To me, most of what he's suggesting is completely off base. One or two points have some merit.
*ahem*
rant() { Apple will NEVER offer a bargain basement computer.
Can we just live with that fact and move on now? The eMac is as close as it will get. If you want crap, you'll pay for crap and get crap. M'kay? That's what eMachines are for. The value proposition to someone who will consider a Macintosh is not the same as someone who just buys something out of ignorance. Making them cheaper might lure in a couple more people but it honestly won't effect much of the bottom line. They're already pretty price competitive. In the case of a laptop, they're better than the competition. }
There is a point where Microsoft's backward compatability plan will no longer be feasible. This is perhaps one large step for them past that threshold.
They can only maintain that for so long. When they no longer support legacy systems, those users will have to decide weather Microsoft still makes the most sense for their needs. I'm willing to bet many of them, if they are smart enough to do the research, will be choosing OS X or perhaps even Linux.
I have to agree with many posters that the backwards compatability in the PS2 was a rampant success. I'm not sure where Microsoft get's it's numbers from, but I doubt their accuracy.
The bottom line is that, if you have a number of games on System A1, and you want to buy System A2. you're looking for a couple of features:
You don't want both consoles set up at the same time.
The new system won't have many good games at first so you will want to play titles you already have and new titles released on System A1 after System A2 is released.
Even if you never end up playing older games on System A2, you _can_.
People are notorious for wanting things when asked, but never following through. Case in point-- a prominent company did a survey of which color people would buy for their portable stereo. Most said the new orange color, but when offered one on the way out, almost all of them chose the tradtional black color.
I love how so many articles contain ridiculous jabs thrown in right after the fact-finding portion. Disable Javascript? LOL. What the h-e-double-hockey-sticks is the submitter thinking?
Well, I have a couple thoughts about why the video game market might be shrinking in Japan, and maybe sometime here. Lack of innovation. New gamers may find the same-old-shit interesting, but dudes that have seen it all (literally) are gettin' sick of it.
I realize that what constitutes a "video game" has been refined into genres over the years... but look at how many god-awful parodies there are out there. The problem is that it costs too damn much to make a video game of high calibre these days and by taking a risk you are potentially putting your game house out of business. The result is that there are mostly large companies doing games and by definition the big guys don't take a lot of risk. Sometimes, but not often. Small houses have to stick to the formulas and perfect them. That's great (I enjoy games that are definitions of their genre) but it gets OLD.
Case in point is the third person shooter. Dear god... we've DONE that. Look at how many games there are with essentially the same stuff with a few twists or different branding? With a few exceptions, the things you can do and achieve in your average FPS are unchanged from years ago aside from battling foul mouthed 12 year olds with a rampant case of A.D.D. on-line.
Look, I understand that the almighty dollar runs the show and I accept that-- but I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that most of the technical advances in graphics are slowing down. Until now, this was/is the primary driving feature of most games. Ask John Carmak, case he seems to agree. In the future, I think CPU cycles will be spent on better artificial intelligence, more creative playing scenarios, and more non-linear content. The seeds are there, I just don't see many of them being planted just yet.
I know we can account for the wild-cards out there. The folks that have just one genre they play the hell out of. I know I'm guilty of that... I'm particular to single player role playing games and platformers.
So, if someone from Nintendo wants to complain about the video game market shrinking in Japan, I have a few words of advice: stop making crappy esoteric anime FPS strategy games by the dozen. Seriously. And if the U.S. thinks they're safe, they're not. NEWS FLASH: We don't need one more friggin' basketball game. Nobody cares. Oh, and while I'm ranting why don't we shelve the terrorist/anti-terrorist FPS until someone can figure out a way to not make all of them absolutely identical.
I have no idea how the poster got to their conclusion that Apple would be a gateway OS to Linux. There is no reason to run Linux on the Desktop if OS X runs it's libraries. And that's a good thing. OS X is a polished OS with critical applications available to it. If anything, the ability to capture that stragglers from the Linux camp would help Apple immensely.
And why is THAT bad? Being "stuck" on the Apple path means you'll have no viruses, more security, MORE flexibility for open standards, a better GUI, and BSD UNIX.
It's no more expensive to get started, but it's maintenence cost is FAR below the Wintel world.
From where I sit... in a predominantly Windows technology firm, we have people either switching their work computers or their home computers to Macs running OS X. I know a LOT of people in other places that are buying Mac laptops with OS X.
I'm sorry, but overall marketshare is not a death knell. Just because so many large manufacturing plants, call centers, and places like that have cheap Wintel doesn't mean Apple is dying. Look around... I bet most of you know people who are switching to a Mac. I don't know ANYONE that has done the opposite since OS X came out.
Amiga/Commodore have done everything they possibly can to sabotage their own success. Based on the merits of their technologies, they would be in contention for top desktop computer system. However, through a series of neglected cutting edge technologies, horrible promotion, and absolute lack of vision, they've managed to kill one of the best things the computing industry has ever seen. Welcome to the last nail in the coffin...
Aside from the fact that Apple and other third party entities do a MUCH better job a syncing that Palm does on it's own hardware, I think this is a strange decision. In fact, this might be one of the few "no longer supporting Mac" statements I've heard in almost two years.
If anything, most companies are jumping into the ring on Mac support because of OS X being so versatile. Seems strange, but like I said-- you'll still be able to sync your Palm pilot, just not with their software.
If anything, it's bad PR and just another reason to ask yourself why you really need a PDA anymore. I believe a good cell phone with iSync would take care of it.
I'm sorry, but the authors live in a world where idealistic people can out-scream lawmakers and poiliticians. Give up now, foolish mortals!
Honestly, if these guys stopped ranting, and thereby making their arguments sound like reactionary babble, they might have more sway. I happen to agree with most of when they're saying, but their delivery isn't going to win over any converts.
So let me get this straight... the student called him a "bipolar paranoid schizophrenic" and then he hunts up the web side to find out what people are saying behind his back. He then sues based on outrageous claims of being paranoid and schizophrenic.
LOL.
Hey, the guy may be innocent but he sure as hell isn't helping his own case.
I think the public, as a whole, doesn't understand the real possibilities and liklihoods of digital tampering. It's like magic to some people because it can't be "seen" in many circumstances without a lot of frightenly intelligent people interpreting the evidence FOR them. That scares people, because people don't like what they don't understand. Period.
If you asked the average juror what the signs of digital photo tamering are, they be baffled to answer. The bottom line is that this will be used by defense lawyers to plant the seed of doubt in otherwise ignorant minds (concerning digital media.)
Just because it is (perhaps) easier to tamper with pixels than crystals on substrate, doesn't mean it's going to happen more often. Better yet, if people don't understand that digital evidence is subject, but not PRONE, to tampering this myth will continue to perpetuate.
Maybe I'm wrong with my conclusion that it is not more likely, but it certainly isn't a new issue. In fact, I worries me that it's brought up in the context of a new issue because that just perpetuates a legacy of ignorance... and if you read the article you will find out that the issue is MUCH more a case of poor evidence. If the only evidence a prosecutor has is a previously unidentifyable fingerprint, and suddenly they can identify it, you're going to get skepticism. Furthermor, if that's the only evidence they had on the guy then there's no way you can prosecute on inconclusive evidence.
The professor was able to reproduce the visual effect that occured when the scientific software processed the finger print. I hate to say it, but SO WHAT? I happen to be an experienced photoshop guy, and artist, but just because I can reproduce what I see, doesn't mean the scientific process involved is invalid. I'm concerned about this kind of defense approach, because it involves voodoo...
I'd propose that a series of laws clearly define what is digitally permissable based on established algorthms. If a new one is created, it must pass through a panel of reviewers and eventually be passed into law before it can be permissable. In this way, there would be far less "reinvention of doubt" every time a digital photograph is brought into a court room that has a couple filters run on it.
It would probably involve a series of check and balances at each stage of processing, too.
Who modded your poorly formed arguements as "insightful"?
Let me begin by deconstructing the "New products do not cost less" statement.
The problem is that new products have nothing to do with their cost versus an older product. Each system is created off an entirely different set of subsystems, components, and in short-- parts. Those parts, depending on the suppliers, licensing costs, and volume discounts will make ALL THE DIFFERENCE.
Let me explain why the X-Box is going to cost more. They will use all the basic components that a PC uses. Well, at least they did the first time around. This bites them in the butt because they loose money on each CPU sale. They can't actually compete on costs because their suppliers are exclusively third party.
The PS 2, and the PS 3, will have the majority of it's architecture built by Sony or it's partners. This means that the Playstation makes money on every unit sold because over the life time of the product, Sony is able to integrate more chips into single chips and consildate the components and their cost. XBox can not, unless they build much more of their machine from components that can be consolidated.
The XBox will cost more. Even if MS takes a punch in the gut every time one goes off the shelves, by trying to match Sony's price, MS loses money and Sony makes it.
Now lets move on to performance. You can certainly argue that the XBox's graphics are better, because they are. But that doesn't make a better game. Better games sell, and XBox has maybe 4 games that are good that are not ripoff copies of a PS2 title. The games sell the platform. Look at history and you will see this. There are exceptions where mismanagement has caused interference with this general rule, of course.
Look, I'm not saying the XBox2 will not have great features-- but I will never buy one. Like most people on this site, I am not pro-Microsoft. The PS3 Will have just as many great features, and I'll keep playing all of my PS2 games until it's out. Why? Because they don't suck.
Sorry, what consolation prize do we have for our departing guest?
Honestly, the security by obscurity thing has been disproven so many times, in so many ways for Mac OS X that I find it impossible that you're unaware. Granted, Mac OS X has security issues patches, but don't make me get into the horrid falacy: "macs are just as insecure as any other OS." They are, by design, far more secure. The exploits possible on a PC are not possible on a Mac due to Outlook, IE, messenger services, etc.
Seriously. Thanks for a good laugh. In case you're missing out on the needed information, here it is. This article sums it up very well.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/34554.htm l
Slashdot Mirror
To me, most of what he's suggesting is completely off base. One or two points have some merit.
*ahem*
rant() {
Apple will NEVER offer a bargain basement computer.
Can we just live with that fact and move on now? The eMac is as close as it will get. If you want crap, you'll pay for crap and get crap. M'kay? That's what eMachines are for. The value proposition to someone who will consider a Macintosh is not the same as someone who just buys something out of ignorance. Making them cheaper might lure in a couple more people but it honestly won't effect much of the bottom line. They're already pretty price competitive. In the case of a laptop, they're better than the competition.
}
So all the major players, with the exception of Microsoft, are working on an open standard plugin architecture? Wow, I'm shocked.
I saw we start taking bets that Microsoft will simply ignore this and continute to move forward with ActiveX controls.
Ugh.
There is a point where Microsoft's backward compatability plan will no longer be feasible. This is perhaps one large step for them past that threshold.
They can only maintain that for so long. When they no longer support legacy systems, those users will have to decide weather Microsoft still makes the most sense for their needs. I'm willing to bet many of them, if they are smart enough to do the research, will be choosing OS X or perhaps even Linux.
I have to agree with many posters that the backwards compatability in the PS2 was a rampant success. I'm not sure where Microsoft get's it's numbers from, but I doubt their accuracy.
The bottom line is that, if you have a number of games on System A1, and you want to buy System A2. you're looking for a couple of features:
People are notorious for wanting things when asked, but never following through. Case in point-- a prominent company did a survey of which color people would buy for their portable stereo. Most said the new orange color, but when offered one on the way out, almost all of them chose the tradtional black color.
I love how so many articles contain ridiculous jabs thrown in right after the fact-finding portion. Disable Javascript? LOL. What the h-e-double-hockey-sticks is the submitter thinking?
Well, I have a couple thoughts about why the video game market might be shrinking in Japan, and maybe sometime here. Lack of innovation. New gamers may find the same-old-shit interesting, but dudes that have seen it all (literally) are gettin' sick of it.
I realize that what constitutes a "video game" has been refined into genres over the years... but look at how many god-awful parodies there are out there. The problem is that it costs too damn much to make a video game of high calibre these days and by taking a risk you are potentially putting your game house out of business. The result is that there are mostly large companies doing games and by definition the big guys don't take a lot of risk. Sometimes, but not often. Small houses have to stick to the formulas and perfect them. That's great (I enjoy games that are definitions of their genre) but it gets OLD.
Case in point is the third person shooter. Dear god... we've DONE that. Look at how many games there are with essentially the same stuff with a few twists or different branding? With a few exceptions, the things you can do and achieve in your average FPS are unchanged from years ago aside from battling foul mouthed 12 year olds with a rampant case of A.D.D. on-line.
Look, I understand that the almighty dollar runs the show and I accept that-- but I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that most of the technical advances in graphics are slowing down. Until now, this was/is the primary driving feature of most games. Ask John Carmak, case he seems to agree. In the future, I think CPU cycles will be spent on better artificial intelligence, more creative playing scenarios, and more non-linear content. The seeds are there, I just don't see many of them being planted just yet.
I know we can account for the wild-cards out there. The folks that have just one genre they play the hell out of. I know I'm guilty of that... I'm particular to single player role playing games and platformers.
So, if someone from Nintendo wants to complain about the video game market shrinking in Japan, I have a few words of advice: stop making crappy esoteric anime FPS strategy games by the dozen. Seriously. And if the U.S. thinks they're safe, they're not. NEWS FLASH: We don't need one more friggin' basketball game. Nobody cares. Oh, and while I'm ranting why don't we shelve the terrorist/anti-terrorist FPS until someone can figure out a way to not make all of them absolutely identical.
I have no idea how the poster got to their conclusion that Apple would be a gateway OS to Linux. There is no reason to run Linux on the Desktop if OS X runs it's libraries. And that's a good thing. OS X is a polished OS with critical applications available to it. If anything, the ability to capture that stragglers from the Linux camp would help Apple immensely.
Perhaps you would be happier with a "speed nudge" or a "speed increase?" :-)
I agree. Speedbump is a bas term for it.
And why is THAT bad? Being "stuck" on the Apple path means you'll have no viruses, more security, MORE flexibility for open standards, a better GUI, and BSD UNIX.
It's no more expensive to get started, but it's maintenence cost is FAR below the Wintel world.
From where I sit... in a predominantly Windows technology firm, we have people either switching their work computers or their home computers to Macs running OS X. I know a LOT of people in other places that are buying Mac laptops with OS X.
I'm sorry, but overall marketshare is not a death knell. Just because so many large manufacturing plants, call centers, and places like that have cheap Wintel doesn't mean Apple is dying. Look around... I bet most of you know people who are switching to a Mac. I don't know ANYONE that has done the opposite since OS X came out.
Amiga/Commodore have done everything they possibly can to sabotage their own success. Based on the merits of their technologies, they would be in contention for top desktop computer system. However, through a series of neglected cutting edge technologies, horrible promotion, and absolute lack of vision, they've managed to kill one of the best things the computing industry has ever seen. Welcome to the last nail in the coffin...
And in other news, say hello to the new "anti-ignition-interlock" industry, or "AII" in new Mexico.
As if we needed one more reason to NOT move to New Mexico-- this is the icing on the cake.
"This innovation represents a milestone for Internet users, enabling quick and easy access to the world's largest collection of online information."
:-)
Most of which have broken links, are wildly innacurate, and contains completely unresearched information.
Kudos. We are blessed indeed.
Aside from the fact that Apple and other third party entities do a MUCH better job a syncing that Palm does on it's own hardware, I think this is a strange decision. In fact, this might be one of the few "no longer supporting Mac" statements I've heard in almost two years.
If anything, most companies are jumping into the ring on Mac support because of OS X being so versatile. Seems strange, but like I said-- you'll still be able to sync your Palm pilot, just not with their software.
If anything, it's bad PR and just another reason to ask yourself why you really need a PDA anymore. I believe a good cell phone with iSync would take care of it.
I'm sorry, but the authors live in a world where idealistic people can out-scream lawmakers and poiliticians. Give up now, foolish mortals!
Honestly, if these guys stopped ranting, and thereby making their arguments sound like reactionary babble, they might have more sway. I happen to agree with most of when they're saying, but their delivery isn't going to win over any converts.
So let me get this straight... the student called him a "bipolar paranoid schizophrenic" and then he hunts up the web side to find out what people are saying behind his back. He then sues based on outrageous claims of being paranoid and schizophrenic.
LOL.
Hey, the guy may be innocent but he sure as hell isn't helping his own case.
I think the public, as a whole, doesn't understand the real possibilities and liklihoods of digital tampering. It's like magic to some people because it can't be "seen" in many circumstances without a lot of frightenly intelligent people interpreting the evidence FOR them. That scares people, because people don't like what they don't understand. Period.
If you asked the average juror what the signs of digital photo tamering are, they be baffled to answer. The bottom line is that this will be used by defense lawyers to plant the seed of doubt in otherwise ignorant minds (concerning digital media.)
Just because it is (perhaps) easier to tamper with pixels than crystals on substrate, doesn't mean it's going to happen more often. Better yet, if people don't understand that digital evidence is subject, but not PRONE, to tampering this myth will continue to perpetuate.
Maybe I'm wrong with my conclusion that it is not more likely, but it certainly isn't a new issue. In fact, I worries me that it's brought up in the context of a new issue because that just perpetuates a legacy of ignorance... and if you read the article you will find out that the issue is MUCH more a case of poor evidence. If the only evidence a prosecutor has is a previously unidentifyable fingerprint, and suddenly they can identify it, you're going to get skepticism. Furthermor, if that's the only evidence they had on the guy then there's no way you can prosecute on inconclusive evidence.
The professor was able to reproduce the visual effect that occured when the scientific software processed the finger print. I hate to say it, but SO WHAT? I happen to be an experienced photoshop guy, and artist, but just because I can reproduce what I see, doesn't mean the scientific process involved is invalid. I'm concerned about this kind of defense approach, because it involves voodoo...
I'd propose that a series of laws clearly define what is digitally permissable based on established algorthms. If a new one is created, it must pass through a panel of reviewers and eventually be passed into law before it can be permissable. In this way, there would be far less "reinvention of doubt" every time a digital photograph is brought into a court room that has a couple filters run on it.
It would probably involve a series of check and balances at each stage of processing, too.
Sounds like a great way to make mediocre artists feel like they still have a shot at making a living.
If you thin it' sworth buying for 99 cents, then you will buy it. Period.
BAH! Get a geographically convienient girlfriend.
j/k
I think this is actually a creative way to deal with the long distance relationship thing.
Who modded your poorly formed arguements as "insightful"?
Let me begin by deconstructing the "New products do not cost less" statement.
The problem is that new products have nothing to do with their cost versus an older product. Each system is created off an entirely different set of subsystems, components, and in short-- parts. Those parts, depending on the suppliers, licensing costs, and volume discounts will make ALL THE DIFFERENCE.
Let me explain why the X-Box is going to cost more. They will use all the basic components that a PC uses. Well, at least they did the first time around. This bites them in the butt because they loose money on each CPU sale. They can't actually compete on costs because their suppliers are exclusively third party.
The PS 2, and the PS 3, will have the majority of it's architecture built by Sony or it's partners. This means that the Playstation makes money on every unit sold because over the life time of the product, Sony is able to integrate more chips into single chips and consildate the components and their cost. XBox can not, unless they build much more of their machine from components that can be consolidated.
The XBox will cost more. Even if MS takes a punch in the gut every time one goes off the shelves, by trying to match Sony's price, MS loses money and Sony makes it.
Now lets move on to performance. You can certainly argue that the XBox's graphics are better, because they are. But that doesn't make a better game. Better games sell, and XBox has maybe 4 games that are good that are not ripoff copies of a PS2 title. The games sell the platform. Look at history and you will see this. There are exceptions where mismanagement has caused interference with this general rule, of course.
Look, I'm not saying the XBox2 will not have great features-- but I will never buy one. Like most people on this site, I am not pro-Microsoft. The PS3 Will have just as many great features, and I'll keep playing all of my PS2 games until it's out. Why? Because they don't suck.
Sorry, what consolation prize do we have for our departing guest?
m l
Honestly, the security by obscurity thing has been disproven so many times, in so many ways for Mac OS X that I find it impossible that you're unaware. Granted, Mac OS X has security issues patches, but don't make me get into the horrid falacy: "macs are just as insecure as any other OS." They are, by design, far more secure. The exploits possible on a PC are not possible on a Mac due to Outlook, IE, messenger services, etc.
Seriously. Thanks for a good laugh. In case you're missing out on the needed information, here it is. This article sums it up very well.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/34554.ht
Why bother? The last thing I'm going to do is let Microsoft dominate my living room and my office.
What? Why would I be using Linux on my laptop? I'm not a masochist.
Okay, hear me out... do I WANT this virus? I think I might. Hmmm...