Doomsought wrote: "Are you Atheist? If so, you still have a religious belief."
This a a tired and specious argument. Not believing in something for which there is no evidence is not a religion.
But, let's put your hypothesis to a test. Do you believe in Santa Claus? No? Ok, you are an asanta-clausist and practice the religion of asanta-clausism. Do you believe in leprechauns? No? OK, you are an aleprechaunsist practicing the religion of aleprechaunsism. Do you believe the souls of the dead hang around and haunt houses? No? You're nothing but a aghostist worshiping at the alter of aghostism. Get it? Atheists simply don't believe in god the same way you don't believe in Santa Claus. That doesn't make it a religion.
Oh and you obviously don't understand science either. The scientific method does not rely on on the "assumption of fallibility". Where the hell did you get that from? Maybe you mean falsifiability? Falsifiability is a very different concept and is key to the scientific method. Humans are fallible. Scientists know this which why experiments must be repeatable and statistical analysis of data is required. But the scientific method doesn't "rely" on the "assumption of fallibility" in any way.
The video proves the issue is exactly the same as every other phone i.e. if you hold it in a way that interferes with the antenna, data communication performance suffers. But that's beside the point.
If the phone does not perform to your expectations, return it. Apple even went as far as to suggest that course of action in their PR letter. That's how you send a message to a company, not by whining on the internet and linking to someone's useless video. If the phone is a piece of shit, people should and will return it in mass.
To all the folks unhappy with both the performance of the new iPhone and Apple's response, please heed the advise in this portion of the press release:
"As a reminder, if you are not fully satisfied, you can return your undamaged iPhone to any Apple Retail Store or the online Apple Store within 30 days of purchase for a full refund."
Seriously. Please.
All this ridiculous, over-the-top, self-righteous indignation and emotional hand-wringing over a gadget not meeting your expectations is just pathetic.
Apple has taken a stand on this issue. They say it works as designed and claim the reception is better than their previous model. You think they're full of shit? Great. Quit posting whiney, indignant messages on the internet and return the goddam thing.
If the problem is half as bad as all the stories make it out to be, Apple will be flooded with returns and that will have a much greater effect that millions of lines of internet bitching.
Disclosure: I'm a satisfied owner of several Apple products. I don't own an iPhone and have no plans to purchase one. My wife and I have free-with-subscription LG phones on Verizon. Oh, and guess what? If I hold the phone by the bottom, signal degrades. If I hold it that way in an area with poor cell coverage, service is lost entirely. You think if I submit my sob story to Slashdot, Gizmodo, CNET, CNN, etc. they will make it front page news?
While I don't have any empirical data or specs to back up this claim, I strongly suspect the greatest contributors to the overall weight of the iPad are the glass screen and the battery. So, the only way to substantially reduce the weight would be to go with a plastic screen and a smaller battery. If they did that everyone would bitch about scratches and poor battery life.
Well, isn't that rich. We are in an economic crisis which was caused, in part, by the SEC being deliberately asleep-at-the-wheel. Now they are going to redeem themselves by appeasing a bunch of whiners who wouldn't be satisfied if Steve Jobs published all of his health records online.
Investors and would-be investors know absolutely everything they need to know. Steve Jobs had cancer and, as such, will likely die at an age lower than the national average. He is sick again. So sick that he's taking six months off work.
That's all you need to know.
If you currently own stock and think that the loss of Steve Jobs as CEO will cause the stock price to drop, you should sell your shares now. If you believe Apple will continue thrive without him, then you should hold your position.
If you are not a current stockholder, you should decide which of the above you believe and invest your money accordingly.
That's it.
If you feel you need to know more about the Steve Jobs' health, you are f*#%ing soulless ghoul.
Lawyers and the SEC? I've heard nothing of lawyers or the SEC demanding information regarding the CEO's health.
The only people speculating and demanding disclosure are blowhard journalists and stock market manipulators. The basis for their "concern" is purely from an ignorant and amateur medical diagnosis based on pictures and video.
Hell, Senator Bill Frist was rightly admonished for performing a video diagnosis of Terri Shiavo and he has a medical school degree.
Why the hell should Apple's board respond to a bunch of chicken-little wankers in the tech and financial press?
Frankly, I admire Apple for not feeding the trolls.
I can't say that I agree with you. The "large part" of the blame lies with sensationalist journalists and stock price manipulators.
Name one other company where people demand they to go on record regarding the health of the CEO when some band of journalists decides to perform an amateur medical diagnosis based on photographs and videos.
Senator Bill Frist was rightly admonished for performing a "video diagnosis" of Terri Schiavo...and he has a medical school degree. Why should Apple respond when a bunch of blowhards with no medical training whatsoever do the same thing with Steve Jobs?
The board is required to divulge information about his health if it affects his ability to do his job. They are under no obligation to respond to nutjobs and market makers.
Unfortunately, ever since Jobs lost significant weight as a result of his surgery (an obligatory side effect for the type of surgery he had), MacWorld keynotes have become a "Steve Jobs Death Watch" for the press. Before, during and after the keynote, more ink is spent on speculations regarding his health than the product announcements.
I think one side benefit of Apple's abandoning MacWorld is the press can no longer turn it into a morbid event.
With due respect, I think you completely missed the point of my message. That you or any unqualified Joe blow on the street has an opinion regarding the cause of the alleged connection issues with the iPhone is irrelevant.
My point is that musings of a financial analyst with no technical credentials whatsoever was picked up by numerous mainstream media outlets (including Barrons, CNET and Slashdot), yet no one bothered to point out that this man was, for all practical purposes, talking out of his ass.
Your list of possible sources of information misses the most important one: individuals with direct expertise in the area in question. There isn't a statistical crapshoot for accurate information as you have implied. There are experts in the area of cellular RF engineering. Anyone mouthing off on this issue who lacks those credentials should be ignored.
Regarding your opinion, I would say that you have not thought everything through and appear to have jumped to several conclusions yourself. Although it is entirely possible that the iPhone has a problem that causes connection losses in excess of other cellular devices, no scientifically and statistically valid evidence exists to support such a claim.
The fact that many people have complained on internet forums about connection problems does not prove that the iPhone drops more calls or has poorer reception than other devices. Despite this lack of demonstrable scientific evidence, you believe Apple should "fess up" to having a problem with their product. I would argue that they would be foolish to do that.
If it can be demonstrated in a controlled, repeatable experiment that the iPhone's reception is below par relative to competing devices, Apple should take swift action to fix or replace the units. However, until such evidence exists, it would be foolhardy of Apple to make public statements on the matter.
...and what qualifications does he possess to comment on the possible cause of the alleged iPhone reception issues?
Seriously. This story is being widely distributed, but I have yet to see anyone ask about his credentials. Is he an electrical engineer with expertise in the design of cellular technology?
As far as I can tell, he's some financial analyst. So why would anyone consider him a credible source? Since when are the speculations of a financial analyst regarding the rather esoteric realm of RF engineering considered valid.
Am I missing something? Does someone know about his background?
Unless the lime converts the CO2 into something harmless this isn't a very good solution.
Lime doesn't "convert" the CO2 to anything. The lime neutralizes the acid formed by the absorption of CO2.
When atmospheric CO2 is absorbed into seawater, carbonic acid (H2CO3) is formed. Increased atmospheric CO2 has led to increased oceanic absorption of CO2 and, therefore, increased acidity of our oceans. Increased acidity is not harmless. Many scientists are predicting substantial loss of oceanic habitat and wildlife as a direct result of the increased acidity.
Knowing this fact is crucial to understanding the the whole purpose of adding lime (calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2) to sea water. Calcium hydroxide is a base. Adding calcium hydroxide reduces the acidity which will allow the oceans to absorb additional CO2 from the atmosphere.
As many here have pointed out, there is a distinct possibility of unintended consequences from messing with the pH of our oceans. But, the basic principle at work is simple acid-base chemistry.
Truth be told, the part about being certain he's an asshole was deliberate hyperbole for effect. Actually, I'm certain that he is an asshole sometimes (often?), yet amongst friends, family and the in-group within his organization, I'm also certain he's a terrific guy in many respects. And, for Apple shareholders and customers, there can be no doubt he's a terrific CEO.
I stand by my claim that he's difficult to work for and has a huge ego. I'd bet he would admit that himself.
Please name an engineer who's shared the stage with Steve at a keynote.
Yeah, like I'm going to spend a millisecond my precious time digging up links for some dipshit troll with a chip on his shoulder. Don't believe me? Like I fucking care.
What a truly wonderful human being he is.
I neither stated nor implied I considered Steve Jobs to be a wonderful human being. In fact, I've stated on more than one occasion that I'm fairly certain he's insufferable prick. My response was to the assertion that he doesn't credit his employees and never brings engineers on stage. Both statements are false. Don't let your psychotic, deep-seated loathing for a man you've never met cause you read more into my statements than what I have written.
...I never heard the Great Man giving credit to anyone else but himself.
Then you must have never watched a single keynote or any interviews with Steve Jobs.
I'm certain the man is an asshole, tremendously difficult to work for and has an gargantuan ego. But, you could not be more wrong in terms of the way he speaks publicly. In interviews, he almost never speaks in the first person about the achievements at Apple. I always talks about the "great team" that is key to Apple's success. In fact, I can't think of single time when heard him say "I did this" or "I did that" regarding Apple's achievements. It's always "At Apple we....blah, blah."
And, at the end every single keynote, Steve Jobs thanks all of the employees and their families for their hard work and sacrifices. Then he asks the employees in the audience to stand up and asks the audience to give them around of applause.
Now, it's quite possible that it's all false modesty and/or clever, disingenuous PR. But, your assertion that publicly credits only himself for Apple's success is complete bullshit.
In many cases engineers have been brought on stage to demonstrate products.
And, at the end every single keynote, Steve Jobs thanks all of the employees and their families for their hard work and sacrifices. Then he asks the employees in the audience to stand up and asks the audience to give them around of applause.
Good grief, computer administration is not frickin' rocket science. If you have sys admins who are incapable of learning to administer more than one operating system, they should be fired for incompetence.
By the way, I did not suggest switching from one OS to another. I advocated a mixed environment.
I think to understand the renewed interest in Macs in enterprise requires a look how IT departments got themselves into the sole-sourced software platform pickle to begin with.
The story begins with IBM doing a piss-poor job of protecting their hardware. It seems everyone forgets that IBM had every intention of locking up its hardware just like Apple did with the Mac. But they blew it. Some guys cloned the hardware and the commodity PC was born.
Corporate IT departments, believing that having multiple hardware sources was key keeping down capital expenditures, rejected the Mac because it was sole-sourced. They opted for the commoditized IBM-PC hardware platform. But, as they preached the importance of having a diversity of hardware suppliers, the same IT departments insisted that it was imperative to "standardize" on a single operating system and a single office suite. "Standardize", in this context, is just a different way of saying sole-source.
In other words, the dogma was (and still is, for the most part) that computer hardware must be multi-sourced and software must be single-sourced.
That strategy has bit them in the ass. It turns out sole-sourcing your software platform is just as probamatic and expensive as sole-sourcing your hardware platform. Having put all their eggs in Microsoft's basket in the persuit of minimizing hardware cost, IT departments are now stuck in an ever-deepening hole of increasing and recurring licencing fees to a single vendor. And they are completely powerless because they single-sourced their software platform lost all leverage with their supplier.
Perhaps some IT departments are finally questioning the wisdom of that strategy and are bringing some Macs into the mix.
Apple finally has a viable alternative, mostly because OS X is mature now and they've to x86-compatible hardware. Combine that development with the continuing creep of web-based alternatives to embedded applications and you've finally have an escape route from sole-sourced software platform hell.
A wise CIO, in my view, would take advantage of this opportunity by moving to a more heterogeneous computing environment. Re-introducing platform competition in the corporate computing space is the only way for IT departments to regain pricing leverage with Microsoft. It will cost a little more up front. Mac hardware is more expensive. But, that extra upfront cost will be more than offset by the gains from being able to exert price pressure on Microsoft.
You don't need an inside scoop, you just need to read the news and use your brain.
Well, my friend, need to try not to be such a condescending prick when you respond to simple question. As an engineer with over 20 years experience in the electronics manufacturing industry, I don't need a lecture on the difficulties of ramping production or estimating future sales. And, your response offers not single source for its not-at-all informative bit of twaddle.
Does anyone have the inside scoop on why -- over a year after introducing this product -- Nintendo has not been able to ramp production up to meet demand? It wasn't a surprise that they couldn't meet demand last Christmas. But, this time around they've had a full year to get the production line up to speed.
What's up? Is their a particular component that is hard to come by or has a real low yield?
So, I went to imeem.com and clicked the link labeled "Classical" fully expecting to, you know, find some, well, classical music. Seemed a reasonable expectation to me.
I guess the kids have gone and changed the definition of classical music. Back to iTunes for me. Clicking on classical in iTunes brings up a page of Beethoven and stuff. Pretty old fashioned, I suppose. I guess I'm just an old fogey.
...let me just say that I fricking hate Greenpeace.
Although I agree with some of their stands on environmental issues, they are detrimental to environmental movement overall. All Greenpeace does is provide the Rush Limbaughs, Fox News twits and other industry stooges with ammunition to paint all environmentalists as extremist loons. The vast majority of conservation-minded individuals are educated, rational, reasonable and intelligent people. But, in the minds of many in our society, Greenpeace loons = all environmentalists.
There is one area where the author misses the underlying strategic implications of the recording industry's willingness to sell DRM-free songs through amazon.
" No DRM. No consumer likes DRM, and although Apple hasn't yet released any statistics on how the DRM-free tracks from EMI have sold in comparison with the DRM-encumbered versions of the same tracks, Amazon has done the right thing by eliminating it across the board. Hopefully Amazon's move will give Apple some leverage with the music labels to make more DRM-free tracks available."
He's got it backwards. This deal gives the record companies a strategic advantage in its pricing battle with Apple. Allowing Amazon to sell DRM-free songs but variably-priced would be best interpreted as the record companies giving Steve Jobs the finger. Only one of the major record companies has allowed Apple to sell DRM-free songs and then only at a premium price.
Of the battling parties, it is the record companies who have gained leverage with this move, not Apple. The message to Apple is clear: allow variable pricing and we'll let you sell DRM-free tracks. Keep insisting on fixed pricing and we'll only let you sell DRMed tracks.
Slashdot Mirror
Doomsought wrote: "Are you Atheist? If so, you still have a religious belief."
This a a tired and specious argument. Not believing in something for which there is no evidence is not a religion.
But, let's put your hypothesis to a test. Do you believe in Santa Claus? No? Ok, you are an asanta-clausist and practice the religion of asanta-clausism. Do you believe in leprechauns? No? OK, you are an aleprechaunsist practicing the religion of aleprechaunsism. Do you believe the souls of the dead hang around and haunt houses? No? You're nothing but a aghostist worshiping at the alter of aghostism. Get it? Atheists simply don't believe in god the same way you don't believe in Santa Claus. That doesn't make it a religion.
Oh and you obviously don't understand science either. The scientific method does not rely on on the "assumption of fallibility". Where the hell did you get that from? Maybe you mean falsifiability? Falsifiability is a very different concept and is key to the scientific method. Humans are fallible. Scientists know this which why experiments must be repeatable and statistical analysis of data is required. But the scientific method doesn't "rely" on the "assumption of fallibility" in any way.
Dude, now your just picking nits and parsing my words to save face.
Good god. Yes, I watched the video. Like I said, interfering with the antenna causes data performance degradation.. It's fucking physics.
Do you own an iPhone? If not, why the fuck do you care?
If you do, return the fucking thing and be done with it.
That was my point. If all the iPhone owners do the same (instead of whining and playing amateur RF engineer) then Apple might change their tune.
Christ, is this shit really so hard to understand?
The video proves the issue is exactly the same as every other phone i.e. if you hold it in a way that interferes with the antenna, data communication performance suffers. But that's beside the point.
If the phone does not perform to your expectations, return it. Apple even went as far as to suggest that course of action in their PR letter. That's how you send a message to a company, not by whining on the internet and linking to someone's useless video. If the phone is a piece of shit, people should and will return it in mass.
To all the folks unhappy with both the performance of the new iPhone and Apple's response, please heed the advise in this portion of the press release:
"As a reminder, if you are not fully satisfied, you can return your undamaged iPhone to any Apple Retail Store or the online Apple Store within 30 days of purchase for a full refund."
Seriously. Please.
All this ridiculous, over-the-top, self-righteous indignation and emotional hand-wringing over a gadget not meeting your expectations is just pathetic.
Apple has taken a stand on this issue. They say it works as designed and claim the reception is better than their previous model. You think they're full of shit? Great. Quit posting whiney, indignant messages on the internet and return the goddam thing.
If the problem is half as bad as all the stories make it out to be, Apple will be flooded with returns and that will have a much greater effect that millions of lines of internet bitching.
Disclosure: I'm a satisfied owner of several Apple products. I don't own an iPhone and have no plans to purchase one. My wife and I have free-with-subscription LG phones on Verizon. Oh, and guess what? If I hold the phone by the bottom, signal degrades. If I hold it that way in an area with poor cell coverage, service is lost entirely. You think if I submit my sob story to Slashdot, Gizmodo, CNET, CNN, etc. they will make it front page news?
While I don't have any empirical data or specs to back up this claim, I strongly suspect the greatest contributors to the overall weight of the iPad are the glass screen and the battery. So, the only way to substantially reduce the weight would be to go with a plastic screen and a smaller battery. If they did that everyone would bitch about scratches and poor battery life.
Well, isn't that rich. We are in an economic crisis which was caused, in part, by the SEC being deliberately asleep-at-the-wheel. Now they are going to redeem themselves by appeasing a bunch of whiners who wouldn't be satisfied if Steve Jobs published all of his health records online.
Investors and would-be investors know absolutely everything they need to know. Steve Jobs had cancer and, as such, will likely die at an age lower than the national average. He is sick again. So sick that he's taking six months off work.
That's all you need to know.
If you currently own stock and think that the loss of Steve Jobs as CEO will cause the stock price to drop, you should sell your shares now. If you believe Apple will continue thrive without him, then you should hold your position.
If you are not a current stockholder, you should decide which of the above you believe and invest your money accordingly.
That's it.
If you feel you need to know more about the Steve Jobs' health, you are f*#%ing soulless ghoul.
Lawyers and the SEC? I've heard nothing of lawyers or the SEC demanding information regarding the CEO's health.
The only people speculating and demanding disclosure are blowhard journalists and stock market manipulators. The basis for their "concern" is purely from an ignorant and amateur medical diagnosis based on pictures and video.
Hell, Senator Bill Frist was rightly admonished for performing a video diagnosis of Terri Shiavo and he has a medical school degree.
Why the hell should Apple's board respond to a bunch of chicken-little wankers in the tech and financial press?
Frankly, I admire Apple for not feeding the trolls.
I can't say that I agree with you. The "large part" of the blame lies with sensationalist journalists and stock price manipulators.
Name one other company where people demand they to go on record regarding the health of the CEO when some band of journalists decides to perform an amateur medical diagnosis based on photographs and videos.
Senator Bill Frist was rightly admonished for performing a "video diagnosis" of Terri Schiavo...and he has a medical school degree. Why should Apple respond when a bunch of blowhards with no medical training whatsoever do the same thing with Steve Jobs?
The board is required to divulge information about his health if it affects his ability to do his job. They are under no obligation to respond to nutjobs and market makers.
...and watch the stock crater tomorrow.
Unfortunately, ever since Jobs lost significant weight as a result of his surgery (an obligatory side effect for the type of surgery he had), MacWorld keynotes have become a "Steve Jobs Death Watch" for the press. Before, during and after the keynote, more ink is spent on speculations regarding his health than the product announcements.
I think one side benefit of Apple's abandoning MacWorld is the press can no longer turn it into a morbid event.
With due respect, I think you completely missed the point of my message. That you or any unqualified Joe blow on the street has an opinion regarding the cause of the alleged connection issues with the iPhone is irrelevant.
My point is that musings of a financial analyst with no technical credentials whatsoever was picked up by numerous mainstream media outlets (including Barrons, CNET and Slashdot), yet no one bothered to point out that this man was, for all practical purposes, talking out of his ass.
Your list of possible sources of information misses the most important one: individuals with direct expertise in the area in question. There isn't a statistical crapshoot for accurate information as you have implied. There are experts in the area of cellular RF engineering. Anyone mouthing off on this issue who lacks those credentials should be ignored.
Regarding your opinion, I would say that you have not thought everything through and appear to have jumped to several conclusions yourself. Although it is entirely possible that the iPhone has a problem that causes connection losses in excess of other cellular devices, no scientifically and statistically valid evidence exists to support such a claim.
The fact that many people have complained on internet forums about connection problems does not prove that the iPhone drops more calls or has poorer reception than other devices. Despite this lack of demonstrable scientific evidence, you believe Apple should "fess up" to having a problem with their product. I would argue that they would be foolish to do that.
If it can be demonstrated in a controlled, repeatable experiment that the iPhone's reception is below par relative to competing devices, Apple should take swift action to fix or replace the units. However, until such evidence exists, it would be foolhardy of Apple to make public statements on the matter.
...and what qualifications does he possess to comment on the possible cause of the alleged iPhone reception issues?
Seriously. This story is being widely distributed, but I have yet to see anyone ask about his credentials. Is he an electrical engineer with expertise in the design of cellular technology?
As far as I can tell, he's some financial analyst. So why would anyone consider him a credible source? Since when are the speculations of a financial analyst regarding the rather esoteric realm of RF engineering considered valid.
Am I missing something? Does someone know about his background?
Unless the lime converts the CO2 into something harmless this isn't a very good solution.
Lime doesn't "convert" the CO2 to anything. The lime neutralizes the acid formed by the absorption of CO2.
When atmospheric CO2 is absorbed into seawater, carbonic acid (H2CO3) is formed. Increased atmospheric CO2 has led to increased oceanic absorption of CO2 and, therefore, increased acidity of our oceans. Increased acidity is not harmless. Many scientists are predicting substantial loss of oceanic habitat and wildlife as a direct result of the increased acidity.
Knowing this fact is crucial to understanding the the whole purpose of adding lime (calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2) to sea water. Calcium hydroxide is a base. Adding calcium hydroxide reduces the acidity which will allow the oceans to absorb additional CO2 from the atmosphere.
As many here have pointed out, there is a distinct possibility of unintended consequences from messing with the pH of our oceans. But, the basic principle at work is simple acid-base chemistry.
Truth be told, the part about being certain he's an asshole was deliberate hyperbole for effect. Actually, I'm certain that he is an asshole sometimes (often?), yet amongst friends, family and the in-group within his organization, I'm also certain he's a terrific guy in many respects. And, for Apple shareholders and customers, there can be no doubt he's a terrific CEO.
I stand by my claim that he's difficult to work for and has a huge ego. I'd bet he would admit that himself.
Please name an engineer who's shared the stage with Steve at a keynote.
Yeah, like I'm going to spend a millisecond my precious time digging up links for some dipshit troll with a chip on his shoulder. Don't believe me? Like I fucking care.
What a truly wonderful human being he is.
I neither stated nor implied I considered Steve Jobs to be a wonderful human being. In fact, I've stated on more than one occasion that I'm fairly certain he's insufferable prick. My response was to the assertion that he doesn't credit his employees and never brings engineers on stage. Both statements are false. Don't let your psychotic, deep-seated loathing for a man you've never met cause you read more into my statements than what I have written.
Twit.
...I never heard the Great Man giving credit to anyone else but himself.
Then you must have never watched a single keynote or any interviews with Steve Jobs.
I'm certain the man is an asshole, tremendously difficult to work for and has an gargantuan ego. But, you could not be more wrong in terms of the way he speaks publicly. In interviews, he almost never speaks in the first person about the achievements at Apple. I always talks about the "great team" that is key to Apple's success. In fact, I can't think of single time when heard him say "I did this" or "I did that" regarding Apple's achievements. It's always "At Apple we....blah, blah."
And, at the end every single keynote, Steve Jobs thanks all of the employees and their families for their hard work and sacrifices. Then he asks the employees in the audience to stand up and asks the audience to give them around of applause.
Now, it's quite possible that it's all false modesty and/or clever, disingenuous PR. But, your assertion that publicly credits only himself for Apple's success is complete bullshit.
You're wrong.
In many cases engineers have been brought on stage to demonstrate products.
And, at the end every single keynote, Steve Jobs thanks all of the employees and their families for their hard work and sacrifices. Then he asks the employees in the audience to stand up and asks the audience to give them around of applause.
Good grief, computer administration is not frickin' rocket science. If you have sys admins who are incapable of learning to administer more than one operating system, they should be fired for incompetence.
By the way, I did not suggest switching from one OS to another. I advocated a mixed environment.
I think to understand the renewed interest in Macs in enterprise requires a look how IT departments got themselves into the sole-sourced software platform pickle to begin with.
The story begins with IBM doing a piss-poor job of protecting their hardware. It seems everyone forgets that IBM had every intention of locking up its hardware just like Apple did with the Mac. But they blew it. Some guys cloned the hardware and the commodity PC was born.
Corporate IT departments, believing that having multiple hardware sources was key keeping down capital expenditures, rejected the Mac because it was sole-sourced. They opted for the commoditized IBM-PC hardware platform. But, as they preached the importance of having a diversity of hardware suppliers, the same IT departments insisted that it was imperative to "standardize" on a single operating system and a single office suite. "Standardize", in this context, is just a different way of saying sole-source.
In other words, the dogma was (and still is, for the most part) that computer hardware must be multi-sourced and software must be single-sourced.
That strategy has bit them in the ass. It turns out sole-sourcing your software platform is just as probamatic and expensive as sole-sourcing your hardware platform. Having put all their eggs in Microsoft's basket in the persuit of minimizing hardware cost, IT departments are now stuck in an ever-deepening hole of increasing and recurring licencing fees to a single vendor. And they are completely powerless because they single-sourced their software platform lost all leverage with their supplier.
Perhaps some IT departments are finally questioning the wisdom of that strategy and are bringing some Macs into the mix.
Apple finally has a viable alternative, mostly because OS X is mature now and they've to x86-compatible hardware. Combine that development with the continuing creep of web-based alternatives to embedded applications and you've finally have an escape route from sole-sourced software platform hell.
A wise CIO, in my view, would take advantage of this opportunity by moving to a more heterogeneous computing environment. Re-introducing platform competition in the corporate computing space is the only way for IT departments to regain pricing leverage with Microsoft. It will cost a little more up front. Mac hardware is more expensive. But, that extra upfront cost will be more than offset by the gains from being able to exert price pressure on Microsoft.
You don't need an inside scoop, you just need to read the news and use your brain.
Well, my friend, need to try not to be such a condescending prick when you respond to simple question. As an engineer with over 20 years experience in the electronics manufacturing industry, I don't need a lecture on the difficulties of ramping production or estimating future sales. And, your response offers not single source for its not-at-all informative bit of twaddle.
Thanks for the informative response and links.
Does anyone have the inside scoop on why -- over a year after introducing this product -- Nintendo has not been able to ramp production up to meet demand? It wasn't a surprise that they couldn't meet demand last Christmas. But, this time around they've had a full year to get the production line up to speed.
What's up? Is their a particular component that is hard to come by or has a real low yield?
So, I went to imeem.com and clicked the link labeled "Classical" fully expecting to, you know, find some, well, classical music. Seemed a reasonable expectation to me.
Here's what I got:
http://www.imeem.com/music/ranked/classical
I guess the kids have gone and changed the definition of classical music. Back to iTunes for me. Clicking on classical in iTunes brings up a page of Beethoven and stuff. Pretty old fashioned, I suppose. I guess I'm just an old fogey.
...let me just say that I fricking hate Greenpeace.
Although I agree with some of their stands on environmental issues, they are detrimental to environmental movement overall. All Greenpeace does is provide the Rush Limbaughs, Fox News twits and other industry stooges with ammunition to paint all environmentalists as extremist loons. The vast majority of conservation-minded individuals are educated, rational, reasonable and intelligent people. But, in the minds of many in our society, Greenpeace loons = all environmentalists.
It's a shame.
There is one area where the author misses the underlying strategic implications of the recording industry's willingness to sell DRM-free songs through amazon.
" No DRM. No consumer likes DRM, and although Apple hasn't yet released any statistics on how the DRM-free tracks from EMI have sold in comparison with the DRM-encumbered versions of the same tracks, Amazon has done the right thing by eliminating it across the board. Hopefully Amazon's move will give Apple some leverage with the music labels to make more DRM-free tracks available."
He's got it backwards. This deal gives the record companies a strategic advantage in its pricing battle with Apple. Allowing Amazon to sell DRM-free songs but variably-priced would be best interpreted as the record companies giving Steve Jobs the finger. Only one of the major record companies has allowed Apple to sell DRM-free songs and then only at a premium price.
Of the battling parties, it is the record companies who have gained leverage with this move, not Apple. The message to Apple is clear: allow variable pricing and we'll let you sell DRM-free tracks. Keep insisting on fixed pricing and we'll only let you sell DRMed tracks.