I'm old school: I want a CD containing the same thing I would have gotten if I'd bought it in the store, period. Alas, I can't think of any OEM that does this nowadays.
This has nothing to do with Microsoft's licencing
Actually I think the part where HP wouldn't let someone just call and order the CD, but rather had to quiz them on why they needed it speaks directly to this. It does have something to do with MS agreements.
...or even better, Apple
Amen, brother. Actually I happened to notice the other day that the Mac OS X 10.1.2 CD that came with an iMac at work is actually the same CD you'd get at a computer store. But even they do not do this reliably, making OS CDs machine-specific.
No it sucks when a company who is perfectly willing to "leverage" it's technologies in order to increase marketshare and profits is in control of it. Surely you realize that D3D would always be at least one version behind the Windows one and that some features possibly would never be implimented. And then there's always the possibility that MS could discontinue the product leaving us with NO 3D API that is in use by developers. But surely you read my original post.
1. 100 mil of non-voting stock doesn't mean MS "owns" anyone or anything. It amounts to a gesture only.
2. The agreement where MS promises to make Office for 5 years if Apple promises not to sue for ripping them off in the UI department hardly amounts to anyone "owning" anyone else.
3. I'm not at all referring to some OS rivalry or competition here. In that sense, yes, it is "over." What I'm getting at is that Apple has a good thing going with OpenGL. They'd be worse off with Direct3D. Simple as that.
I have always viewed Direct3D as a Really Bad Idea for the Macintosh platform. I mean, that's all we need is to hitch our 3D waggon to Microsoft. We'd always be a version behind, some features would never be implimented, etc. And then when all game manufacturers were using D3D, whoops! Microsoft isn't supporting D3D on the Mac anymore.
Even some game developers I have spoken to seemed pretty positive about the idea. "if only we could do D3D," they said. I think otherwise for the reasons stated above.
And what does this new "wrapper" mean to us? I hope it doesn't mean that Game developers or porting companies don't bother with the OpenGL conversion (when necessary). For if this turns out to be the case I fear the sceneario above may come to pass in the long run. Bottom line is, this scheme seems to still leave 3D on the Macintosh platform vulnerable to the whims of MS.
Nobody will read this because this thread is so old, but I can't think where else to mention it so here goes. Above it was suggested that Slashdot runs so many Linux stories because that's what gets submitted and that if I wanted to see something else someone would have to submit somthing else. I said I would try to be Johnny on the Spot with some other news.
Well I made good on it. I submitted an interesting bit on how Apple just bought Nothing Real, the makers of video compositing software titles Shake and Tremor. These currently run on Linux and Irix and not much else I suppose. Big time hollywood effects products. Interesting move, I thought.
The verdict on my submission? R E J E C T E D. Don't cal us, we'll call you, thanks for applying, REJECTED.
Your later point is well taken. There are a lot of Linux stories submitted and a lot of people int he slashdot commuinity like and use Linux. Perhaps I'll try to be johnny-on-the-spot with some other news.
Regarding your first point, I must say I don't agree. Clearly the fellow who submitted this saw two cases in which one might wish to disconnect the monitor:
1. You wish to run Linux and not use the built-in monitor
2. The monitor is broken.
So, yes, the poster does see a circumstance in which a non-Linux user might wish to do this thing: when it's broken.
I don't want to nit-pick this any further. Actually I feel ridiculous going into it this far already. But I think my point stands: the submitter exhibits a common trait around here - "Linux-vision."
This doesn't make him evil. It doesn't mean he hates other OSs. It just means he or she has a tendendcy to look at the world through Linux-colored glasses. This can be annoying to people who actually use those other OSs, especially when the condition is being exhibited daily by thousands of submitters and posters in this community. It was out of this frustration that my admittedly sarcastic post arose.
And this affects my point, how? (My point being that the submitter saw the instructions on how to disconnect the display as a beneift to Linux users specifically, almost as if nobody else would be interested.)
And please don't reduce the discussion to personal insults. It's better if we keep the tone a little higher than that. But then, to quote you "that'll be the day, on slashdot."
I don't think the presence of sarcasm indicates that the post is a "troll." I figure a "troll" post is one that doesn't necessarily represent the genuine beliefs or opinions of the poster, but is simply there to generate a large, emotional response from the community.
My post is not that. I mean what I say and I say it for the good of this community, of which I am a part. I wonder if you could even explain in your own words what my point actually is. I feel sure, somehow, that you don't even get it.
RTA. This is about removing the monitor from a broken iMac with a bad CRT so it can still be used as a server without having to send it in for service.
I was actually referring to the comments of the guy who submitted. Read that and I think you'll see where I'm coming from.
Also, I take offense with you saying that Linux guys are all about disconnecting stuff.
Yep, OK. Sarcasm there. Guilty as charged. My goal here isn't to offend anyone, however. Rather, I am trying to draw attention to the all pervasive Linux-blinders that are so evident here in this community. It's almost as if it isn't Linux and doesn't run Linux...then it's either lame or simlply doesn't exist.
I'm all for taking things apart, generally speaking. Again, my comment was about how the submitter seemed to think that taking this thing apart was a "Linux thing" and it didn't even occur to him that someone else might be interested.
Bah, I've done my best to explain it. If you dont' get it, I don't know what else to say.
I wonder if knowing how to disconnect the display would be equally handy for someone not running linux.
But then,what am I saying? Linux guys are all about disconnecting stuff. And besides who in their right mind would want to run Linux on a LCD display like the one on that iMac?
"Slashdot: News for Nerds. Stuff that matters"? Hey I love slashdot, but let's face it. It's "Slashdot: We like Linux. Not much else."
I'm delighted to see anyone providing public access 802.11! There may be some concern over security but in my book if you're concerned about packet sniffing you restrict yourself to the wired LAN and control physical access to the ports. WEP isn't going to solve your problem. It's too easy to crack and it's only going to cut your network performance in half. Just my two cents on WEP.
I'm doubly delighted that they're not trying to charge the airport visitors for the use of the network. I hope that this is a sign of things to come for other types of places.
I think you're missing the point here. None of this stuff is ready to run any version of the Mac OS or any applications developed for the Mac. There is still the issue of Apple proprietary ROMs to deal with.
So this isn't a "Mac clone" issue at all.
Apple will never allow clones in the future. At least I hope not. The only thing that makes Apple Apple is the fact that they make the hardware and the operating system, the "whole widget" as the Big Steve likes to say. I think he's absolutely right. It allows them to innovate, innovate quickly and also to take responsibility for more of the whole user experience.
If you really think about it this is the only thing that makes them truly unique in the market. Otherwise they'd be Dell or Microsoft. There's no benefit in trying to out-Dell Dell or out-Microsoft Microsoft. And even if they did who would care? Or even notice? Even if Dell went out of business tomorrow someone else would step up and give you the exact same product at the exact same price.
In regards to your focus on the inside of the classroom - you might be interested in a company called Smart. I've purchased and installed two of thier boards now and they're a big hit. They're a step beyond a computer with a projector. It not only allows educators to stand up in front of the projected computer screen and actually control the computer by touching it, it also allows them to put any student workstation up on the projector as well, such as for a class critique of student work.
I went out of my way to arrange training for the faculty who would be teaching in these labs. Most of them showed up, a few still don't get it. But for the board is used every single day, that much I know.
I think you mentioned Blackboard, too. We've been using it also and it's been great for us. We periodically arrange for 2-hour how-to sessions for faculty. Adoption of the system has positively exploded. Naturally there are plenty of faculty who will never use it, but as you say the students pressure them and we provide the training...so in the end more and more come to use it.
It's even more unfair to require students to access online course materials and then not provide the network infrastructure to do it. This is precisely the situation we found ourselves in. The culprit? Peer-to-peer filesharing. There was so much of it during certain days/times that nobody could do anything else reliably.
We blocked the standard ports for the p2p clients and then issued a statement indicating that it was a temporary situation. Then we got to work on the "intelligent routing." Essentially we still allow these activities but there is a limit on the amount of total network bandwidth these activities can use. After setting this up, we reopened the ports.
I think it's a great solution to a very common problem on university campuses, and quite fair to everyone.
1. online course materials via products like Blackboard (grades, tests, syllabi, lecture notes, discussions, etc)
2. Wireless networking (encrypted and/or MAC filtered) in libraries and public places
3. Wireless laptops, either for everyone or for "borrowing" perhaps at the library or other public places.
4. Intelligent routing to prevent the gnutella users from sucking up all the bandwidth. You can do this without entirely blocking the ports, thus letting it happen but preserving the bulk of the bandwidth for other (presumably more legitimate) uses.
5. Internet stations placed in public places for general email and web.
6. IMAP mail (including a Web client) if you currently use POP.
Apple isn't flirting with bankruptcy, unless you know something that wall street and the rest of the world don't.
As to Apple being around only because Microsoft "bailed them out," I think you're confused. You seem to have no real idea what $100 million of non-voting Apple stock actually amounts to. Heck I bet there's $100 million under the couch pillows in the Apple headquarters break room. That's chump change for Apple. The money Microsoft gave was a gesture only.
As far as Apple focusing "only on what computers look like instead of what they do," I refer you to the nearest Apple computer. you've obviously never used one enough to know better.
Steve Jobs is a person who cares passionately about the quality of his products. He seems to want them to shine in a way that other technology firms don't give a damn about. While this isn't by itself a recipe for success, let alone seizing great globs of marketshare, it certainly has it's benefits. It may make him a megalomaniac. But it does compel millions of people to buy, use, talk about and emulate his stuff.
I think everyone is fully aware of what Apple's marketshare is. That's a tired old point that really doesn't serve to inform or enlighten anyone anymore. When it changes significantly, then let's make it newsworthy.
What would be really informative for people is to be reminded of is exactly how big and successful Apple is in some respects. People are so used to hearing marketshare statistics and about Windows dominance that we are expecting tomorrow's paper to carry an "Apple Goes Bankrupt" story. We actually forget that Apple is one of the top computer makers in the united states (I don't know what the exact ranking is today, but I'll bet my bottom dollar that they're in the top 5). Or that they make the highest margins on computer sales in the industry. Those certainly are measures of success that belie the 4.5% marketshare statistic so often cited.
I think it would interesting to remind people that Apple is an actual technology company as opposed to Dell, for example, who simply buy off the shelf parts, jam them in a box, brand it and sell a warrantee. Don't get me wrong, Dell is a great company and I'd buy their stock as well as thier products. But they're not a technology company. Apple has actual R&D and actually *does* the kind of innovation that other companies talk so much about.
Apple still *is* "a welcome antidote to the elitism and cluelessness of the tech elites." I hardly need point out that Mr. Katz and many Slashdot readers fall squarely into this category. Claiming that Apple caters only to "excitable teenagers and college students" is disingenuous at best. In fact Apple seems to be attempting to do is make a computer "that works like TV does." They want to make an appliance of it. "Consumerize" the former geek-toy in ways that haven't ever happened yet. That, I sometimes suspect, is one of the real reasons why the tech-head crowd refuses to give Apple it's due - they have no need for consumerized computers, and in fact have a vested interest in keeping the machines frightening and difficult to use.
I suppose there's always been a great deal of safety and even great financial success for people satisfied with making "what's necessary" rather than "what's neat." Frankly, I'm glad Apple often chooses to go out on that limb, to attempt "what's neat." Even if you never, ever buy or use an Apple computer you too should be glad that someone is doing it. After all, the whole industry benefits because of it.
Finally, as to the "foolish idea" of making somthing hip and cool and then eventually "hoping" that it will succeed...I say if you've made something that truly is hip and cool, then in a certain sense you already have succeeded. For I think that Steve's definition of success isn't mere marketshare or profits. These things certainly matter, nobody's saying it doesn't. But if all that "success" required was higher marketshare and more profit, I think Apple would become an entirely different company. Steve partly defines success by whether or not hist products meet his own standards of "great." There's a certain integrity to that position and I for one don't want to see this kind of sentiment disappear from this otherwise bland industry. I salute Steve's foolish, blind, naive, insistence that his products be great.
It seems ot me that Linux will never be a real desktop contender. It's still more difficult to install configure and use it than it is to do likewise with Windows or Mac OS. And - here is the killer - I seriously doubt whether the Linux community at large even *want* that to change. That is the weakness of Linux.
Linux will stay a geek toy and light server OS until and unless the Linux developer/user world actually get behind the idea of making a GUI worthy of someones grandmother. I watched the development of Nautilus...and when it sank down to the level of a couple dozen guys working in thier spare time it saddened me.
Won't someone make a serious Linux for the desktop? Does anyone *want* Linux to edge itself into that arena? I certainly do.
Until such time I won't bother with x86 hardware. I'll take my Macintoshes and my OS X, thank you very much.
The mainstream slashdot crowd (if there can be said to be such a thing) is so funny. They way we're all pretending that we're terribly interested in this little handlheld device "just because" and as an afterthought it's neat-0 that it might run Linux!
Reality check here - if this thing didn't have the potential to run Linux the story wouldn't have been written and hardly a soul here would have cared about it anyway.
You can always count on slashdot to find just the right angle on an Apple-related post - negative. It might have easily been pointed out that Apple was the first to integrate 802.11 into laptops and desktops. But no, the salient issue it seems is that Linksys makes a cheaper access point. Not that it isn't true! I freakin' OWN a Linksys. It's just that slashdot can be positively COUNTED on to knock Apple, no matter what the story is.
If it's your contention that Apple isn't one of the most innovative companies in the computer business then I would venture to say that you wouldn't know innovation if it bit you on the ass.
You can always count on slashdot to immediately pronounce an apple product to be "lame." One begins to suspect that slashdot has abandoned all pretense of objectivity when it comes to certain products/companies.
By the way, for a *sane* article on the introduction of the iPod check out arstechnica.com. Neither ars nor I are in love with the thing but at least they seem to be able to provide some cursory analysis of the products introduction...I mean beyond the slashdot "lame" perspective.
Taco you should be ashamed of yourself. We readers deserve better.
You completey fail to understand Apple. The real strength of the company is that it makes BOTH the operating system and the hardware. That is what makes them unique and makes innovation easy. Without this they would either go out of business or become stagnant (and THEN go out of business).
It also ensures that they will never be the bargain-basement leader in terms of price. You take the good with the bad.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm old school: I want a CD containing the same thing I would have gotten if I'd bought it in the store, period. Alas, I can't think of any OEM that does this nowadays.
...or even better, Apple
This has nothing to do with Microsoft's licencing
Actually I think the part where HP wouldn't let someone just call and order the CD, but rather had to quiz them on why they needed it speaks directly to this. It does have something to do with MS agreements.
Amen, brother. Actually I happened to notice the other day that the Mac OS X 10.1.2 CD that came with an iMac at work is actually the same CD you'd get at a computer store. But even they do not do this reliably, making OS CDs machine-specific.
No it sucks when a company who is perfectly willing to "leverage" it's technologies in order to increase marketshare and profits is in control of it. Surely you realize that D3D would always be at least one version behind the Windows one and that some features possibly would never be implimented. And then there's always the possibility that MS could discontinue the product leaving us with NO 3D API that is in use by developers. But surely you read my original post.
I think you are confused.
1. 100 mil of non-voting stock doesn't mean MS "owns" anyone or anything. It amounts to a gesture only.
2. The agreement where MS promises to make Office for 5 years if Apple promises not to sue for ripping them off in the UI department hardly amounts to anyone "owning" anyone else.
3. I'm not at all referring to some OS rivalry or competition here. In that sense, yes, it is "over." What I'm getting at is that Apple has a good thing going with OpenGL. They'd be worse off with Direct3D. Simple as that.
I have always viewed Direct3D as a Really Bad Idea for the Macintosh platform. I mean, that's all we need is to hitch our 3D waggon to Microsoft. We'd always be a version behind, some features would never be implimented, etc. And then when all game manufacturers were using D3D, whoops! Microsoft isn't supporting D3D on the Mac anymore.
Even some game developers I have spoken to seemed pretty positive about the idea. "if only we could do D3D," they said. I think otherwise for the reasons stated above.
And what does this new "wrapper" mean to us? I hope it doesn't mean that Game developers or porting companies don't bother with the OpenGL conversion (when necessary). For if this turns out to be the case I fear the sceneario above may come to pass in the long run. Bottom line is, this scheme seems to still leave 3D on the Macintosh platform vulnerable to the whims of MS.
Nobody will read this because this thread is so old, but I can't think where else to mention it so here goes. Above it was suggested that Slashdot runs so many Linux stories because that's what gets submitted and that if I wanted to see something else someone would have to submit somthing else. I said I would try to be Johnny on the Spot with some other news.
Well I made good on it. I submitted an interesting bit on how Apple just bought Nothing Real, the makers of video compositing software titles Shake and Tremor. These currently run on Linux and Irix and not much else I suppose. Big time hollywood effects products. Interesting move, I thought.
The verdict on my submission? R E J E C T E D. Don't cal us, we'll call you, thanks for applying, REJECTED.
Your later point is well taken. There are a lot of Linux stories submitted and a lot of people int he slashdot commuinity like and use Linux. Perhaps I'll try to be johnny-on-the-spot with some other news.
Regarding your first point, I must say I don't agree. Clearly the fellow who submitted this saw two cases in which one might wish to disconnect the monitor:
1. You wish to run Linux and not use the built-in monitor
2. The monitor is broken.
So, yes, the poster does see a circumstance in which a non-Linux user might wish to do this thing: when it's broken.
I don't want to nit-pick this any further. Actually I feel ridiculous going into it this far already. But I think my point stands: the submitter exhibits a common trait around here - "Linux-vision."
This doesn't make him evil. It doesn't mean he hates other OSs. It just means he or she has a tendendcy to look at the world through Linux-colored glasses. This can be annoying to people who actually use those other OSs, especially when the condition is being exhibited daily by thousands of submitters and posters in this community. It was out of this frustration that my admittedly sarcastic post arose.
And this affects my point, how? (My point being that the submitter saw the instructions on how to disconnect the display as a beneift to Linux users specifically, almost as if nobody else would be interested.)
And please don't reduce the discussion to personal insults. It's better if we keep the tone a little higher than that. But then, to quote you "that'll be the day, on slashdot."
And so it did :)
Thanks for retaining your sense of humor. My sarcasm seems to have irked some around here. Not the moderators, though, thank goodness.
I don't think the presence of sarcasm indicates that the post is a "troll." I figure a "troll" post is one that doesn't necessarily represent the genuine beliefs or opinions of the poster, but is simply there to generate a large, emotional response from the community.
My post is not that. I mean what I say and I say it for the good of this community, of which I am a part. I wonder if you could even explain in your own words what my point actually is. I feel sure, somehow, that you don't even get it.
RTA. This is about removing the monitor from a broken iMac with a bad CRT so it can still be used as a server without having to send it in for service.
I was actually referring to the comments of the guy who submitted. Read that and I think you'll see where I'm coming from.
Also, I take offense with you saying that Linux guys are all about disconnecting stuff.
Yep, OK. Sarcasm there. Guilty as charged. My goal here isn't to offend anyone, however. Rather, I am trying to draw attention to the all pervasive Linux-blinders that are so evident here in this community. It's almost as if it isn't Linux and doesn't run Linux...then it's either lame or simlply doesn't exist.
I'm all for taking things apart, generally speaking. Again, my comment was about how the submitter seemed to think that taking this thing apart was a "Linux thing" and it didn't even occur to him that someone else might be interested.
Bah, I've done my best to explain it. If you dont' get it, I don't know what else to say.
I wonder if knowing how to disconnect the display would be equally handy for someone not running linux.
But then,what am I saying? Linux guys are all about disconnecting stuff. And besides who in their right mind would want to run Linux on a LCD display like the one on that iMac?
"Slashdot: News for Nerds. Stuff that matters"? Hey I love slashdot, but let's face it. It's "Slashdot: We like Linux. Not much else."
I'm delighted to see anyone providing public access 802.11! There may be some concern over security but in my book if you're concerned about packet sniffing you restrict yourself to the wired LAN and control physical access to the ports. WEP isn't going to solve your problem. It's too easy to crack and it's only going to cut your network performance in half. Just my two cents on WEP.
I'm doubly delighted that they're not trying to charge the airport visitors for the use of the network. I hope that this is a sign of things to come for other types of places.
I think you're missing the point here. None of this stuff is ready to run any version of the Mac OS or any applications developed for the Mac. There is still the issue of Apple proprietary ROMs to deal with.
So this isn't a "Mac clone" issue at all.
Apple will never allow clones in the future. At least I hope not. The only thing that makes Apple Apple is the fact that they make the hardware and the operating system, the "whole widget" as the Big Steve likes to say. I think he's absolutely right. It allows them to innovate, innovate quickly and also to take responsibility for more of the whole user experience.
If you really think about it this is the only thing that makes them truly unique in the market. Otherwise they'd be Dell or Microsoft. There's no benefit in trying to out-Dell Dell or out-Microsoft Microsoft. And even if they did who would care? Or even notice? Even if Dell went out of business tomorrow someone else would step up and give you the exact same product at the exact same price.
In regards to your focus on the inside of the classroom - you might be interested in a company called Smart. I've purchased and installed two of thier boards now and they're a big hit. They're a step beyond a computer with a projector. It not only allows educators to stand up in front of the projected computer screen and actually control the computer by touching it, it also allows them to put any student workstation up on the projector as well, such as for a class critique of student work.
I went out of my way to arrange training for the faculty who would be teaching in these labs. Most of them showed up, a few still don't get it. But for the board is used every single day, that much I know.
I think you mentioned Blackboard, too. We've been using it also and it's been great for us. We periodically arrange for 2-hour how-to sessions for faculty. Adoption of the system has positively exploded. Naturally there are plenty of faculty who will never use it, but as you say the students pressure them and we provide the training...so in the end more and more come to use it.
It's even more unfair to require students to access online course materials and then not provide the network infrastructure to do it. This is precisely the situation we found ourselves in. The culprit? Peer-to-peer filesharing. There was so much of it during certain days/times that nobody could do anything else reliably.
We blocked the standard ports for the p2p clients and then issued a statement indicating that it was a temporary situation. Then we got to work on the "intelligent routing." Essentially we still allow these activities but there is a limit on the amount of total network bandwidth these activities can use. After setting this up, we reopened the ports.
I think it's a great solution to a very common problem on university campuses, and quite fair to everyone.
1. online course materials via products like Blackboard (grades, tests, syllabi, lecture notes, discussions, etc)
2. Wireless networking (encrypted and/or MAC filtered) in libraries and public places
3. Wireless laptops, either for everyone or for "borrowing" perhaps at the library or other public places.
4. Intelligent routing to prevent the gnutella users from sucking up all the bandwidth. You can do this without entirely blocking the ports, thus letting it happen but preserving the bulk of the bandwidth for other (presumably more legitimate) uses.
5. Internet stations placed in public places for general email and web.
6. IMAP mail (including a Web client) if you currently use POP.
Apple isn't flirting with bankruptcy, unless you know something that wall street and the rest of the world don't.
As to Apple being around only because Microsoft "bailed them out," I think you're confused. You seem to have no real idea what $100 million of non-voting Apple stock actually amounts to. Heck I bet there's $100 million under the couch pillows in the Apple headquarters break room. That's chump change for Apple. The money Microsoft gave was a gesture only.
As far as Apple focusing "only on what computers look like instead of what they do," I refer you to the nearest Apple computer. you've obviously never used one enough to know better.
Steve Jobs is a person who cares passionately about the quality of his products. He seems to want them to shine in a way that other technology firms don't give a damn about. While this isn't by itself a recipe for success, let alone seizing great globs of marketshare, it certainly has it's benefits. It may make him a megalomaniac. But it does compel millions of people to buy, use, talk about and emulate his stuff.
I think everyone is fully aware of what Apple's marketshare is. That's a tired old point that really doesn't serve to inform or enlighten anyone anymore. When it changes significantly, then let's make it newsworthy.
What would be really informative for people is to be reminded of is exactly how big and successful Apple is in some respects. People are so used to hearing marketshare statistics and about Windows dominance that we are expecting tomorrow's paper to carry an "Apple Goes Bankrupt" story. We actually forget that Apple is one of the top computer makers in the united states (I don't know what the exact ranking is today, but I'll bet my bottom dollar that they're in the top 5). Or that they make the highest margins on computer sales in the industry. Those certainly are measures of success that belie the 4.5% marketshare statistic so often cited.
I think it would interesting to remind people that Apple is an actual technology company as opposed to Dell, for example, who simply buy off the shelf parts, jam them in a box, brand it and sell a warrantee. Don't get me wrong, Dell is a great company and I'd buy their stock as well as thier products. But they're not a technology company. Apple has actual R&D and actually *does* the kind of innovation that other companies talk so much about.
Apple still *is* "a welcome antidote to the elitism and cluelessness of the tech elites." I hardly need point out that Mr. Katz and many Slashdot readers fall squarely into this category. Claiming that Apple caters only to "excitable teenagers and college students" is disingenuous at best. In fact Apple seems to be attempting to do is make a computer "that works like TV does." They want to make an appliance of it. "Consumerize" the former geek-toy in ways that haven't ever happened yet. That, I sometimes suspect, is one of the real reasons why the tech-head crowd refuses to give Apple it's due - they have no need for consumerized computers, and in fact have a vested interest in keeping the machines frightening and difficult to use.
I suppose there's always been a great deal of safety and even great financial success for people satisfied with making "what's necessary" rather than "what's neat." Frankly, I'm glad Apple often chooses to go out on that limb, to attempt "what's neat." Even if you never, ever buy or use an Apple computer you too should be glad that someone is doing it. After all, the whole industry benefits because of it.
Finally, as to the "foolish idea" of making somthing hip and cool and then eventually "hoping" that it will succeed...I say if you've made something that truly is hip and cool, then in a certain sense you already have succeeded. For I think that Steve's definition of success isn't mere marketshare or profits. These things certainly matter, nobody's saying it doesn't. But if all that "success" required was higher marketshare and more profit, I think Apple would become an entirely different company. Steve partly defines success by whether or not hist products meet his own standards of "great." There's a certain integrity to that position and I for one don't want to see this kind of sentiment disappear from this otherwise bland industry. I salute Steve's foolish, blind, naive, insistence that his products be great.
It seems ot me that Linux will never be a real desktop contender. It's still more difficult to install configure and use it than it is to do likewise with Windows or Mac OS. And - here is the killer - I seriously doubt whether the Linux community at large even *want* that to change. That is the weakness of Linux.
Linux will stay a geek toy and light server OS until and unless the Linux developer/user world actually get behind the idea of making a GUI worthy of someones grandmother. I watched the development of Nautilus...and when it sank down to the level of a couple dozen guys working in thier spare time it saddened me.
Won't someone make a serious Linux for the desktop? Does anyone *want* Linux to edge itself into that arena? I certainly do.
Until such time I won't bother with x86 hardware. I'll take my Macintoshes and my OS X, thank you very much.
The mainstream slashdot crowd (if there can be said to be such a thing) is so funny. They way we're all pretending that we're terribly interested in this little handlheld device "just because" and as an afterthought it's neat-0 that it might run Linux!
Reality check here - if this thing didn't have the potential to run Linux the story wouldn't have been written and hardly a soul here would have cared about it anyway.
Just an observation.
Just the other day I was commenting how Slashdot stories regarding Apple *always* uses a negative slant.
:)
Well color me wrong, just a day later. An article having to do with the world of the Macintosh and narry a snide remark to be found in the lead-in.
I'm stupified. But pleased.
You can always count on slashdot to find just the right angle on an Apple-related post - negative. It might have easily been pointed out that Apple was the first to integrate 802.11 into laptops and desktops. But no, the salient issue it seems is that Linksys makes a cheaper access point. Not that it isn't true! I freakin' OWN a Linksys. It's just that slashdot can be positively COUNTED on to knock Apple, no matter what the story is.
If it's your contention that Apple isn't one of the most innovative companies in the computer business then I would venture to say that you wouldn't know innovation if it bit you on the ass.
You can always count on slashdot to immediately pronounce an apple product to be "lame." One begins to suspect that slashdot has abandoned all pretense of objectivity when it comes to certain products/companies.
By the way, for a *sane* article on the introduction of the iPod check out arstechnica.com. Neither ars nor I are in love with the thing but at least they seem to be able to provide some cursory analysis of the products introduction...I mean beyond the slashdot "lame" perspective.
Taco you should be ashamed of yourself. We readers deserve better.
You completey fail to understand Apple. The real strength of the company is that it makes BOTH the operating system and the hardware. That is what makes them unique and makes innovation easy. Without this they would either go out of business or become stagnant (and THEN go out of business).
It also ensures that they will never be the bargain-basement leader in terms of price. You take the good with the bad.