Every time I read slashdot, I keep wishing for a clear "rolling eyes" emoticon.
Anyway, no, this is not a valueless metric with applied to Apple and Dell.
Dell only has 3.5 times the revenue and twice the profit of Apple as of FY2005, and further, that margin is shrinking in the most recent quarter.
Comparing companies of this size is perfectly appropriate. Now, when you're talking about a difference on the order of, say, a hundredfold (or a thousandfold), yeah, you're right. Except this isn't one of those cases. Apple and Dell are companies operating in the same marketplaces, with largely the same target markets, and very similar lines of products. They are in direct competition with one another.
When you look at the last three years and you have one company (Dell) with a flat 20% revenue and profit growth, and the other company (Apple) starting with 20%, then 30%, then 60% revenue growth and 6%, then 400%, then 800% profit growth over the same period, it's definitely a valuable metric to look at. Dell has growth, but it's flat. Apple has growth that is growing.
First of all, Apple has close to $9 billion in cash and cash equivalents, not $6 bn, about $12 bn in total assets, and no long term debt.
Then, you have the $5.7 bn revenue last quarter (not 5), including $1 bn in Apple Retail revenue, and the fact that revenues, profits, and unit sales are consistently increasing quarter over quarter, year over year:
Total revenues [and profits] for fiscal year, in millions:
Not to mention record (and increasing) sales of all of Apple's products, from iPod, to iTunes Music Store, to the Mac platform, including servers and enterprise.
You're also really wrong about Dell having "more profit in one quarter than apple's entire value":
Total revenues [and profits] for fiscal year, in millions:
Yes, Dell is a bigger company (surprise?) and has higher revenues and sales. But over the last two years, Apple is growing at a faster rate. Much faster. Also, when you say "market share" you'd do good to include the market share of all of a company's money-making products, not just the figure you like. It's funny when people keep going around saying things like "Apple, with 1.5% of the market" seem to forget that Apple has over 80% of another huge "market". Does that market not count?
Now we've got a transition to a commodity hardware architecture and platform, with the industry abuzz with what this could mean for Apple in the enterprise for a variety of reasons.
It's funny that you state exactly what is wrong with a lot of people in the financial sector: not being able to look past next year, or even next quarter, for what something is "worth".
Here at UW, we use pubcookie for single signon, and call it NetID Login Service. It's part of the larger WebISO concept (Web Initial Sign On), like cosign. But Michigan did have a lot of this deployed in the early 90s.
Uh, if data is outbound, it is being sent. See, with data flow you can either send, receive or do nothing. Since the data is leaving your computer, it is being sent. Your statement makes no sense.
Thanks for missing the point.
The implication, to a normal person, when you tell someone "iTunes is sending your listening habits to Apple" is that Apple is keeping and aggregating this information. They are not.
I'm not talking about this in the context of network traffic.
The act of sending something doesn't imply anything about what the receiver does with the data. Why do you believe that implication exists?
Again, missing the point. The implication exists, because it, well, exists: if you tell someone, "iTunes is sending information about what songs you're listening to to Apple," they're naturally going to think and assume that Apple is keeping, logging, tracking, or otherwise archiving or aggregating this information, probably for marketing purposes. The super paranoid will even make assertions that Apple might be proving said information to the RIAA.
That is what people will think when you say "iTunes sends such and such to Apple". Sends, gives, transmits, I don't care what word you use; the implication is that Apple is keeping, viewing, analyzing, or otherwise using the content of the information for some form of permanent data aggregation or statistical analysis without your permission.
However, they are NOT doing this.
The fact is that if you write software that is going to send data on a user's behavior that only the local machine has, it should be completely opt-in and not on by default.
Sure. I agree with this. However, Apple wasn't hiding anything, wasn't doing anything in secret, and wasn't doing it surreptitiously. Then, they directly said that the information is discarded and not used for any other purpose than to update the MiniStore pane. Or is that not good enough because it doesn't have "Privacy Policy" stamped on it?
You need to think a little harder about this, if you are capable.
"Sending information to Apple" implies that it's kept, tracked, logged, or aggregated somehow. I submit that it is not.
Everything we can see from a technical standpoint and a logical standpoint indicates that there is nothing more happening than a custom WebObjects query to update the recommendations section of the MiniStore.
Now, a bunch of people will keep saying "yeah, but how do we *know* they're not keeping it" or "you would be a fool if you thought they *weren't* keeping it, no matter what they say", but the fact is that iTunes is a highly customized, dynamic web browser - nothing more.
Now, you might think ANY time any information is outbound from your computer, that it constitutes "sending" it to someone. I take issue with this, because, again, it implies it's being taken and kept. I think there is a difference, and that intent matters. Apple did not try to hide this, and while I agree it would have been a good idea to at least ask politely (and give a clear option to decline), I don't think there is any malicious intent here whatsoever.
According to Intel (warning: pdf), all Intel Core Duo processors include VT, but there are qualifications to have it enabled. Some folks who have systems with Intel Core Duo and who have claimed no VT might simply have systems that don't have it enabled. It remains to be seen whether VT is enabled on Apple's shipping machines.
I don't know about yet, but they absolutely will. As the different Linux/BSD/etc. distributions add support for EFI, the Intel-based Macs will merely be just another set of machines that can run these OSes.
And these distributions that don't yet have such support for EFI will have to add support anyway (and many probably already have support, or at least have begin work on it), as that's the future and what will be replacing BIOS in the PC world at large. The fact that Apple machines are using EFI will only be a catalyst for more mature EFI support in the Linux/BSD world.
Apple hasn't done anything to preclude Windows, or any other OS, from being installed on the Intel-based Macs. That is a perfectly accurate statement. Apple Vice President Phil Schiller's two direct quotes on the subject, the most recent which was made on January 10, 2006, can be seen here. Intel has also specifically said that Apple will not be using proprietary chipsets and/or processors, and they'll just represent standard Intel offerings.
Windows XP would directly boot and install on the Developer Transition Kit platform because it was just a standard Intel motherboard and processor, and also used a standard Intel BIOS.
Windows XP 32-bit does not currently support EFI for booting. Windows XP 64-bit does, but Intel Core Duo is not a 64-bit chip. Now, there are a bunch of other variables, such as whether or not Apple's current EFI implementation offers BIOS backward-compatibility, and so on, but it's clear that regardless, EFI is the future, and it's only a matter of time before the PC world at large transitions to EFI. Further, Windows Vista does support EFI. See here for Microsoft's presentations on EFI, particularly the first two links.
That said, dual booting is intensely annoying anyway, and the really interesting thing will be able to just run Windows (or some other x86 OS) and Mac OS X side-by-side.
What we will *definitely* see are "Virtual PC"-like programs that let you run Windows alongside OS X (in a Window, or taking over the screen, etc., with a hotkey to flip back and forth, for example).
It's important to note this will NOT be emulation: Windows (or other x86 OS) will run at essentially the native speed of the underlying hardware (with certain exceptions). There could even be direct access to video, with support for things like DirectX.
vmware already has a version for Mac OS X in development, and Microsoft has already announced they will be developing a version of Virtual PC for Intel-based Macs that one can only presume will be a virtual machine. Then there are things like QEMU, Xen, etc. The Darwin/Mac OS X version of WINE, DarWINE, has even been working under betas of Mac OS X for Intel. Now that Intel Macs are shipping, it will only be a matter of weeks/months before we have several options for running Windows itself, and/or Windows applications at essentially the native speed of the underlying hardware.
And since Intel Core Duo also supports Intel's VT hardware virtualization, the possibilities of future virtual machine technology are even more interesting. But the bottom line is that Apple is again leading the way with the adoption of technologies like EFI and ExpressCard. Naturally, it will take a little while for Windows to catch up.;-)
This is not "Damage Control". They did make it clear. The knowledge base article, available the day iTunes 6.0.2 was release, specifically said:
iTunes sends data about the song selected in your library to the iTunes Music Store to provide relevant recommendations. When the MiniStore is hidden, this data is not sent to the iTunes Music Store.
Looking for some new tunes? Tap into the 2-million-song treasure chest of the iTunes Music Store through the new MiniStore. While you're browsing your own library or importing a new CD, MiniStore appears at the bottom of the iTunes window and shows you other albums from your favorite artists and artists like them. You can even see reviews of these albums plus what other listeners who like this artist purchased -- so you'll never be at a loss for new music to discover. When you're ready to go back to full-screen mode, click an icon and MiniStore tucks away, ready to pop up again later when you want to explore some more.
and
MiniStore
Discover new music as you enjoy your collection or import new CDs with MiniStore -- right from your iTunes library.
Further, the MiniStore actively changing as you click different tracks in iTunes might give a small hint that something is happening.
Now, if you're saying that Apple should have had some kind of a dialog box come up when you first upgraded to and launched iTunes 6.0.2 explaining this and giving a clear option to simply opt to not use the new MiniStore, sure, I'll agree that would have likely been better. But Apple wasn't hiding this, and this isn't damage control, other than the fact that if enough blogs keep (incorrectly) asserting that Apple is "spying" on you, then it isn't long before some mainstream media picks the (incorrect) story up.
Re:Extremely easy to disable, and more info
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
Um, it's *extremely* easy to monitor traffic coming into and going out of a machine.
When the MiniStore pane is closed, no information is sent, period. Try it yourself. (Of course, this makes sense, since the only reason any information is sent in the first place is to actively update the MiniStore pane.)
Update: John sez, "With the Mini-Store turned off, no data is passed back to Apple. Verified with Little Snitch and Ethereal." I'd be interested in deeper analysis than this, though -- is this under all circumstances?
Update 2: John sez, "The iTunes MiniStore does not transmit the current song data if the MiniStore pane is hidden. I ran TCPFlow to check my outgoing data and it only queried the server when the pane was open."
[...]
Update 6: Timo sez, "I just ran a packet trace of the new iTunes - it only connects to Apple if the Mini Store is open. For regular MP3s, it'll run a full text search to find related articles, for purchased music, it searches by the original product ID. Sample query string is:/WebObjects/MZSearch.woa/wa/ministoreMatch?an=Daft % 20Punk&gn=Electronic&kind=song&pn=Discovery
Re:Extremely easy to disable, and more info
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Then it should be disabled by default or you should be asked (in plain English) if you want it enabled when the program starts for the first time after update. If you say no it shouldn't ever ask you again nor should it track your listening preferences.
You don't know that it's "tracking" anything, even now.
On the other hand, we don't know it's not doing that, since Apple doesn't tell us.
No. Absolutely not.
It's never ok for an external entity to attempt to match things to your interests? Okay, possibly a different philosophical outlook on things, here...
Especially when they didn't ask my permission first.
Agreed. But, as I said, it's not exactly a secret that it's doing something to be able to actively change the MiniStore display.
Sure, Apple's trying to sell something. But it can also be argued, correctly, that this improves the user experience with iTunes (aside from the broader privacy argument). I do, however, agree that Apple should have made this clearly known on the first launch, and given an option at the same time to simply disable it.
Extremely easy to disable, and more info
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
First of all, I don't know how this qualifies as iTunes suddenly being "malware", but anyway...
Edit -> Hide MiniStore (or shift-command-M)
No information of any kind is sent when the MiniStore is disabled.
What iTunes 6.0.2 is doing:
Sending information about the currently playing track to Apple, and then displaying information related to that track in the iTunes Music Store in the MiniStore pane. It is not broadly "tracking your music preferences".
Further - though we admittedly don't know this since Apple doesn't explain how it is using the data - there is no proof that Apple is doing anything but merely changing the MiniStore display based on what track you are listening to (which is very likely exactly what they're doing); not aggregating or "tracking your music preferences".
iTunes isn't doing this surreptitiously, either: the MiniStore pane clearly actively changes depending on what track you have selected. One would presume this does not happen via magic or the dark arts.
I'd love to have comment from Apple, and a clear presentation that information is being sent to Apple for x purpose, and a clear option to allow - or disallow - such use. I've looked through the iTunes 6.0.2 license and do not see any such guidance.
Granted, the MiniStore pane is present by default, but it can be disabled as easily as is described above.
I realize many people think this represents "going over the line"; but is there ever any instance where datamining to match items you might be interested in to your interests is acceptable? Is there any value to having this be the default state in certain instances where it could be significantly helpful?
Considering that Planet of the Apes is widely viewed as a social commentary on civil rights and an allegory on racism, it seems perfectly relevant to me.
The recommendation, regardless of who or what made it, doesn't seem racist or bigoted to me...
I'm not sure if the submitter is insinuating that Yahoo "Dashboard" looks suspiciously familiar to Apple's Dashboard on Mac OS X 10.4.x (Tiger), but we should be reminded that Yahoo Go/Yahoo Dashboard is in fact Yahoo! Widget Engine, which is in fact Konfabulator renamed.
And Konfabulator, by Arlo Rose (of Kaleidoscope fame) and Perry Clarke, was around on the Mac OS X platform first, until a Windows version was also released with the help of Ed Voas before Yahoo!'s purchase. In fact, if it weren't for the Windows version, Yahoo! may never have come knocking.
And it's easy to say that Apple ripped off Konfabulator to make Dashboard, but if we go back a step further...say, a couple of decades, we find that the idea of Konfabulator - little modeless applets that do useful things, like an address book or a notepad or a calculator or a little game - actually hearkens back to Apple's original idea of Desk Accessories.
It all comes full circle!
No, wait. That's not full circle. It all leads back to Apple.;-)
gee Dave, I'm a grad student at the very institution where you work, doing quantum physics, a job you could never do.
What would make you say something like that? Arrogance? Did you even look at my web page or CV? And no matter what I did or what my educational background, still, why would you say something like that? "A job you could never do?" WTF?
Yet, I am in that bottom 20% despite my highly skilled job at which I work ~80 hours per week.
Good for you. And let me get this straight - you're actually bringing grad school into this argument, and doing it with a straight face?
Who exactly 'deserves' to make more money than me? Name one person.
Did I say anything about who "deserves" what? And aside from that, there are probably quite large numbers of people who "deserve" to make more money than you, but that's hardly the point.
On top of that, my services are routinely cut, the state wants me to pay for my own healthcare, and my 'raises' neverkeep up with inflation.
Another big eye roller, here.
First of all, your "services" as a grad student are second to none. You make shit for money, like ALL grad students. And this is news to you? Yes, poor you, doing a physics PhD. I'm sure you'll be suffering your whole life.
Second, the state never wanted you to pay for your own healthcare. In fact, I can't even believe you said that. The state wanted graduate students to pay SOMETHING for their healthcare. In fact, it was a premium that would have been under $10/month. Yes, that's right, folks: graduate students at the University of Wisconsin have paid $0 for FULL healthcare. Your stipend as a graduate student is not designed to be luxurious, and never has been. The ridiculousness of you bringing a grad student stipend into this discussion is beyond belief.
And on top of it, at your income level, you already pay no federal tax.
Aside from the utter (and predictable) idiocy of your comment, what would happen, then, if we made the top 5% pay ALL of the tax burden? Aside from being horribly unfair to any thinking person, the bottom, say, 20% of our country will still be poor. Of course, they already pay NO TAX, so nothing changes for them. (And, for the sake of argument, let's say thy magically don't pay sales tax, either.) But they're still poor.
Let me guess: most of the money that the top 5% have - keeping in mind that these are households that only have to make about $120,000/year to be in this "top 5%" - has been "milked out" of other people, right?
If we converted to digital and left the poorest of our nation out in the cold, we'd devolve into some discussion about how the evil government was depriving the weakest among us from access to a free press, possibly even with a few stats peppered in about how TV is even more important for them because of illiteracy rates, and so on, and maybe some good socialism arguments to boot.
But when we DO help them, it's, of course, a conspiracy to spread propaganda and keep everyone under their thumbs! (After all, network television is nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the government!)
I'm really impressed that the appeal to Sept. 11th came in on the FIRST article. Slashdot should be proud to have the right wing spin machine view it with the importance that it receives.
Take it up with Fortune, not me. You did RTFA, didn't you? That's a direct quote from the submitted article.
Forget college, forget healthcare, we need radio bandwidth and tax cuts for the richest to help fight the terrorists.
If only there were an emoticon for rolling eyes.
Yeah, that's what it's all about.
Not to mention that there will be a NET GAIN from the bandwidth auction alone and innovation by tech companies who purchase said bandwidth.
Over a full third of taxpayers in this country pay no taxes at all. The top 1% of taxpayers - and these aren't all or even mostly people who are fabulously wealthy; these include people who make just over $250,000/year in household income - as of 2004, pay over 40% of the tax. The top 5% now pay over 60% of the tax. The entire bottom 50% now pay less than 3% of the tax burden, and most of them are at the upper part of the 50%. The bottom 35% pay nothing.
So, I ask you: how is this not fair? Or should the entire tax burden be paid by the top, say, 5%? The poor - the bottom, say, 20%, will still be poor and struggling. Since, as you say, the more fortunate have more than enough money, perhaps we could take some of theirs, and simply give it to the poor? [1999 ref]
80 years ago people were expected to read Shakespear in the 4th grade, now we (MAYBE) get into it by high school. We've been dumbed down folks, and if you don't think TV played a large part in that, well, you watch too much TV...
I think this attitude is hilarious coming from slashdot. I have seen it almost too many times to count. From the "technology isn't bad, it's just technology" crowd, and indictment of a communication technology. And yes, one-way is still communication. Otherwise, we should trash newspapers and "Shakespear" (sic - hmm, maybe you're right about the dumbing down...), too.
TV isn't a villain here any more than any other technology. The lack of personal responsibility, however, is. Of course, your message doesn't seem to hold personal responsibility in very high regard, so your assessment isn't surprising.
Going digital is the number one thing that will finally force major investment in symmetrical broadband, IP multicast, and other technologies that will appear extremely attractive for content providers. And guess what? Everyone else can piggyback on those networks.
What kind of networks do you think will be used for transmission? Magic?
Think "IP".
Not to mention that going digital will actually be a net gain for us, from an economic standpoint (spectrum auction) and otherwise (innovative use of said spectrum).
Spectrum space commands such a high price because it is limited right now. Open up the supply, with the same demand, and price goes down. This is economics 101.
Actually, the estimates on spectrum auction proceeds take this into account.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the output of system_profiler, ioreg, and kextstat on an Intel-based iMac:
http://appleintelfaq.com/#17.6
Of note in ioreg:
| +-o TPM
And kextstat:
83 0 0x20a15000 0x3000 0x2000 com.apple.Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X (4.0.0)
Every time I read slashdot, I keep wishing for a clear "rolling eyes" emoticon.
Anyway, no, this is not a valueless metric with applied to Apple and Dell.
Dell only has 3.5 times the revenue and twice the profit of Apple as of FY2005, and further, that margin is shrinking in the most recent quarter.
Comparing companies of this size is perfectly appropriate. Now, when you're talking about a difference on the order of, say, a hundredfold (or a thousandfold), yeah, you're right. Except this isn't one of those cases. Apple and Dell are companies operating in the same marketplaces, with largely the same target markets, and very similar lines of products. They are in direct competition with one another.
When you look at the last three years and you have one company (Dell) with a flat 20% revenue and profit growth, and the other company (Apple) starting with 20%, then 30%, then 60% revenue growth and 6%, then 400%, then 800% profit growth over the same period, it's definitely a valuable metric to look at. Dell has growth, but it's flat. Apple has growth that is growing.
First of all, Apple has close to $9 billion in cash and cash equivalents, not $6 bn, about $12 bn in total assets, and no long term debt.
Then, you have the $5.7 bn revenue last quarter (not 5), including $1 bn in Apple Retail revenue, and the fact that revenues, profits, and unit sales are consistently increasing quarter over quarter, year over year:
Total revenues [and profits] for fiscal year, in millions:
2001 - 5,363 [(25)]
2002 - 5,742 [65]
2003 - 6,207 [69]
2004 - 8,279 [276]
2005 - 13,931 [2335]
Not to mention record (and increasing) sales of all of Apple's products, from iPod, to iTunes Music Store, to the Mac platform, including servers and enterprise.
You're also really wrong about Dell having "more profit in one quarter than apple's entire value":
Total revenues [and profits] for fiscal year, in millions:
2003 - 35,404 [2844]
2004 - 41,444 [3544]
2005 - 49,205 [4254]
Yes, Dell is a bigger company (surprise?) and has higher revenues and sales. But over the last two years, Apple is growing at a faster rate. Much faster. Also, when you say "market share" you'd do good to include the market share of all of a company's money-making products, not just the figure you like. It's funny when people keep going around saying things like "Apple, with 1.5% of the market" seem to forget that Apple has over 80% of another huge "market". Does that market not count?
Now we've got a transition to a commodity hardware architecture and platform, with the industry abuzz with what this could mean for Apple in the enterprise for a variety of reasons.
It's funny that you state exactly what is wrong with a lot of people in the financial sector: not being able to look past next year, or even next quarter, for what something is "worth".
Source for financial data: Apple Dell
Here at UW, we use pubcookie for single signon, and call it NetID Login Service. It's part of the larger WebISO concept (Web Initial Sign On), like cosign. But Michigan did have a lot of this deployed in the early 90s.
The University of Wisconsin - Madison has deployed a campuswide PKI solution based on GeoTrust.
. asp
More information, with presentations and descriptions of our deployment:
http://doit.wisc.edu/middleware/pki/
UW/GeoTrust/EDUCAUSE joint press release:
http://doit.wisc.edu/middleware/pki/geotrustuwpki
For more information about UW-Madison's PKI deployment, contact Nick Davis
Uh, if data is outbound, it is being sent. See, with data flow you can either send, receive or do nothing. Since the data is leaving your computer, it is being sent. Your statement makes no sense.
Thanks for missing the point.
The implication, to a normal person, when you tell someone "iTunes is sending your listening habits to Apple" is that Apple is keeping and aggregating this information. They are not.
I'm not talking about this in the context of network traffic.
The act of sending something doesn't imply anything about what the receiver does with the data. Why do you believe that implication exists?
Again, missing the point. The implication exists, because it, well, exists: if you tell someone, "iTunes is sending information about what songs you're listening to to Apple," they're naturally going to think and assume that Apple is keeping, logging, tracking, or otherwise archiving or aggregating this information, probably for marketing purposes. The super paranoid will even make assertions that Apple might be proving said information to the RIAA.
That is what people will think when you say "iTunes sends such and such to Apple". Sends, gives, transmits, I don't care what word you use; the implication is that Apple is keeping, viewing, analyzing, or otherwise using the content of the information for some form of permanent data aggregation or statistical analysis without your permission.
However, they are NOT doing this.
The fact is that if you write software that is going to send data on a user's behavior that only the local machine has, it should be completely opt-in and not on by default.
Sure. I agree with this. However, Apple wasn't hiding anything, wasn't doing anything in secret, and wasn't doing it surreptitiously. Then, they directly said that the information is discarded and not used for any other purpose than to update the MiniStore pane. Or is that not good enough because it doesn't have "Privacy Policy" stamped on it?
You need to think a little harder about this, if you are capable.
Touché.
"Sending information to Apple" implies that it's kept, tracked, logged, or aggregated somehow. I submit that it is not.
Everything we can see from a technical standpoint and a logical standpoint indicates that there is nothing more happening than a custom WebObjects query to update the recommendations section of the MiniStore.
Now, a bunch of people will keep saying "yeah, but how do we *know* they're not keeping it" or "you would be a fool if you thought they *weren't* keeping it, no matter what they say", but the fact is that iTunes is a highly customized, dynamic web browser - nothing more.
Now, you might think ANY time any information is outbound from your computer, that it constitutes "sending" it to someone. I take issue with this, because, again, it implies it's being taken and kept. I think there is a difference, and that intent matters. Apple did not try to hide this, and while I agree it would have been a good idea to at least ask politely (and give a clear option to decline), I don't think there is any malicious intent here whatsoever.
I don't jest.
Intel Core Duo is not a 64-bit processor, and does not not support EM64T (x86-64).
The next generation of all of Intel's processors will indeed be 64-bit.
According to Intel (warning: pdf), all Intel Core Duo processors include VT, but there are qualifications to have it enabled. Some folks who have systems with Intel Core Duo and who have claimed no VT might simply have systems that don't have it enabled. It remains to be seen whether VT is enabled on Apple's shipping machines.
Does Linux, and/or its BSD kin boot yet?
I don't know about yet, but they absolutely will. As the different Linux/BSD/etc. distributions add support for EFI, the Intel-based Macs will merely be just another set of machines that can run these OSes.
And these distributions that don't yet have such support for EFI will have to add support anyway (and many probably already have support, or at least have begin work on it), as that's the future and what will be replacing BIOS in the PC world at large. The fact that Apple machines are using EFI will only be a catalyst for more mature EFI support in the Linux/BSD world.
Apple hasn't done anything to preclude Windows, or any other OS, from being installed on the Intel-based Macs. That is a perfectly accurate statement. Apple Vice President Phil Schiller's two direct quotes on the subject, the most recent which was made on January 10, 2006, can be seen here. Intel has also specifically said that Apple will not be using proprietary chipsets and/or processors, and they'll just represent standard Intel offerings.
;-)
Windows XP would directly boot and install on the Developer Transition Kit platform because it was just a standard Intel motherboard and processor, and also used a standard Intel BIOS.
However, the shipping Intel-based Macs use EFI (Wikipedia article), Intel's "next generation of BIOS". (more info)
Windows XP 32-bit does not currently support EFI for booting. Windows XP 64-bit does, but Intel Core Duo is not a 64-bit chip. Now, there are a bunch of other variables, such as whether or not Apple's current EFI implementation offers BIOS backward-compatibility, and so on, but it's clear that regardless, EFI is the future, and it's only a matter of time before the PC world at large transitions to EFI. Further, Windows Vista does support EFI. See here for Microsoft's presentations on EFI, particularly the first two links.
That said, dual booting is intensely annoying anyway, and the really interesting thing will be able to just run Windows (or some other x86 OS) and Mac OS X side-by-side.
What we will *definitely* see are "Virtual PC"-like programs that let you run Windows alongside OS X (in a Window, or taking over the screen, etc., with a hotkey to flip back and forth, for example).
It's important to note this will NOT be emulation: Windows (or other x86 OS) will run at essentially the native speed of the underlying hardware (with certain exceptions). There could even be direct access to video, with support for things like DirectX.
vmware already has a version for Mac OS X in development, and Microsoft has already announced they will be developing a version of Virtual PC for Intel-based Macs that one can only presume will be a virtual machine. Then there are things like QEMU, Xen, etc. The Darwin/Mac OS X version of WINE, DarWINE, has even been working under betas of Mac OS X for Intel. Now that Intel Macs are shipping, it will only be a matter of weeks/months before we have several options for running Windows itself, and/or Windows applications at essentially the native speed of the underlying hardware.
And since Intel Core Duo also supports Intel's VT hardware virtualization, the possibilities of future virtual machine technology are even more interesting. But the bottom line is that Apple is again leading the way with the adoption of technologies like EFI and ExpressCard. Naturally, it will take a little while for Windows to catch up.
Disclaimer: I am the article submitter.
This is not "Damage Control". They did make it clear. The knowledge base article, available the day iTunes 6.0.2 was release, specifically said:
iTunes sends data about the song selected in your library to the iTunes Music Store to provide relevant recommendations. When the MiniStore is hidden, this data is not sent to the iTunes Music Store.
In addition, the day iTunes 6.0.2 was released, http://www.apple.com/itunes/ said:
Discover Music
Discover new music as you enjoy your collection or import new CDs -- with MiniStore.
and http://www.apple.com/itunes/playlists/ said:
Discover New Music
Looking for some new tunes? Tap into the 2-million-song treasure chest of the iTunes Music Store through the new MiniStore. While you're browsing your own library or importing a new CD, MiniStore appears at the bottom of the iTunes window and shows you other albums from your favorite artists and artists like them. You can even see reviews of these albums plus what other listeners who like this artist purchased -- so you'll never be at a loss for new music to discover. When you're ready to go back to full-screen mode, click an icon and MiniStore tucks away, ready to pop up again later when you want to explore some more.
and
MiniStore
Discover new music as you enjoy your collection or import new CDs with MiniStore -- right from your iTunes library.
Further, the MiniStore actively changing as you click different tracks in iTunes might give a small hint that something is happening.
Now, if you're saying that Apple should have had some kind of a dialog box come up when you first upgraded to and launched iTunes 6.0.2 explaining this and giving a clear option to simply opt to not use the new MiniStore, sure, I'll agree that would have likely been better. But Apple wasn't hiding this, and this isn't damage control, other than the fact that if enough blogs keep (incorrectly) asserting that Apple is "spying" on you, then it isn't long before some mainstream media picks the (incorrect) story up.
Um, it's *extremely* easy to monitor traffic coming into and going out of a machine.
e _spies_.html
/WebObjects/MZSearch.woa/wa/ministoreMatch?an=Daft % 20Punk&gn=Electronic&kind=song&pn=Discovery
When the MiniStore pane is closed, no information is sent, period. Try it yourself. (Of course, this makes sense, since the only reason any information is sent in the first place is to actively update the MiniStore pane.)
This is reflected in several places:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/11/itunes_updat
See the updates:
Update: John sez, "With the Mini-Store turned off, no data is passed back to Apple. Verified with Little Snitch and Ethereal." I'd be interested in deeper analysis than this, though -- is this under all circumstances?
Update 2: John sez, "The iTunes MiniStore does not transmit the current song data if the MiniStore pane is hidden. I ran TCPFlow to check my outgoing data and it only queried the server when the pane was open."
[...]
Update 6: Timo sez, "I just ran a packet trace of the new iTunes - it only connects to Apple if the Mini Store is open. For regular MP3s, it'll run a full text search to find related articles, for purchased music, it searches by the original product ID. Sample query string is:
Then it should be disabled by default or you should be asked (in plain English) if you want it enabled when the program starts for the first time after update. If you say no it shouldn't ever ask you again nor should it track your listening preferences.
You don't know that it's "tracking" anything, even now.
On the other hand, we don't know it's not doing that, since Apple doesn't tell us.
No. Absolutely not.
It's never ok for an external entity to attempt to match things to your interests? Okay, possibly a different philosophical outlook on things, here...
Especially when they didn't ask my permission first.
Agreed. But, as I said, it's not exactly a secret that it's doing something to be able to actively change the MiniStore display.
Sure, Apple's trying to sell something. But it can also be argued, correctly, that this improves the user experience with iTunes (aside from the broader privacy argument). I do, however, agree that Apple should have made this clearly known on the first launch, and given an option at the same time to simply disable it.
First of all, I don't know how this qualifies as iTunes suddenly being "malware", but anyway...
Edit -> Hide MiniStore (or shift-command-M)
No information of any kind is sent when the MiniStore is disabled.
What iTunes 6.0.2 is doing:
Sending information about the currently playing track to Apple, and then displaying information related to that track in the iTunes Music Store in the MiniStore pane. It is not broadly "tracking your music preferences".
Further - though we admittedly don't know this since Apple doesn't explain how it is using the data - there is no proof that Apple is doing anything but merely changing the MiniStore display based on what track you are listening to (which is very likely exactly what they're doing); not aggregating or "tracking your music preferences".
iTunes isn't doing this surreptitiously, either: the MiniStore pane clearly actively changes depending on what track you have selected. One would presume this does not happen via magic or the dark arts.
I'd love to have comment from Apple, and a clear presentation that information is being sent to Apple for x purpose, and a clear option to allow - or disallow - such use. I've looked through the iTunes 6.0.2 license and do not see any such guidance.
Granted, the MiniStore pane is present by default, but it can be disabled as easily as is described above.
I realize many people think this represents "going over the line"; but is there ever any instance where datamining to match items you might be interested in to your interests is acceptable? Is there any value to having this be the default state in certain instances where it could be significantly helpful?
Considering that Planet of the Apes is widely viewed as a social commentary on civil rights and an allegory on racism, it seems perfectly relevant to me.
The recommendation, regardless of who or what made it, doesn't seem racist or bigoted to me...
Any respectable /. user should have most of this suite installed already
;-)
From http://pack.google.com/:
System Requirements
- Windows XP
I think there is a disconnect somewhere...
I'm not sure if the submitter is insinuating that Yahoo "Dashboard" looks suspiciously familiar to Apple's Dashboard on Mac OS X 10.4.x (Tiger), but we should be reminded that Yahoo Go/Yahoo Dashboard is in fact Yahoo! Widget Engine, which is in fact Konfabulator renamed.
;-)
And Konfabulator, by Arlo Rose (of Kaleidoscope fame) and Perry Clarke, was around on the Mac OS X platform first, until a Windows version was also released with the help of Ed Voas before Yahoo!'s purchase. In fact, if it weren't for the Windows version, Yahoo! may never have come knocking.
And it's easy to say that Apple ripped off Konfabulator to make Dashboard, but if we go back a step further...say, a couple of decades, we find that the idea of Konfabulator - little modeless applets that do useful things, like an address book or a notepad or a calculator or a little game - actually hearkens back to Apple's original idea of Desk Accessories.
It all comes full circle!
No, wait. That's not full circle. It all leads back to Apple.
gee Dave, I'm a grad student at the very institution where you work, doing quantum physics, a job you could never do.
What would make you say something like that? Arrogance? Did you even look at my web page or CV? And no matter what I did or what my educational background, still, why would you say something like that? "A job you could never do?" WTF?
Yet, I am in that bottom 20% despite my highly skilled job at which I work ~80 hours per week.
Good for you. And let me get this straight - you're actually bringing grad school into this argument, and doing it with a straight face?
Who exactly 'deserves' to make more money than me? Name one person.
Did I say anything about who "deserves" what? And aside from that, there are probably quite large numbers of people who "deserve" to make more money than you, but that's hardly the point.
On top of that, my services are routinely cut, the state wants me to pay for my own healthcare, and my 'raises' neverkeep up with inflation.
Another big eye roller, here.
First of all, your "services" as a grad student are second to none. You make shit for money, like ALL grad students. And this is news to you? Yes, poor you, doing a physics PhD. I'm sure you'll be suffering your whole life.
Second, the state never wanted you to pay for your own healthcare. In fact, I can't even believe you said that. The state wanted graduate students to pay SOMETHING for their healthcare. In fact, it was a premium that would have been under $10/month. Yes, that's right, folks: graduate students at the University of Wisconsin have paid $0 for FULL healthcare. Your stipend as a graduate student is not designed to be luxurious, and never has been. The ridiculousness of you bringing a grad student stipend into this discussion is beyond belief.
And on top of it, at your income level, you already pay no federal tax.
Aside from the utter (and predictable) idiocy of your comment, what would happen, then, if we made the top 5% pay ALL of the tax burden? Aside from being horribly unfair to any thinking person, the bottom, say, 20% of our country will still be poor. Of course, they already pay NO TAX, so nothing changes for them. (And, for the sake of argument, let's say thy magically don't pay sales tax, either.) But they're still poor.
Let me guess: most of the money that the top 5% have - keeping in mind that these are households that only have to make about $120,000/year to be in this "top 5%" - has been "milked out" of other people, right?
LOL, I love slashdot. :-)
;-)
If we converted to digital and left the poorest of our nation out in the cold, we'd devolve into some discussion about how the evil government was depriving the weakest among us from access to a free press, possibly even with a few stats peppered in about how TV is even more important for them because of illiteracy rates, and so on, and maybe some good socialism arguments to boot.
But when we DO help them, it's, of course, a conspiracy to spread propaganda and keep everyone under their thumbs! (After all, network television is nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the government!)
You guys are the best.
I'm really impressed that the appeal to Sept. 11th came in on the FIRST article. Slashdot should be proud to have the right wing spin machine view it with the importance that it receives.
Take it up with Fortune, not me. You did RTFA, didn't you? That's a direct quote from the submitted article.
Forget college, forget healthcare, we need radio bandwidth and tax cuts for the richest to help fight the terrorists.
If only there were an emoticon for rolling eyes.
Yeah, that's what it's all about.
Not to mention that there will be a NET GAIN from the bandwidth auction alone and innovation by tech companies who purchase said bandwidth.
Over a full third of taxpayers in this country pay no taxes at all. The top 1% of taxpayers - and these aren't all or even mostly people who are fabulously wealthy; these include people who make just over $250,000/year in household income - as of 2004, pay over 40% of the tax. The top 5% now pay over 60% of the tax. The entire bottom 50% now pay less than 3% of the tax burden, and most of them are at the upper part of the 50%. The bottom 35% pay nothing.
So, I ask you: how is this not fair? Or should the entire tax burden be paid by the top, say, 5%? The poor - the bottom, say, 20%, will still be poor and struggling. Since, as you say, the more fortunate have more than enough money, perhaps we could take some of theirs, and simply give it to the poor? [1999 ref]
80 years ago people were expected to read Shakespear in the 4th grade, now we (MAYBE) get into it by high school. We've been dumbed down folks, and if you don't think TV played a large part in that, well, you watch too much TV...
I think this attitude is hilarious coming from slashdot. I have seen it almost too many times to count. From the "technology isn't bad, it's just technology" crowd, and indictment of a communication technology. And yes, one-way is still communication. Otherwise, we should trash newspapers and "Shakespear" (sic - hmm, maybe you're right about the dumbing down...), too.
TV isn't a villain here any more than any other technology. The lack of personal responsibility, however, is. Of course, your message doesn't seem to hold personal responsibility in very high regard, so your assessment isn't surprising.
This isn't about "digital cable".
Going digital is the number one thing that will finally force major investment in symmetrical broadband, IP multicast, and other technologies that will appear extremely attractive for content providers. And guess what? Everyone else can piggyback on those networks.
What kind of networks do you think will be used for transmission? Magic?
Think "IP".
Not to mention that going digital will actually be a net gain for us, from an economic standpoint (spectrum auction) and otherwise (innovative use of said spectrum).
Spectrum space commands such a high price because it is limited right now. Open up the supply, with the same demand, and price goes down. This is economics 101.
Actually, the estimates on spectrum auction proceeds take this into account.
Of course, it is a /. article, so I suppose we've come to expect at least one troll line in the article summary.
:-/ Take it up with the author, I guess...
Yeah, I thought about pointing that out, too, but that quote was actually from the Fortune article itself.