know, least you throw away a good argument.
Name me three innovative linux features in the OS, I'll name you a hundred innovative features in Apple's OSes. Nearly everything cool in Linux was done somewhere else first.
and before you ask, I can't be bothered to type them out - but I bet you I could find 100 features that apple had in their OS before Windows, or before Linux.
afair Carmack does coding in windows (there was some praise of Visual Studio that I found strange, but there you are).
I didn't say what they used. I said what they think.
and the supercomputer dude bought the macs for the hardware, not the 'shiny os'(*) - guess what, when you're doing number crunching, the OS kind of tends to get in the way
funny assertion, seeing how he left OS X on those machines instead of installing Linux. Also, the guy does use two macs himself - a 17'' pb and a G5.
He did buy the G5s for the hardware, you're right, but I would assert he wasn't buying it for use in the context of this article. i would rather have OS X on a two year old mac than Red Hat on the latest and greatest machine. Speed is not the only measure of efficiency, esp not for desktop users.
, see how the next cray thingy uses a custom os from sandia on the computing nodes and linux only for non-computing stuff (storage, monitoring). so there. (not saying you didn't have a point, just that you didn't make it)
Hmm, somehow methinks there are going to be a lot more G5 clusters popping up running OS X than the cray numbers. I guess we'll see.
Also there are THOUSANDS more apps for linux, in Debian there are 13000(!) different packages, offering a ploethera of software, The new GIMP with a easy GUI and CMYK support, the Fast OpenOffice 1.1, the sleek totem movie player, plus much much more. Not to mention you can run more with Wine, or MacOnLinux if you use a Gx processor.
It is usually possible to tell there's something wrong with a post when someone starts ranting and raving about GIMP. Yep, it's free, and no, it's no patch on Photoshop. In fact, GraphicConverter is in many ways better than GIMP.
Great, you've got 13 000 packages (and I hope you've tried them all, too!) - but no Photoshop? How about, say, Final Cut Pro? Hmm, I feel like a game of Diablo. Oh, what's that? You can only run it in emulation?
The point is, it comes down to quality, not quantity. Professionals use professional tools, not some I'm-a-CS-graduate-and-know-how-to-program-stuff. I'm willing to assert that a majority of the 13000 pkgs are under 500k. They're probably really neat, you'd probably download them and stick them in your utilities folder and they'd never get seen again.
Mac OS X on the other hand has broken binary compatibillity,
1. It has the honour of being the first OS to do this, I suppose? 2. Can't make omelette without cracking a few eggs etc. GCC 3.3 broke shit. Get over it.
fries Firewird disks
well, it'd also be the first OS to have hardware incompatibilities with one single type of chip. FFS buddy, nobody has not killed something somewhere along the way.
Costs $129 per point release, where linux is just a simple click of the "dist upgrade" button.
Yeah, and with every point release adds more features than Linux gets in a full digit release.
I am a apple zealot, but I don't like their OS,
that, my dear friend, is a complete contradiction in terms. Apple's hardware is shiny, but their OS utterly dominates everything else out there in the desktop stakes. that's what makes apple zealots. It's also the reason so many people continually pine for OS X on Intel. The hardware's kinda cool, but the software kicks hind tit.
their OS has gone down hill ever since Mac OS 8. I have ran Linux on them ever since, and after trying MacOS Jaguar and Panther, I'm glad to use Linux.
"Down hill". Hmm, I can think of all the/. editors, John Carmack, Tim O'Reilly, that cool Indian dude with the number 3 supercomputer in the world, the ars technica editors... guess what? they all think you're wrong!
Linux certainly has it's place in areas where organisations can develop a full system, but where you want to go out and buy something and have it all work, intuitively, and stable-y, and without spyware, and without MS groping your HD, you go buy a mac. Simple.
Are you sure you would want a man-made virus that is capable of wiping out an entire species introduced into your country?
They already exist, but rarely are they capable of killing entire species. They're either too efficient (kill too fast), not efficient enough (one area dies out, and by the time it's moved on uninfected animals move back into the old area), or the animals develop a resistance to it.
Seriously, what is the point of engineering something like this?
If it was another country's research team we'd probably be invading by now...
Maybe that's true, but assuming there are adequate (and they'd need to be big for something like this) security measures in place, developing biological weapons like this is not necessarily the terrible thing(TM) that it sounds like.
First off, there's a lot that is learned. Virologists may learn how to accurately target certain areas of different entities. Here in Australia, for instance, we have a wretched little (introduced) animal called the cane toad. If a virus like this could be engineered such that it would kill them all out, I'd say it's not such a bad thing.
Secondly, putting a lid on any sort of research is bad. It might stop some, but it might also drive others underground. I'd rather it in some lab in the US than in some lab in Russia.
Finally, the US isn't the only country capable of developing these things. By taking obvious virii and genetically enhancing them, you can also start looking for cures and vaccines. None of the vaccines that presently exist work on this thing - so now, maybe we can do something about it.
There's a good thread over here with a lot of angry people in it:) If you have a F/W hard drive, if it's at all important - I would recommend keeping it away from Panther during installation, start up or shut down, or log in. If it's really important stuff, I'd either not install Panther or keep the hard drive unplugged altogether until a fix is forthcoming.
Slashdot Mirror
The story about the Linux geek who got burnt by a fault that affects less than 0.2% of units shipped hits the front page, letting him complain about "hardware lock in". The vendor response about replacing the faulty part, and reimbursing people who've paid to get it fixed, makes only the apple.slashdot pages (ie buried in the paper).
So much for "new media".
-- james
Apple have just implemented an iBook repair program, that among other things will fix any of the stated problems or refund people that have had to pay for the problem.
Say what you like about Apple, but they're willing to stand behind their problems once they recognise a fault (witness the whitespots on the Powerbook G4).
-- james
This is in no way uncommon, and doesn't necessarily mean you're getting a bad deal. Basically, it comes down to whether you want all the superfluous stuff - like the dock and whatever - that, in the final summation, is not really needed for the iPod to do it's job. If you don't, then you're getting the iPod cheaper and less crap to clutter up your desk.
Where this has a basis in another commercial area is the automotive industry. It's not uncommon for the "next model up" in a luxury car (generally same shape but bigger engine) to be cheaper once you add in all the options to the cheaper model. I know BMW do it.
There's also a distribution cost in selling the additional iPod accessories, because no longer are they all in the one iPod box, instead they come with their own packaging and must be distributed separately. of course that's going to make it more expensive.
-- james
On the topic, I tried to submit this two weeks ago (I submitted the first story to
2004-01-15 17:12:02 Virginia Tech to switch to Xserves (articles,apple) (rejected)
-- james
It's hilarious, isn't it?
-- james
Microsoft keeps using that word... I do not think it means what they think it means.
-- james
Or a whining evil bastard that works for Microsoft...
-- james
I probably would go so far... and what's more, from a strategic standpoint I don't see why Apple wants to do this.
People are buying iPods - not WMA players. If that's the case, it *makes sense* to tie them to the Apple store.
The number of people downloading from the other stores, when all combined and added up, do not match those downloading from the iTunes store.
So, you're tacitly acknowledging the other standard (and there are no other players that do the same for the AAC standard), and you're encouraging people to download from the other stores.
There are two potential explanations I can come up with: Apple is looking at the iTunes store as nothing more than a figurehead, it's not going to make them money and they want to transfer customers out; or two (and way out in leftfield) HP is acting as a proxy for MS so as to get the #1 portable music player compatible with WMA.
Whilst sure, WMA on the iPod is a good trick to have up your sleeve, right now it just doesn't make sense for Apple to do it...
-- james
Whilst they might make a lot of noise here on
They're kinda weird, and few & far between...
-- james
Man, spare a thought for those poor suckers at Virigina Tech. They bought this cluster thinking they were getting one of the fastest processing facilities in the world, but it turns out that it's just the world's biggest paperweight.
-- james
PS JK Master-Slave... tell me, do you have a paperweight that ranks third in the supercomputer stakes?
Somebody obviously forgot to tell Virginia Tech about your unsubstantiated garbage. It just so happens that the third fastest computer in the world is based on Apples.
You do know why they picked Apples, don't you? Because Dell, IBM, HP and everyone else selling non-Apple branded products were more expensive.
MS, on the other hand, are a great example of a Co that overcharges. Their OSes are more, their gaming consoles are more, even their mice cost more than the competition.
-- james
GBA: 13.5 x 8.0 x 2.5 cm = 270cm cubed volume
It's easy to add everything. Problem is, you end up with a "fat" product. Just ask MS. Apple know what to cut - and that's why people are comfortable carrying around an iPod in their pocket.
Oh, and the reason that those batteries are so cheap (relatively) is because they're AAs. Failed to mention that bit. Interestingly enough, it's Nintendo that are making the $$$ on the batteries - that's way too much for a set of rechargables.
I call bullshit. The battery service has only been offered in the last couple of months. How long has the iPod been around for? If it was designed to be a revenue stream, the battery service would have been around for almost as long as the iPod itself. It hasn't been.
-- james
then do what everyone else does when offered WMA files.
Just say no.
The first to take on Apple was BuyMusic.com in July. It expected 1 million daily song downloads. "We're not achieving that at all," says BuyMusic CEO Scott Blum. "I've spoken with my competitors, and we're nowhere near (Apple's) numbers."
-- james
The difference is that Apple, unlike Microsoft, provides timely patches. Not timely excuses.
-- james
Hmm, what's this then? Some kind of new editorial disclaimer to enable double posts?
-- james
that won't be enough to stop the ensuing shit storm. Last time something like this happened (iTunes 4.0 on the mac) it was discovered that you could enable music sharing over the entire internet. The RIAA jumped down Apple's throat.
This will be no different - it's the akin to setting up shared file folders all over a network (think of a college dorm...), except that iTunes is a pretty interface. I think when the RIAA gets wind of this (won't be long now, and I *bet* that's why CNet published in the first place) they'll be down Apple's throat like pavlova down a fat lady's gullet.
The endgame: I'm now concerned that the feature is going to get pulled. Which is a shame, because it's innovative and it's cool.
-- james
Plus, Apple is cool, and Time wanted somebody cool at the top I guess.
-- james
I am a computer science student. I don't touch art, I have used both however to a moderate level for those inevitable moments where something shiny must be developed. I have worked in a big ISP, and have many friends who are web designers (still, none claiming to be Leo DaVinci or any such crap). There is a feature level that PS has that the GIMP has not matched. I've never met a real person (as opposed to some A-C probably on the dev team) that says that Gimp is better. It's not. Not by a long shot. However, I think we're starting to get closer to the truth around here:
Ahh, you don't like adobe hey? I don't like 'em much either. But I'm not putting my rose-coloured specs on; just because the company sucks, it doesn't mean the product does as well.
Full credit to 'em for trying. Competition is good etc
and that you get what you pay for.
-- james
Name me three innovative linux features in the OS, I'll name you a hundred innovative features in Apple's OSes. Nearly everything cool in Linux was done somewhere else first.
and before you ask, I can't be bothered to type them out - but I bet you I could find 100 features that apple had in their OS before Windows, or before Linux.
I didn't say what they used. I said what they think.
funny assertion, seeing how he left OS X on those machines instead of installing Linux. Also, the guy does use two macs himself - a 17'' pb and a G5.
He did buy the G5s for the hardware, you're right, but I would assert he wasn't buying it for use in the context of this article. i would rather have OS X on a two year old mac than Red Hat on the latest and greatest machine. Speed is not the only measure of efficiency, esp not for desktop users.
Hmm, somehow methinks there are going to be a lot more G5 clusters popping up running OS X than the cray numbers. I guess we'll see.
-- james
It is usually possible to tell there's something wrong with a post when someone starts ranting and raving about GIMP. Yep, it's free, and no, it's no patch on Photoshop. In fact, GraphicConverter is in many ways better than GIMP.
Great, you've got 13 000 packages (and I hope you've tried them all, too!) - but no Photoshop? How about, say, Final Cut Pro? Hmm, I feel like a game of Diablo. Oh, what's that? You can only run it in emulation?
The point is, it comes down to quality, not quantity. Professionals use professional tools, not some I'm-a-CS-graduate-and-know-how-to-program-stuff. I'm willing to assert that a majority of the 13000 pkgs are under 500k. They're probably really neat, you'd probably download them and stick them in your utilities folder and they'd never get seen again.
1. It has the honour of being the first OS to do this, I suppose?
2. Can't make omelette without cracking a few eggs etc. GCC 3.3 broke shit. Get over it.
well, it'd also be the first OS to have hardware incompatibilities with one single type of chip. FFS buddy, nobody has not killed something somewhere along the way.
Yeah, and with every point release adds more features than Linux gets in a full digit release.
that, my dear friend, is a complete contradiction in terms. Apple's hardware is shiny, but their OS utterly dominates everything else out there in the desktop stakes. that's what makes apple zealots. It's also the reason so many people continually pine for OS X on Intel. The hardware's kinda cool, but the software kicks hind tit.
"Down hill". Hmm, I can think of all the
Linux certainly has it's place in areas where organisations can develop a full system, but where you want to go out and buy something and have it all work, intuitively, and stable-y, and without spyware, and without MS groping your HD, you go buy a mac. Simple.
-- james
Viruses?
You think it's going to take viruses for this to happen?
-- james
And here was me, about to complain about the Red (Hat) Menace.
-- james
They already exist, but rarely are they capable of killing entire species. They're either too efficient (kill too fast), not efficient enough (one area dies out, and by the time it's moved on uninfected animals move back into the old area), or the animals develop a resistance to it.
See: myxomatosis, calicivirus.
-- james
Maybe that's true, but assuming there are adequate (and they'd need to be big for something like this) security measures in place, developing biological weapons like this is not necessarily the terrible thing(TM) that it sounds like.
First off, there's a lot that is learned. Virologists may learn how to accurately target certain areas of different entities. Here in Australia, for instance, we have a wretched little (introduced) animal called the cane toad. If a virus like this could be engineered such that it would kill them all out, I'd say it's not such a bad thing.
Secondly, putting a lid on any sort of research is bad. It might stop some, but it might also drive others underground. I'd rather it in some lab in the US than in some lab in Russia.
Finally, the US isn't the only country capable of developing these things. By taking obvious virii and genetically enhancing them, you can also start looking for cures and vaccines. None of the vaccines that presently exist work on this thing - so now, maybe we can do something about it.
-- james
Apple is trying to get a handle on this problem - if you have a FW hard drive and have experience the bug, post it over herea 59/84
:) If you have a F/W hard drive, if it's at all important - I would recommend keeping it away from Panther during installation, start up or shut down, or log in. If it's really important stuff, I'd either not install Panther or keep the hard drive unplugged altogether until a fix is forthcoming.
http://discussions.info.apple.com/webx?13@@.599b4
There's a good thread over here with a lot of angry people in it
-- james