Gamers don't want a cheap portable system, they want a cheap portable system that has games that they will find interesting and/or fun. The parent was right in that the games on the DS appeal to a large chunk of consumers who don't fit the standard mold.
Brain Age has done really well, and people point to it alot, but the entire Touch Generation line of games appeals to non-gamers. Even outside of that series, however, the games are purposefully aimed at the perception of being easy to pick up and have fun with. I agree no one game has been the single driver, but the general selection of games together has an affect.
I bought the DS Lite because I liked the ability to tote it around while I have downtime, and New Super Mario Bros. was irresistable to me. I probably fall into the market you describe, where the platform was the most important aspect.
The unintended consequence of me getting the DS Lite, though, is that my wife has been using the DS as well. She likes brain age, loved NSMB, and recently picked up SM vs. DK 2 because she likes puzzle games. She is someone who stopped playing games a while back because they just got too complicated/not fun enough. She is exactly the market that the original poster was referring to: someone who has not been a gamer for a long time, but has been brought into it because of the DS game selection.
The original post was correct in saying that a large chunk of the growth is the untapped market of people who either never have been gamers, or haven't been for a while.
Well, we prefer the random game, but if the randomness really detracts from the game for you, you can try this variation:
- Each player initially draws a pool of tiles. 3 seems to be a good number, but you can adjust as needed to suit your tastes.
- Play continues as normal, with a player drawing a tile at the beginning of each turn, but that tile is placed into their pool of tiles.
- The player then plays any tile from their existing pool.
- At the end of the game, players just stop drawing new tiles, and use up their pools until no tiles are left.
This variation adds alot more strategy as you are less likely to get 'stuck' with only a single play, or be forced to play in a location that benefits your opponent(s). The primary drawback is having to analyze possible plays for a larger number of tiles each play, which can slow things down, depending on your game group. But then, adding deeper strategy tends to slow down the play in any game.
Additional options are whether or not a player's tile pool is kept face up, or face down. If face down, do players show the piece they draw before keeping it face down, or is the draw secret.
Tweaking those options can make the game much more strategic/skillful. Just be aware that many people like the game precisely because it is 'lighter' fare, so cater to your gaming group's preferences.
Step 1: Release OS X 10.6 for Intel as a free download for all intel PCs. Step 2: Announce that all further OS X releases will be protected and only run on Apple hardware. Step 3: Profit
Feasible? The first hit is always free, right? If OS X is a good OS, what better way to let the majority of Windows PC users give it a go and see what they are missing.
Parent post is correct. Additionally, I'm sure there is a price ceded to Apple in order to bear the "Made for iPod" badge on the products themselves, so it isn't like Apple isn't profitting regardless of who makes the item.
The next slide simply showed a class of 4-to-5 year olds sitting on the floor of a classroom learning how to use some new Macs, they all looked like they were having a great time.
The implication was very clear - either your employees are less capable than the average four-year old, or it's going to be a breeze to train them.
Bzzzzzt! False dichotomy. Users are very capable, they just aren't motivated. Learning a new system to them is work they can do, but they don't see themselves benefitting from it, thus they are not motivated and can be very difficult to train. If they don't see a clear benefit to using the new system, they probably won't give it a fair shake. The four year olds are probably quite a bit likely to have more curiosity and will likely be less set in their ways, so they'd probably make much better students.
I agree there shouldn't be any problem with the actual teaching, but getting everyone on board can be a real hassle. I'd say it depends alot on the group you are trying to teach.
It is not shortsighted at all, and how there could be such a gulf in conciliation for you to call it foolish is amazing.
I regret using foolish, as it was probably stronger than deserved. I stick to shortsighted however.
Apparently because it has the eventual effect of destroying the very services they use.
Exactly so.
It's the realization that all the "work" is done by them in creating the discourse, not the technologies themselves. It's the realization that the technologies are not needed over all, that there disappearance, even if it's in consequence of their preferred, ad-blocking use of it, would not mark the end of anything significant. They would move on to whatever else is available as a nexus for social action, and be happy just the same.
And that is fine and good for them, but it is still shortsighted. It concentrates on instant self-gratification, and exchanges long-term improvement, by destroying that which is currently the best option among the tools at hand. You wish to concentrate on the discourse, but ignore the fact that without tools, the discourse is not possible, or is possible in a reduced capability. You're looking at the best option, and saying its the best, but it doesn't fit my needs exactly, so rather than support them and try to help them grow into something even better, I'll leech off of them and if they die, I'll just start over.
That is a way to perpetually have mediocre services at best, and increasingly restrictive/worse ones at worst. Either way, it is not moving toward better services, which I think validates calling it shortsighted.
Sure. I don't know what you do for a living. I develop applications, so I'll give you an example from my end of things. I am writing an application that requires some charting capabilities. Rather than write the charting myself, I decided to see what was freely available in the form of plug-in components, with the hope of finding something that suited my needs. My search results listed several sites that offered free components I could use. Evaluating each of those, there was unfortunately something missing from each. The search also returned some ads from vendors who were marketing their own non-free software, one of which turned out to have everything I needed, at a price that was inexpensive enough that it was worthwhile to purchase.
Now, depending on the search, I've had companies come up both in the search results, and in the ads, but if they don't show up in the actual results, the ads are yet another result that could be applicable. If you never buy anything, then no, you might not ever need the ad, but because it is targetted on the words in your search, it is really just another result who's position has been ensured monetarily. Even if you are just searching for information, an ad may turn up a magazine or subscription style source of information which you may be interested in.
Are you familiar with amazon.com? I have an account there, and when I visit, I get bombarded with the Gold Box promo offer, the recommendations I didn't ask for, related searches, what other people bought, what's most popular, what the top lists are, it goes on and on! You may consider that sort of placement useful, but I don't.
I think the key word there is bombarded. I'm not arguing for ads in general. I hate most ads on the net. What we were discussing, however, are googles text ads in particular. Contrasting amazon's in your face advertising with the flashy graphics and occaisional javascript overlays to google's low key targetted ads is a good example of why I think supporting google is a good thing. I'd just as soon -not- see web search pages advertising the way amazon does. But if the current methods don't bear fruit, chances are it will only get worse.
I'm not debating that it wouldn't be ideal if there were no ads and everything were free. I'd just rather have a free service with tasteful ad policies, and the only way I see that continuing is if support is lended toward sites that practice that.
I don't even notice ads/porn when they do appear, but if you can block them and prevent from displaying and even downloading at all, why wouldn't you? I don't find them useful.
The question is, if you don't notice them, why -would- you block them, when others have pointed out that they are relevant, and support a company who is providing a service to you? You say that you don't find them useful, but if you are blocking the ads, you don't find them at all, and can't really evaluate whether they are useful or not. You are assuming that because they are an ad, they aren't useful, but that isn't the case. The ads google provides are to services directly related to the search you have performed.
No sympathy here. If that's the best Google can do, then they can die for all I care. There's always someone else.
This is foolish. It is a shortsighted view at best. If a model does not work, it will die. From everything you have said, you like uncluttered, simple results, and probably a similar interface. Google provides both of these things for free. The least you can do is show a little support. If google does go under, sure, there may be someone else, but they're going to look at google's fate and say, well, that didn't work, so we're going to have to be more invasive, or less simple, or charge for our service...or whatever. None of which are better than simply letting relevant ads work for you.
Companies aren't going to provide search capabilities as a charity, so service users are going to have to support them in one manner or another. Simple relevant text ads may not be as good as no ads at all, but I can't think of a better alternative that will ensure that a good compromise between perfection and realism can continue. Unless you can, show some support.
So from your numbers I can download new bestsellers for $5? Where, please?
In reality, the situation is barely different than the recording industry. Yes, a higher percent of the cost is invested in the materials, so their margins are probably less, but you're still paying for content, not medium.
Otherwise, you'd be able to download books in compressed plain text format for incredibly cheap. The format would compress much better than music does, so you'd save across the boards as far as bandwidth goes, so your overhead would be even less than it is for the music industry.
The fact that no such service exists tells me that content is still king. True, more people would still buy the book because they -want- the medium more than people who buy songs do, but you're still paying for the content, else we'd have cheaper online book services.
It's also very very sad that you can't simply get money for creating good ideas.
My response to your first post was only to point out that there are good reasons to cultivate good ideas and share them with others that go beyond profitting from them monetarily. You specifically asked what motivation you would have to go on sharing your ideas, and I strongly believe that such reasons exist.
I don't doubt you have to do what you have to do to survive, but just because it would be a dream come true if you could get rich from your good ideas, doesn't mean that if you don't get rich from them, they aren't worth pursuing, refining, and sharing.
I am not naive, in that I understand perfectly well the effort involved in developing a new idea. You mention that the reason you do not share your ideas is because you are too tired to develop them after you come home from working two jobs. I can understand that, and I certainly dont condemn anyone for that situation.
However, I think there are alot more people out there who have the time, but cannot be motivated to invest the work in an idea unless there is a monetary reward to it. The other items I listed off as potential motivations appear to mean less and less to society, from what I have recently seen. And I find that to be highly regrettable.
Ideas are the Genesis of all the elements of our human made society. How do you allow people to get paid for creating an idea? If I generate millions of wonderful ideas and never get credit, what incentive is there for me to continue doing so.
How about a little thing called self respect? Pride? Desire to help your fellow man? Advancing science?
It's a sad trend that in today's society, more people don't take pride in their work, and work toward good ideas for reasons other than self-advancement. Good ideas are worth cultivating simply because they are good ideas.
Assuming you really are interested, information currently abounds about OS X, and what exactly it is. To paraphrase, it is a version of UNIX which is built atop Apple's open source core, Darwin.
A non technical description can be found here . While if you want more in depth information about the system, you'll need to look at the dev docs, which can be found here.
While you certainly have a point about the initial costs of the Macs as opposed to PCs, industry studies still show that Macs have a lower total cost of ownership, which may offset that initial advantage. In addition, Apple has much better marks in terms of offered support than would Linux. Also, while this school system may have enough technically savvy volunteers/admins to run Linux, teachers and students, particularly younger ones in grade school may be much more at ease with the Mac OS X user interface .
So, while Linux is certainly a potential competitor, I wouldnt be too hasty to assume that this is any dire threat to Apple, considering its strong educational reputation.
This is patently wrong. If it weren't, how would you explain the existance of Alice for the Mac which obviously isnt using direct x, since it doesnt exist on the platform.
To use your own words, nice with the almost-come-backs.:/
That being said, you probably could make more money off the mac users. Mac users probably aren't as heavy into gaming, true, but mac users are a captive audience. Unlike (((the majority of!))) linux users, mac users do'nt have the option of booting into windows. Now that bungie is dead, they have only what can be ported or emulated, and because there have been almost no new mac ports to speak of in nearly forever they are mostly starved for decent games and will probably run anything even mediocre that runs on their computers.
I dont think the Mac is as starving for ports as you seem to indicate. Most of the 'A' class games already are available from various publishers who are loyal to the Mac.
For example, looks at any genre, and many of the 'leaders' in that genre have made their way to the Mac. I wont list all games, as I dont even know all games, but for example:
Unreal Tourney, Quake3, Deus Ex, Baldurs Gate (1, 2, and expansion), all of Blizzards' games, the entire Tomb Raider series, the Sims, all the Sim City games, Sim Theme Park, Rune, Oni, the Myth series, Majesty, the Might and Magic series, and Alice.
In addition to these, you have several upcoming ports, as well as a bunch that I didnt list that already exist. Most big game houses like Blizzard are realizing that the Mac market is big enough that with the relatively small overhead of porting that comes due to good OO design, their Mac products are very profitable, because they've already done the most expensive work with the PC version. The Mac ports are getting closer and closer to the release date of their PC counter parts so that they are able to ride the hype wave a little better.
The additional problem here is that while I'm sure Loki is a good company, the Mac porting world isnt just there for the taking. You have experienced Mac publishers and porting houses such as Westlake Interactive, Aspyr, Mac Play, etc, who all have advantages in this area: they have experience, are established, and have earned some measure of Mac user loyalty because they have stayed with the Mac gamers throughout the ups and downs, and, as important or more so to a potential partner, they arent under chapter 11.
That said, there is definitely still a demand for some Mac games, and certainly not every company supports the platform yet. But I just dont think people understand how far the platform's gaming status has come in the past 3-4 years. And I dont know how much luck Loki would have breaking into the scene. The Mac gaming scene is much healthier than you might expect.
Just FYI: Apple's default applications (iTunes, iMovie, QuickTime, etc) are installed with the OS, although I think a few of them can be turned off during installation (although not all).
However, beyond that point, choice is indeed the operative word, as there is nothing binding between the operating system and the programs. I easily removed internet explorer and replaced it with omniweb on OS X, and replaced iTunes with Audion as my default mp3 player. No problem at all, and no need for re-installation. No jumping through loops to get the job done either.
Now, some can say "it doesnt matter, because Apple isnt a monopoly" but I disagree. Bad behavior is bad behavior, regardless of who does it. I know that in a legal sense, the laws may see it differently, but I personally am more interested about what I am able to do, rather than what the company is legally able to do.
In my opinion, Apple does a good job with their bundled software in that they make it available to anyone who uses their OS, but they don't crap it down their throats like MS does, or bind them directly into the system the way Windows does.
It sounds as though Linux follows pretty much the same route, so I don't really see there being a conflict of ideologies in this -particular- regard.
of course the difference being the ease with which i can drag and drop new applications into the os, and delete the ones shipped with it. unlike MS, the Mac OS allows users to *easily* use the programs they wish to use.
The question is whether IBM is committed to, via free and open software, allow users to regain the freedom of control over their own computers that have been robbed of them at the hands of Microsoft, or if IBM is committed to finally and irrevocably take away that control in order to befenfite those who would seek gain the maximum value from your consumers. In a way, I feel you just answered it.
I disagree completely. Your logic is off in that it isnt necessarily one way or the other. It isnt a boolean argument.
The way Microsoft robs users of control is by not enabling them to compete with it on their own merits. IBM has shown that it is willing to work with an open standard, which allows anyone to work with their software, and to compete however it will. It provides users with free choice.
Except that the people to whoom you are pushing the computers implementing the "solutions that offer the maximum value for [content providers]" are not individuals and organisations that want it, but those who you are trying ensnare by binding this technology to hardware standards that they do not know to, and often cannot, avoid.
Its as easy as not using the content. The content providers have the right to say, use this license, or dont use my software/content. In the same manner that the open source movement requires that the GPL be propogated down through derivative works. All IBM is doing is providing a means to insure that the license is being followed. Some providers feel safer that way. That in no way forces you to make use of that product. You are still free to use the content found elsewhere, or write your own protection scheme that is more to your liking, and sell all the content creators on it. You can even make it compatible with IBM's open standard.
All IBM is doing with this is respecting the rights of IP holders to protect their rights. To phrase it similar to what you said, it provides them(ip holders) the freedom to take control of their own IP which has been robbed from them at the hands of freeloaders. Not everything is free!
You don't have the right to do anything you want with the information that is on your computer simply because it is on your computer. It doesnt work that way. Just like you dont have the right to do whatever you want with a gun simply because its your gun, and you dont have the right to do whatever you want with your car simply because its your car. Your rights end where another persons begin, and that includes IP and copyright.
IBM has made the standard open. If you really want to know exactly what the programs are doing to your computer, its available for you to find out. The fact that it doesnt enable you to do everything and anything does not equate it to robbing you of anything. Nor does it in any awy compare to the way MS screws consumers.
You must remember that others have rights that deserve to be protected as much as your own. IBM is walking a fine line in an attempt to respect those rights as well as your own, and so far looks to be doing a fine job.
The only sites that have enough of a percentage of any one ISPs user base that an ISP would even consider paying, are the ones already making money. Usually, it's is the big guys in price wars who give it away to eliminate competition (remember how Microsoft killed Netscape's 90% marketshare.)
But the second way to look at it is that if the major ISP's see that they can afford the content, while the smaller ISP's cannot, there is a chance that they will pay the price for the content. They would do this in order to take the content away from the small ISP's, which in turn would drive more users to the large ISP's. Then once again the larger services are giving away what the smaller services cannot afford to. Which is the same scenario you suggest, simply from the ISP side rather than the content provider side. Even if the content providers just break even, its easier to get a nice lump sum from a major ISP than to deal with finding and placing advertisers on your content. In fact, many content providers would rather they be able to provide an ad free environment, if they could still manage costs while doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
Gamers don't want a cheap portable system, they want a cheap portable system that has games that they will find interesting and/or fun. The parent was right in that the games on the DS appeal to a large chunk of consumers who don't fit the standard mold.
Brain Age has done really well, and people point to it alot, but the entire Touch Generation line of games appeals to non-gamers. Even outside of that series, however, the games are purposefully aimed at the perception of being easy to pick up and have fun with. I agree no one game has been the single driver, but the general selection of games together has an affect.
I bought the DS Lite because I liked the ability to tote it around while I have downtime, and New Super Mario Bros. was irresistable to me. I probably fall into the market you describe, where the platform was the most important aspect.
The unintended consequence of me getting the DS Lite, though, is that my wife has been using the DS as well. She likes brain age, loved NSMB, and recently picked up SM vs. DK 2 because she likes puzzle games. She is someone who stopped playing games a while back because they just got too complicated/not fun enough. She is exactly the market that the original poster was referring to: someone who has not been a gamer for a long time, but has been brought into it because of the DS game selection.
The original post was correct in saying that a large chunk of the growth is the untapped market of people who either never have been gamers, or haven't been for a while.
Well, we prefer the random game, but if the randomness really detracts from the game for you, you can try this variation:
- Each player initially draws a pool of tiles. 3 seems to be a good number, but you can adjust as needed to suit your tastes.
- Play continues as normal, with a player drawing a tile at the beginning of each turn, but that tile is placed into their pool of tiles.
- The player then plays any tile from their existing pool.
- At the end of the game, players just stop drawing new tiles, and use up their pools until no tiles are left.
This variation adds alot more strategy as you are less likely to get 'stuck' with only a single play, or be forced to play in a location that benefits your opponent(s). The primary drawback is having to analyze possible plays for a larger number of tiles each play, which can slow things down, depending on your game group. But then, adding deeper strategy tends to slow down the play in any game.
Additional options are whether or not a player's tile pool is kept face up, or face down. If face down, do players show the piece they draw before keeping it face down, or is the draw secret.
Tweaking those options can make the game much more strategic/skillful. Just be aware that many people like the game precisely because it is 'lighter' fare, so cater to your gaming group's preferences.
Hope that helps!
Spencer
Step 1: Release OS X 10.6 for Intel as a free download for all intel PCs.
Step 2: Announce that all further OS X releases will be protected and only run on Apple hardware.
Step 3: Profit
Feasible? The first hit is always free, right? If OS X is a good OS, what better way to let the majority of Windows PC users give it a go and see what they are missing.
-swc
Parent post is correct. Additionally, I'm sure there is a price ceded to Apple in order to bear the "Made for iPod" badge on the products themselves, so it isn't like Apple isn't profitting regardless of who makes the item.
Bzzzzzt! False dichotomy. Users are very capable, they just aren't motivated. Learning a new system to them is work they can do, but they don't see themselves benefitting from it, thus they are not motivated and can be very difficult to train. If they don't see a clear benefit to using the new system, they probably won't give it a fair shake. The four year olds are probably quite a bit likely to have more curiosity and will likely be less set in their ways, so they'd probably make much better students.
I agree there shouldn't be any problem with the actual teaching, but getting everyone on board can be a real hassle. I'd say it depends alot on the group you are trying to teach.
-swc
It is not shortsighted at all, and how there could be such a gulf in conciliation for you to call it foolish is amazing.
I regret using foolish, as it was probably stronger than deserved. I stick to shortsighted however.
Apparently because it has the eventual effect of destroying the very services they use.
Exactly so. It's the realization that all the "work" is done by them in creating the discourse, not the technologies themselves. It's the realization that the technologies are not needed over all, that there disappearance, even if it's in consequence of their preferred, ad-blocking use of it, would not mark the end of anything significant. They would move on to whatever else is available as a nexus for social action, and be happy just the same.
And that is fine and good for them, but it is still shortsighted. It concentrates on instant self-gratification, and exchanges long-term improvement, by destroying that which is currently the best option among the tools at hand. You wish to concentrate on the discourse, but ignore the fact that without tools, the discourse is not possible, or is possible in a reduced capability. You're looking at the best option, and saying its the best, but it doesn't fit my needs exactly, so rather than support them and try to help them grow into something even better, I'll leech off of them and if they die, I'll just start over.
That is a way to perpetually have mediocre services at best, and increasingly restrictive/worse ones at worst. Either way, it is not moving toward better services, which I think validates calling it shortsighted.
Could you give an example of when that's useful?
Sure. I don't know what you do for a living. I develop applications, so I'll give you an example from my end of things. I am writing an application that requires some charting capabilities. Rather than write the charting myself, I decided to see what was freely available in the form of plug-in components, with the hope of finding something that suited my needs. My search results listed several sites that offered free components I could use. Evaluating each of those, there was unfortunately something missing from each. The search also returned some ads from vendors who were marketing their own non-free software, one of which turned out to have everything I needed, at a price that was inexpensive enough that it was worthwhile to purchase.
Now, depending on the search, I've had companies come up both in the search results, and in the ads, but if they don't show up in the actual results, the ads are yet another result that could be applicable. If you never buy anything, then no, you might not ever need the ad, but because it is targetted on the words in your search, it is really just another result who's position has been ensured monetarily. Even if you are just searching for information, an ad may turn up a magazine or subscription style source of information which you may be interested in.
Are you familiar with amazon.com? I have an account there, and when I visit, I get bombarded with the Gold Box promo offer, the recommendations I didn't ask for, related searches, what other people bought, what's most popular, what the top lists are, it goes on and on! You may consider that sort of placement useful, but I don't.
I think the key word there is bombarded. I'm not arguing for ads in general. I hate most ads on the net. What we were discussing, however, are googles text ads in particular. Contrasting amazon's in your face advertising with the flashy graphics and occaisional javascript overlays to google's low key targetted ads is a good example of why I think supporting google is a good thing. I'd just as soon -not- see web search pages advertising the way amazon does. But if the current methods don't bear fruit, chances are it will only get worse.
I'm not debating that it wouldn't be ideal if there were no ads and everything were free. I'd just rather have a free service with tasteful ad policies, and the only way I see that continuing is if support is lended toward sites that practice that.
I don't even notice ads/porn when they do appear, but if you can block them and prevent from displaying and even downloading at all, why wouldn't you? I don't find them useful.
The question is, if you don't notice them, why -would- you block them, when others have pointed out that they are relevant, and support a company who is providing a service to you? You say that you don't find them useful, but if you are blocking the ads, you don't find them at all, and can't really evaluate whether they are useful or not. You are assuming that because they are an ad, they aren't useful, but that isn't the case. The ads google provides are to services directly related to the search you have performed.
No sympathy here. If that's the best Google can do, then they can die for all I care. There's always someone else.
This is foolish. It is a shortsighted view at best. If a model does not work, it will die. From everything you have said, you like uncluttered, simple results, and probably a similar interface. Google provides both of these things for free. The least you can do is show a little support. If google does go under, sure, there may be someone else, but they're going to look at google's fate and say, well, that didn't work, so we're going to have to be more invasive, or less simple, or charge for our service...or whatever. None of which are better than simply letting relevant ads work for you.
Companies aren't going to provide search capabilities as a charity, so service users are going to have to support them in one manner or another. Simple relevant text ads may not be as good as no ads at all, but I can't think of a better alternative that will ensure that a good compromise between perfection and realism can continue. Unless you can, show some support.
So from your numbers I can download new bestsellers for $5? Where, please?
In reality, the situation is barely different than the recording industry. Yes, a higher percent of the cost is invested in the materials, so their margins are probably less, but you're still paying for content, not medium.
Otherwise, you'd be able to download books in compressed plain text format for incredibly cheap. The format would compress much better than music does, so you'd save across the boards as far as bandwidth goes, so your overhead would be even less than it is for the music industry.
The fact that no such service exists tells me that content is still king. True, more people would still buy the book because they -want- the medium more than people who buy songs do, but you're still paying for the content, else we'd have cheaper online book services.
I don't doubt you have to do what you have to do to survive, but just because it would be a dream come true if you could get rich from your good ideas, doesn't mean that if you don't get rich from them, they aren't worth pursuing, refining, and sharing.
I am not naive, in that I understand perfectly well the effort involved in developing a new idea. You mention that the reason you do not share your ideas is because you are too tired to develop them after you come home from working two jobs. I can understand that, and I certainly dont condemn anyone for that situation.
However, I think there are alot more people out there who have the time, but cannot be motivated to invest the work in an idea unless there is a monetary reward to it. The other items I listed off as potential motivations appear to mean less and less to society, from what I have recently seen. And I find that to be highly regrettable.
It's a sad trend that in today's society, more people don't take pride in their work, and work toward good ideas for reasons other than self-advancement. Good ideas are worth cultivating simply because they are good ideas.
Assuming you really are interested, information currently abounds about OS X, and what exactly it is. To paraphrase, it is a version of UNIX which is built atop Apple's open source core, Darwin.
A non technical description can be found here . While if you want more in depth information about the system, you'll need to look at the dev docs, which can be found here.
While you certainly have a point about the initial costs of the Macs as opposed to PCs, industry studies still show that Macs have a lower total cost of ownership, which may offset that initial advantage. In addition, Apple has much better marks in terms of offered support than would Linux. Also, while this school system may have enough technically savvy volunteers/admins to run Linux, teachers and students, particularly younger ones in grade school may be much more at ease with the Mac OS X user interface .
So, while Linux is certainly a potential competitor, I wouldnt be too hasty to assume that this is any dire threat to Apple, considering its strong educational reputation.
Then again, only time will tell.
-swc
This is patently wrong. If it weren't, how would you explain the existance of Alice for the Mac which obviously isnt using direct x, since it doesnt exist on the platform.
:/
To use your own words, nice with the almost-come-backs.
-swc
For example, looks at any genre, and many of the 'leaders' in that genre have made their way to the Mac. I wont list all games, as I dont even know all games, but for example:
Unreal Tourney, Quake3, Deus Ex, Baldurs Gate (1, 2, and expansion), all of Blizzards' games, the entire Tomb Raider series, the Sims, all the Sim City games, Sim Theme Park, Rune, Oni, the Myth series, Majesty, the Might and Magic series, and Alice.
In addition to these, you have several upcoming ports, as well as a bunch that I didnt list that already exist. Most big game houses like Blizzard are realizing that the Mac market is big enough that with the relatively small overhead of porting that comes due to good OO design, their Mac products are very profitable, because they've already done the most expensive work with the PC version. The Mac ports are getting closer and closer to the release date of their PC counter parts so that they are able to ride the hype wave a little better.
The additional problem here is that while I'm sure Loki is a good company, the Mac porting world isnt just there for the taking. You have experienced Mac publishers and porting houses such as Westlake Interactive, Aspyr, Mac Play, etc, who all have advantages in this area: they have experience, are established, and have earned some measure of Mac user loyalty because they have stayed with the Mac gamers throughout the ups and downs, and, as important or more so to a potential partner, they arent under chapter 11.
That said, there is definitely still a demand for some Mac games, and certainly not every company supports the platform yet. But I just dont think people understand how far the platform's gaming status has come in the past 3-4 years. And I dont know how much luck Loki would have breaking into the scene. The Mac gaming scene is much healthier than you might expect.
-swc
Just FYI: Apple's default applications (iTunes, iMovie, QuickTime, etc) are installed with the OS, although I think a few of them can be turned off during installation (although not all).
However, beyond that point, choice is indeed the operative word, as there is nothing binding between the operating system and the programs. I easily removed internet explorer and replaced it with omniweb on OS X, and replaced iTunes with Audion as my default mp3 player. No problem at all, and no need for re-installation. No jumping through loops to get the job done either.
Now, some can say "it doesnt matter, because Apple isnt a monopoly" but I disagree. Bad behavior is bad behavior, regardless of who does it. I know that in a legal sense, the laws may see it differently, but I personally am more interested about what I am able to do, rather than what the company is legally able to do.
In my opinion, Apple does a good job with their bundled software in that they make it available to anyone who uses their OS, but they don't crap it down their throats like MS does, or bind them directly into the system the way Windows does.
It sounds as though Linux follows pretty much the same route, so I don't really see there being a conflict of ideologies in this -particular- regard.
of course the difference being the ease with which i can drag and drop new applications into the os, and delete the ones shipped with it. unlike MS, the Mac OS allows users to *easily* use the programs they wish to use.
The way Microsoft robs users of control is by not enabling them to compete with it on their own merits. IBM has shown that it is willing to work with an open standard, which allows anyone to work with their software, and to compete however it will. It provides users with free choice.
Its as easy as not using the content. The content providers have the right to say, use this license, or dont use my software/content. In the same manner that the open source movement requires that the GPL be propogated down through derivative works. All IBM is doing is providing a means to insure that the license is being followed. Some providers feel safer that way. That in no way forces you to make use of that product. You are still free to use the content found elsewhere, or write your own protection scheme that is more to your liking, and sell all the content creators on it. You can even make it compatible with IBM's open standard.All IBM is doing with this is respecting the rights of IP holders to protect their rights. To phrase it similar to what you said, it provides them(ip holders) the freedom to take control of their own IP which has been robbed from them at the hands of freeloaders. Not everything is free!
You don't have the right to do anything you want with the information that is on your computer simply because it is on your computer. It doesnt work that way. Just like you dont have the right to do whatever you want with a gun simply because its your gun, and you dont have the right to do whatever you want with your car simply because its your car. Your rights end where another persons begin, and that includes IP and copyright.
IBM has made the standard open. If you really want to know exactly what the programs are doing to your computer, its available for you to find out. The fact that it doesnt enable you to do everything and anything does not equate it to robbing you of anything. Nor does it in any awy compare to the way MS screws consumers.
You must remember that others have rights that deserve to be protected as much as your own. IBM is walking a fine line in an attempt to respect those rights as well as your own, and so far looks to be doing a fine job.
-SC
So, is it still so unimaginable?
-SC
This is just plain rediculus. If he only ate what the starving African refugees eat, he would be starving too.
Obviously, he eats just an ounce or two more, and then gives the remaining 10/12 of his food away. You should be more realistic in your expectations.