More interestingly, if those in the UK and EU didn't have to pay the taxes they do today, I'd wager US prices would be even higher too.
I've wondered for a while if this, ultimately, despite being counter-intuitive, would do more to counter CO2 emissions than continuing to have higher taxes? If it became unaffordable in the US for people to go to work, would the world's largest economy suddenly find it economic to develop alternatives that, over time, would become so much more efficient than gas-based vehicles, they'd take over completely?
Neither's burning gasoline in a four stroke engine using friction braking. On the other hand, if, eventually, we switch over to hydrogen fuel cells and battery/regenerative braking, then we'll be replacing four stroke engines with something much, much, more efficient.
The key thing about hydrogen is that it's the basis of an alternative energy system, rather than the source of the alternative energy. It enables cars to run on a liquid, easily transportable, easily dispensable, fuel that, instead of being produced by a limited mining process that's limited to a single type of fossil fuel. A hydrogen-powered car can be powered (ultimately, not directly) by coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, hydro-electric, wind, tidal, bio-fuels (ethanol, biodiesel, etc), methane, and more. Further, with a large number of such cars in existance, the incentives to find new energy sources capable of generating such fuels becomes much higher.
It's not a solution to the energy crisis because there is no energy crisis. We have plenty of energy, and will do for many millenia. There's an oil crisis, of sorts, and that's what this is a solution to.
Well, in fairness, it's not as if it's one person coming up with all the GNU/Linux distributions. At least 30% of them are done by independent parties, such as ObscurIX, WinclonUX, M$Sux, and Slackware.
The rest of them are maintained by Bruce Perens.
I actually had a CD with Dvorak on it, but all it had on it was an awful, tedious, symphony. I assume it was a Mac distro requiring a non-Beige G3 or better because it was marked "New World".
Sorry. I know it's hard for the Mac enthusiasts to take, but there's not much you can do about it. My money would be on Dell, it's no secret that Michael Dell has wanted to sell Macintoshes for a long time.
Apple cannot use the Apple trademark in association with its iPod and iTunes lines. Therefore, if it sells the Macintosh business, leaving itself only with the music business, it has no reason to keep the Apple trademark, because it will not be able to use it.
Right now, the only defense Apple has against any lawsuits it currently suffers is that it does, actually, use the trademark for the non-media side of the business. The most likely affect of the lawsuit is that Apple will be forbidden from associating iPods and iTunes with music altogether.
So, tell me, why does the fact Apple is being used over its use of Apple in association with iPods and iTunes mean that Apple shouldn't sell the Apple trademark if it sells the Macintosh line? How does it not make business sense to KEEP SOMETHING YOU CANNOT USE WITH YOUR REMAINING PRODUCTS?
Because they can't legally use Apple with the music side of their business?
You're saying you think Apple should hold on to a name they cannot legally use if they sell their Macintosh line to another company, and you're calling me stupid?
I've generally been careful to make it clear I'm talking about significant increases in marketshare. The only place I can find where I've been "careless", it was clear from the context I was talking about serious increases (the comment I'm refering to says "Its marketshare isn't increasing, either. So we're seeing reduced profit margins, and no serious increase in marketshare."), and everywhere else I've qualified the term I used. It's hard to see why someone would read what I wrote and come to the conclusion that I'm saying there's no increase whatsoever, as opposed to no SIGNIFICANT increase. Worse still, they're cutting their profit margins to achieve what little increases they're getting. I don't see them moving from 3% to 30% in five years, I think an optimist might say they might get 10% of the market in five years, if everything goes well. But will three times the sales make up for the tiny profits they'll be making from each machine? I have my doubts.
I'm guessing this is just an attempt to point score on your part. I'm sure if there was a legitimate argument for why Apple would hold on to a business that really will never be as profitable for it as it would be for Dell or HP or Gateway, or even Sony, someone would have come up with it by now.
Brand association doesn't end as soon as you sell something. There is no way they will ever trust anyone else to their core image. Mac is a big part of that. If there were any chance of seeing a payoff, I'd lay serious cash on them never selling the rights to the Mac name.
So you're now arguing that if they sell the Macintosh business to Dell/etc, they'd keep the Mac name? Why would they do that?
Moving back to Apple: Yes, brand association does end as soon as you sell the business that's associated with that brand. Apple is not significantly associated with the music/iPod part of Apple's business, it's there (on iPods) but it's always "the iPod" or "the iPod from Apple", never "The Apple iPod". There's a good reason for that. It's called trademark infringement.
There is no reason on earth why Apple would want to keep the Apple name if ditch the Macintosh line. There's nothing for them to sell under that brand. Apple Corps would sue them into the ground, and quite legitimately. It's a liability. And we're talking about four, five, years hence from now.
And there's no reason on Earth why anyone would buy the Macintosh business without buying the Macintosh trademarks, or why Apple would consider the Macintosh trademarks useful if they sell the Macintosh business. That's, to use your phrase, "retarded".
OK, they'll never change their name to that of a suite of products either. If they were going to do that they'd be called "Macintosh" by now since that's all they sold for 15 years.
It's not a product or suite of products. It's a brand. If you keep pretending iTunes is a product, you'll continue to miss the wood for the trees.
Apple has until the Intel Macs are established and in a state fit to sell as a business to build up the iTunes brand. They've started already.
You also don't address the fact that abandoning one of the world's most recognizable brands/logos would be retarded.
I've addressed it repeatedly.
There's no indication at all that this is feasible, and you ignore the other side of the coin - namely, why the hell would a PC builder want to buy Mac?
I've addressed this repeatedly.
Even according to Apple, that is the Mac mini's complete reason for existance. Getting Windows iPod users to try the Mac from that exact rationale.
Irrelevent. They may want iPod users to try the Mac, but they'd be fools not to try to continue to build up the Mac business if there's interest in it. However, the fact is that the Mac line simply isn't going anywhere. Marketshare is not significantly increasing and there's an increasing focus on the low end, lowering profits. Switch to Intel, sell the business, a company like Dell would jump at the chance to stick Apple logos on some of its PCs, pre-install OS X, and sell them as Macintoshes for as long as people want them. Dell can afford that. Apple can't. Apple has to continue to invest R&D into its PC line. Dell will be spending that money anyway, adding the Mac for Dell means doing what it was doing anyway, but slapping a different sticker on the machine, a different OS installation CD in the box, deducting the Microsoft tax from their costs, and adding $200-500 to the sticker price.
Apple, of course, needs the line to continue selling otherwise it'll be impossible to sell the business.
You also ignore the integration issue, in that there's no way they sell Mac without selling OS X, and they're not getting out of the computer business alltogether.
I ignore the integration issue because it's an irrelevence. Apple doesn't control Windows. Apple never will. What? You think Apple needs OS X as a result? How does OS X help? OS X is on 5% of their customer's PCs. If all their iPod to Mac user sales dropped off the face of the Earth, they'd continue raking in the moolah. If, on the other hand, they decided to limit sales of
Apple is also a brandname they can't use with any part of their music business, and that's where the money is coming from. If they're selling the Macintosh platform, then they have absolutely no reason to keep the Apple trademark, because they'll have absolutely no use for it.
There's a reason why it's called the iTunes Music Store and not the Apple Music Store. Apple Corps has the trademark, and will sue (and has done so in the past) if Apple associates "Apple" with "Music".
The Apple trademark may be well known, but it's a liability. Apple can easily build up an alternative trademark such as iTunes or iPod with as much, if not more, recognizability than Apple ever had. The evidence is they're doing this with iTunes.
How is Apple not competing directly with Microsoft now?
Point: where did I say they weren't?
Oh wait, I said they *were*. I said, after saying that the Mac survived by (past tense) not competing, I wrote "But when this was really happening, the Mac stagnated." (again, past tense) You didn't read what I wrote! What a BIG FAT FUCKING SURPRISE!
Demonstrate how Apple's focus has been primary on iPod/iTunes. Did we not see the release of a greatly improved OS X version about every 18 months? Has iLife not been expanding and also greatly improving each year? Is iWork just a throwaway package?
Point: Who gives an eff? How does the development of Mac software in any way counter the point that Apple's primary focus is on iPod/iTunes?
When was the last time you saw an ad for any Macintosh hardware? For OS X? For iLife. (I'm talking about outside of an Apple website or magazine, obviously.) Now, take a look at the TV right now. Look at it for the last two years. Have you noticed what they're pushing? Have you noticed where the major new products are?
Do you think that Apple is somehow cloaking OS X from Microsoft? That if Microsoft notices the fancy OS under its nose it will quash it with some kind of super marketing blitz?
Point: Why do you think Microsoft wants to buy France? That's completely ridiculous and I can't see any reason why you should think that. You should stop making that point, otherwise we'll all point and laugh at you and call you names.
Hmm, funny. My DVD player makes an awesome CD player. My car radio does a great job of handling FM and AM and a cassette player in one little package. My Nokia 9290, while exhibiting Nokia's usual build quality problems (which apply to the majority of phones I've gotten from them) was a better PDA than most and a better phone than most. I'll probably get the 9300, when I get some idea of whether Nokia's quality control has improved of late (and hear the affirmative, obviously.)
Here's the deal: I don't want to carry around 50 different boxes. My iPod competes with my cellphone. I have to carry around the cellphone. Guess what device ends up getting more limited use?
How hard is it to make a good cellphone/iPod combination anyway?
No way. They don't trust anyone with their image/name
They do if it's not their name. I didn't say they'll license the name, I said they'll sell it. That is, the computer company known today as Apple will be called iTunes, and the Apple trademark will belong to Dell/HP/Gateway/etc. The Company Run By Jobs will no longer use Apple as the trademark and will not have any reason to care what gets done with it.
They're not changing the name either, and not to that of a product, for two reasons. One, the Apple name is incredibly recognizable. Two, they're not going to hardwire themselves to a product, as that would be stupid.
iTunes is a brand, not a product. There's iTunes.app, the iTunes Music Store, and iTunes for Phones. In any case, iTunes is the most obvious name, not necessarily the name they'll pick, but I have a hard time believing they will not use it. Five years is a long time to build the iTunes brand up to be as recognizable as "Apple", and that's exactly what they're doing with the ROKR phone and music store.
So since it's rather profitable, why sell it off?
When you believe someone else can make more profits on it than you could ever do, and therefore are able to raise more money by selling it than you would by owning it.
And we come full circle. How do you ensure someone else could make more money from the Mac than Apple can? Answer: by essentially making the hardware the same machine that those other people already make, so unlike Apple, they can take advantage of economies of scale and sell the things at a premium.
Everything they've done with the Mac mini etc. suggests they're trying to leverage their iPod windows userbase to try the Mac.
Nope. There is no advantage the Mac offers in terms of iPod functionality. The only connection is one of "Wow, this iPod's high quality, I see Apple makes computers too, maybe I should try one!" If they were leveraging one to sell the other, they're doing so incompetantly.
With the iPod nano, they've even gone one step further and have features that work on the nano but not on the Mac. You can boot your PC from a nano. You can't boot your Mac (no firewire.)
Remember, Stevie still loves the Mac, and that's all that matters.
"Stevie"? Jesus, man.
In any case, "Stevie" isn't as fickle as you might think. "Stevie" had a Thinkpad for a very long time after he rejoined Apple. "Stevie" is a shrewd businessman, he's not going to prop up a platform unless it's in Apple's best interests.
Its marketshare isn't dropping anymore, and their long term plan seems to be to sacrifice some of their famous margins to boost share.
Its marketshare isn't increasing, either. So we're seeing reduced profit margins, and no serious increase in marketshare. Does this strike you as a good long-term profit strategy? It would strike me as a good reason to package the Mac as an aquisition target.
I think I know the answer, and it's kind of interesting.
The official line is Intel knows where it's going with certain types of chip and wa[tt]age. While there's some truth to this, it's not really a reason to abandon an entire CPU line for an entirely incompatable one, as it's essentially a short term aim, not a long term one.
My guess? Apple intends to sell off the Mac, probably with the Apple brandname too.
Apple's focus has been, primarily, on the iPod/iTunes line over the last few years, and this is becoming a growing part of the business. Once upon a time it was seen as something to be sold off eventually, a nice cash investment in a short-term industry. But as time goes by, it becomes abundantly clear that's not Apple's direction. Apple would not be doing what it can to lock competitors out of the iPod business (such as by tying iTunes to the iPod and a limited range (like, right now, one) of Apple licensed products) if it saw this as a short-term business. Apple, I believe, sees the iPod as the first in a line of gadgets, though it doesn't necessarily have a roadmap as it's waiting for the technologies needed to implement the remainder. When Apple is able to get flash-based iPod nanos in the 10G range, then I think we'll start seeing some major new developments.
So, what of the Mac? Apple faces a major issue in that the Mac has succeeded for the most part over the last few years by not competing with Microsoft-based boxes. But when this was really happening, the Mac stagnated. Its marketshare is still some way away from being significant or growing significantly, even though the period of non-competition is pretty much over. The Macintosh, in some ways, is dying. It's still a profitable niche, and will be for a long time to come, but it has to beat an 800lb Gorilla, and it's questionable it'll ever be able to do so.
Apple therefore needs to make the Mac an attractive aquisition target for someone else. The most obvious is to build the brandname and focus on one element, the operating system, so when it comes to it, a company like Dell, HP, or Gateway, can essentially buy the brand, and simply rebrand its existing lines without having to pour billions into investing in custom PowerPC based technologies, separate manufacturing lines, etc. That company can milk the platform for as long as necessary (allowing OS X to stagnate, and making Microsoft well aware of that, so Microsoft doesn't see it as a competitor)
My prediction. By 2010, once the Intel-based Mac line is well established, Apple will have sold the Macintosh and the Apple brandname to an existing, major, PC manufacturer. Apple itself will then rename itself to iTunes. To go with the iTunes Music Store. And iTunes Phone (ROKR doesn't run iTunes, but everyone reports it does. Why? Because that's the brand Apple is promoting.)
The way most people are interpreting this, it's the opposite - the link you point to has the computer as the "bluetooth headset" and the handset as the device to connect to the network. However, what the write-up appears to be suggesting is that this is the handset as the headset and the computer as the connection to the network.
Now, quite honestly, I don't see how it can work. To the best of my knowledge, cellphone handsets cannot act as external headsets for other devices, even with bluetooth. At least, they don't genericly (there are cellphones out there that support something called UMA, GSM over IP over Bluetooth or 802.11, but that's still nothing like what's being described here.)
Does anyone out there who knows bluetooth and knows what cellphones "have to" implement explain how this works, if indeed, it really does? The entire thing looks like a warped misunderstanding. Actually, it looks like it's made up.
You've maybe heard about this "open source" thing? You get one guess who wrote most of the theory and propaganda for it and talked IBM and Wall Street and the Fortune 500 into buying in.
He thinks he talked IBM and Wall Street and the Fortune 500 into buying in? He certainly campaigned, for better or worse, but it's hard to believe that the only reason big corporations signed on was ESR. That they didn't hear about the benefits of FOSS from within their own organizations. That, indeed, someone with the diplomacy and tact exhibited in this message, not to mention his threats against Bruce Perens, would be the person able to convince a stalling CEO/CTO to give FOSS a try. It's also a little ironic - the rants against Stallman and the FSF of the "Show them the code" type constituted the one thing that the OSI never really did (and the FSF was doing very well.)
Well, whatever. I don't want to sound ungrateful for ESR's very real efforts, but the guy's credibility tends to be undermined whenever he comes up with this kind of thing. The letter to Microsoft is rude. It's pompous. It brings up an image of delusions of grandeur. It's a good thing he's no longer OSI head-honcho, IMO, and I fear that he set the wrong tone for what was to come.
I still don't get it. What did I write that, for the purposes of humour or otherwise, implied that I was George Bush? I'm not getting the joke, unless it's some "hilarious" use of "irony", eg "Person A: I'm a Republican; Person B: Karl Marx, is that you?", "Person A: The world is flat; Person B: Albert Einstein, is that you?", etc.
WHY? If it's the ONLY option, then it's viable. I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Oh, for fuck's sake. I just spent an entire paragraph pointing out that most networks here in Florida after Frances and Jeanne were down and that AT&T and Cingular were overloaded, and you're saying I was claiming they're "an option"? How are they an option? HOW ARE THEY AN OPTION?
And what are you suggesting as an alternative? Right, you're not suggesting an alternative.
I don't need to. If something's not viable, it isn't viable. It doesn't suddenly become viable because no other technologies exist. Are you going to argue that putting messages in bottles is viable because I haven't suggested alternatives? Jesus christ man, THINK.
Perhaps you should focus a bit more attention on that, and less on trying to wedge your personal experience into someone elses conversation, especially when you add nothing of value.
My personal experience? MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE? You posted a large amount of complete bullshit, claiming that New Orleans victims were able to use cellphones because you were in Florida. This is wrong on two levels, as I pointed out: One: you're lying. The few networks that were up were overloaded and simply not viable for use for contacting FEMA or anyone else during Frances and Jeanne and in the immediate aftermath. And secondly, I pointed out your comments were irrelevent because the situation is different in New Orleans. The people who actually need to make the calls are not in New Orleans anymore. And of the resources available, non-IE based Internet kiosks are, actually, part of the solution.
You're the person who tried to use your personal experience as a demonstration of how the people of NO can communicate. You ignored the kiosks. You claimed that cellphones were usable, both in contrast to your experience of a "similar" (actually far, far, more mild) situation, which you actively misrepresented, and in factual terms about NO. Don't flame me for politely calling you out on it.
Bush suggested a evac order be issued on the Saturday (possibly even as early as Friday)prior to the storm, an order that Blanco agreed with and requested Mayor Nagins to initiate (it's actually part of both the LA and NO emergency plans but for some reason neither the Mayor or Governor seemed to be following those).
That's completely untrue (article contains links to corroborating information.) Bush called Blanco to suggest an evacuation a few minutes before an already scheduled press conference where Blanco and Nagin were to call for an evacuation. It's neither true that Bush called on Friday or Saturday to suggest this, nor is it true that Blanco or Nagin waited 24 hours. Indeed, Blanco had already initiated a State of Emergency a few days previous.
There are many reasons to suggest Blanco and Nagin fucked certain aspects of the disaster up, and that the President is being unfairly criticised for certain issues he had no control over, but your's is a lousy defense.
Where I was, two networks (AT&T and Cingular) stayed up. The remainder were down. In one case, Nextel, that was deliberate policy - it wasn't so much that the networks weren't operational, it's that ordinary customers were locked out so that the emergency services would have cleared lines to use. Even though AT&T and Cingular were up, the two networks were so overloaded it was exceptionally difficult to get calls out. If the situation in New Orleans had been as good as the situation in Florida, it would be a mistake to suggest using cellphones to contact FEMA is a viable option.
As it happens, the mobile networks in New Orleans were completely knocked out by this. It wasn't until Saturday that Verizon and T-Mobile were able to get their services semi-operational. Sprint PCS is having problems, and Cingular didn't comment in the report I read on the subject (I know they're all doing what they can.) Landline service is spotty in the area, with many exchanges waterlogged.
Of course, this in some ways is beside the point. Nobody trying to contact FEMA for a Katrina claim is actually in New Orleans at the moment. That said, a large effort to keep Katrina refugees in contact with the outside world via Internet kiosks is underway, and this type of thing will directly hurt that.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? It's a good world. I intend to leverage it whenever I engineer new solutions!
I've wondered for a while if this, ultimately, despite being counter-intuitive, would do more to counter CO2 emissions than continuing to have higher taxes? If it became unaffordable in the US for people to go to work, would the world's largest economy suddenly find it economic to develop alternatives that, over time, would become so much more efficient than gas-based vehicles, they'd take over completely?
The key thing about hydrogen is that it's the basis of an alternative energy system, rather than the source of the alternative energy. It enables cars to run on a liquid, easily transportable, easily dispensable, fuel that, instead of being produced by a limited mining process that's limited to a single type of fossil fuel. A hydrogen-powered car can be powered (ultimately, not directly) by coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, hydro-electric, wind, tidal, bio-fuels (ethanol, biodiesel, etc), methane, and more. Further, with a large number of such cars in existance, the incentives to find new energy sources capable of generating such fuels becomes much higher.
It's not a solution to the energy crisis because there is no energy crisis. We have plenty of energy, and will do for many millenia. There's an oil crisis, of sorts, and that's what this is a solution to.
The rest of them are maintained by Bruce Perens.
I actually had a CD with Dvorak on it, but all it had on it was an awful, tedious, symphony. I assume it was a Mac distro requiring a non-Beige G3 or better because it was marked "New World".
Sorry. I know it's hard for the Mac enthusiasts to take, but there's not much you can do about it. My money would be on Dell, it's no secret that Michael Dell has wanted to sell Macintoshes for a long time.
Apple cannot use the Apple trademark in association with its iPod and iTunes lines. Therefore, if it sells the Macintosh business, leaving itself only with the music business, it has no reason to keep the Apple trademark, because it will not be able to use it.
Right now, the only defense Apple has against any lawsuits it currently suffers is that it does, actually, use the trademark for the non-media side of the business. The most likely affect of the lawsuit is that Apple will be forbidden from associating iPods and iTunes with music altogether.
So, tell me, why does the fact Apple is being used over its use of Apple in association with iPods and iTunes mean that Apple shouldn't sell the Apple trademark if it sells the Macintosh line? How does it not make business sense to KEEP SOMETHING YOU CANNOT USE WITH YOUR REMAINING PRODUCTS?
You're saying you think Apple should hold on to a name they cannot legally use if they sell their Macintosh line to another company, and you're calling me stupid?
I've generally been careful to make it clear I'm talking about significant increases in marketshare. The only place I can find where I've been "careless", it was clear from the context I was talking about serious increases (the comment I'm refering to says "Its marketshare isn't increasing, either. So we're seeing reduced profit margins, and no serious increase in marketshare."), and everywhere else I've qualified the term I used. It's hard to see why someone would read what I wrote and come to the conclusion that I'm saying there's no increase whatsoever, as opposed to no SIGNIFICANT increase. Worse still, they're cutting their profit margins to achieve what little increases they're getting. I don't see them moving from 3% to 30% in five years, I think an optimist might say they might get 10% of the market in five years, if everything goes well. But will three times the sales make up for the tiny profits they'll be making from each machine? I have my doubts.
I'm guessing this is just an attempt to point score on your part. I'm sure if there was a legitimate argument for why Apple would hold on to a business that really will never be as profitable for it as it would be for Dell or HP or Gateway, or even Sony, someone would have come up with it by now.
So you're now arguing that if they sell the Macintosh business to Dell/etc, they'd keep the Mac name? Why would they do that?
Moving back to Apple: Yes, brand association does end as soon as you sell the business that's associated with that brand. Apple is not significantly associated with the music/iPod part of Apple's business, it's there (on iPods) but it's always "the iPod" or "the iPod from Apple", never "The Apple iPod". There's a good reason for that. It's called trademark infringement.
There is no reason on earth why Apple would want to keep the Apple name if ditch the Macintosh line. There's nothing for them to sell under that brand. Apple Corps would sue them into the ground, and quite legitimately. It's a liability. And we're talking about four, five, years hence from now.
And there's no reason on Earth why anyone would buy the Macintosh business without buying the Macintosh trademarks, or why Apple would consider the Macintosh trademarks useful if they sell the Macintosh business. That's, to use your phrase, "retarded".
It's not a product or suite of products. It's a brand. If you keep pretending iTunes is a product, you'll continue to miss the wood for the trees.
Apple has until the Intel Macs are established and in a state fit to sell as a business to build up the iTunes brand. They've started already.
I've addressed it repeatedly.
I've addressed this repeatedly.
Irrelevent. They may want iPod users to try the Mac, but they'd be fools not to try to continue to build up the Mac business if there's interest in it. However, the fact is that the Mac line simply isn't going anywhere. Marketshare is not significantly increasing and there's an increasing focus on the low end, lowering profits. Switch to Intel, sell the business, a company like Dell would jump at the chance to stick Apple logos on some of its PCs, pre-install OS X, and sell them as Macintoshes for as long as people want them. Dell can afford that. Apple can't. Apple has to continue to invest R&D into its PC line. Dell will be spending that money anyway, adding the Mac for Dell means doing what it was doing anyway, but slapping a different sticker on the machine, a different OS installation CD in the box, deducting the Microsoft tax from their costs, and adding $200-500 to the sticker price.
Apple, of course, needs the line to continue selling otherwise it'll be impossible to sell the business.
I ignore the integration issue because it's an irrelevence. Apple doesn't control Windows. Apple never will. What? You think Apple needs OS X as a result? How does OS X help? OS X is on 5% of their customer's PCs. If all their iPod to Mac user sales dropped off the face of the Earth, they'd continue raking in the moolah. If, on the other hand, they decided to limit sales of
There's a reason why it's called the iTunes Music Store and not the Apple Music Store. Apple Corps has the trademark, and will sue (and has done so in the past) if Apple associates "Apple" with "Music".
The Apple trademark may be well known, but it's a liability. Apple can easily build up an alternative trademark such as iTunes or iPod with as much, if not more, recognizability than Apple ever had. The evidence is they're doing this with iTunes.
Oh wait, I said they *were*. I said, after saying that the Mac survived by (past tense) not competing, I wrote "But when this was really happening, the Mac stagnated." (again, past tense) You didn't read what I wrote! What a BIG FAT FUCKING SURPRISE!
Point: Who gives an eff? How does the development of Mac software in any way counter the point that Apple's primary focus is on iPod/iTunes? When was the last time you saw an ad for any Macintosh hardware? For OS X? For iLife. (I'm talking about outside of an Apple website or magazine, obviously.) Now, take a look at the TV right now. Look at it for the last two years. Have you noticed what they're pushing? Have you noticed where the major new products are? Point: Why do you think Microsoft wants to buy France? That's completely ridiculous and I can't see any reason why you should think that. You should stop making that point, otherwise we'll all point and laugh at you and call you names.Here's the deal: I don't want to carry around 50 different boxes. My iPod competes with my cellphone. I have to carry around the cellphone. Guess what device ends up getting more limited use?
How hard is it to make a good cellphone/iPod combination anyway?
And we come full circle. How do you ensure someone else could make more money from the Mac than Apple can? Answer: by essentially making the hardware the same machine that those other people already make, so unlike Apple, they can take advantage of economies of scale and sell the things at a premium.
Nope. There is no advantage the Mac offers in terms of iPod functionality. The only connection is one of "Wow, this iPod's high quality, I see Apple makes computers too, maybe I should try one!" If they were leveraging one to sell the other, they're doing so incompetantly.With the iPod nano, they've even gone one step further and have features that work on the nano but not on the Mac. You can boot your PC from a nano. You can't boot your Mac (no firewire.)
"Stevie"? Jesus, man.In any case, "Stevie" isn't as fickle as you might think. "Stevie" had a Thinkpad for a very long time after he rejoined Apple. "Stevie" is a shrewd businessman, he's not going to prop up a platform unless it's in Apple's best interests.
Its marketshare isn't increasing, either. So we're seeing reduced profit margins, and no serious increase in marketshare. Does this strike you as a good long-term profit strategy? It would strike me as a good reason to package the Mac as an aquisition target.The official line is Intel knows where it's going with certain types of chip and wa[tt]age. While there's some truth to this, it's not really a reason to abandon an entire CPU line for an entirely incompatable one, as it's essentially a short term aim, not a long term one.
My guess? Apple intends to sell off the Mac, probably with the Apple brandname too.
Apple's focus has been, primarily, on the iPod/iTunes line over the last few years, and this is becoming a growing part of the business. Once upon a time it was seen as something to be sold off eventually, a nice cash investment in a short-term industry. But as time goes by, it becomes abundantly clear that's not Apple's direction. Apple would not be doing what it can to lock competitors out of the iPod business (such as by tying iTunes to the iPod and a limited range (like, right now, one) of Apple licensed products) if it saw this as a short-term business. Apple, I believe, sees the iPod as the first in a line of gadgets, though it doesn't necessarily have a roadmap as it's waiting for the technologies needed to implement the remainder. When Apple is able to get flash-based iPod nanos in the 10G range, then I think we'll start seeing some major new developments.
So, what of the Mac? Apple faces a major issue in that the Mac has succeeded for the most part over the last few years by not competing with Microsoft-based boxes. But when this was really happening, the Mac stagnated. Its marketshare is still some way away from being significant or growing significantly, even though the period of non-competition is pretty much over. The Macintosh, in some ways, is dying. It's still a profitable niche, and will be for a long time to come, but it has to beat an 800lb Gorilla, and it's questionable it'll ever be able to do so.
Apple therefore needs to make the Mac an attractive aquisition target for someone else. The most obvious is to build the brandname and focus on one element, the operating system, so when it comes to it, a company like Dell, HP, or Gateway, can essentially buy the brand, and simply rebrand its existing lines without having to pour billions into investing in custom PowerPC based technologies, separate manufacturing lines, etc. That company can milk the platform for as long as necessary (allowing OS X to stagnate, and making Microsoft well aware of that, so Microsoft doesn't see it as a competitor)
My prediction. By 2010, once the Intel-based Mac line is well established, Apple will have sold the Macintosh and the Apple brandname to an existing, major, PC manufacturer. Apple itself will then rename itself to iTunes. To go with the iTunes Music Store. And iTunes Phone (ROKR doesn't run iTunes, but everyone reports it does. Why? Because that's the brand Apple is promoting.)
Maybe not...
Now, quite honestly, I don't see how it can work. To the best of my knowledge, cellphone handsets cannot act as external headsets for other devices, even with bluetooth. At least, they don't genericly (there are cellphones out there that support something called UMA, GSM over IP over Bluetooth or 802.11, but that's still nothing like what's being described here.)
Does anyone out there who knows bluetooth and knows what cellphones "have to" implement explain how this works, if indeed, it really does? The entire thing looks like a warped misunderstanding. Actually, it looks like it's made up.
Well, whatever. I don't want to sound ungrateful for ESR's very real efforts, but the guy's credibility tends to be undermined whenever he comes up with this kind of thing. The letter to Microsoft is rude. It's pompous. It brings up an image of delusions of grandeur. It's a good thing he's no longer OSI head-honcho, IMO, and I fear that he set the wrong tone for what was to come.
I still don't get it. What did I write that, for the purposes of humour or otherwise, implied that I was George Bush? I'm not getting the joke, unless it's some "hilarious" use of "irony", eg "Person A: I'm a Republican; Person B: Karl Marx, is that you?", "Person A: The world is flat; Person B: Albert Einstein, is that you?", etc.
While the term "Big Fat Idiot" may be popularly associated with the man even today, you're correct to point out that he's no longer fat.
I thought the fact the joke was about the phrase "big Mac" appearing in my original comment was fairly obvious. YMMV.
Formby? Carlin? Lucas? Washington? George who, exactly? And how would revealing Pudge's politics reveal who they are?
'cos if you think I'm a Republican, well, you don't know me very well.
You're the person who tried to use your personal experience as a demonstration of how the people of NO can communicate. You ignored the kiosks. You claimed that cellphones were usable, both in contrast to your experience of a "similar" (actually far, far, more mild) situation, which you actively misrepresented, and in factual terms about NO. Don't flame me for politely calling you out on it.
There are many reasons to suggest Blanco and Nagin fucked certain aspects of the disaster up, and that the President is being unfairly criticised for certain issues he had no control over, but your's is a lousy defense.
As it happens, the mobile networks in New Orleans were completely knocked out by this. It wasn't until Saturday that Verizon and T-Mobile were able to get their services semi-operational. Sprint PCS is having problems, and Cingular didn't comment in the report I read on the subject (I know they're all doing what they can.) Landline service is spotty in the area, with many exchanges waterlogged.
Of course, this in some ways is beside the point. Nobody trying to contact FEMA for a Katrina claim is actually in New Orleans at the moment. That said, a large effort to keep Katrina refugees in contact with the outside world via Internet kiosks is underway, and this type of thing will directly hurt that.
(I recall hearing somewhere that Rush Limbaugh is a big Mac advocate too)