I remember the ups and the downs. Apple's stagnation during the Scully-Spindler-Amelio years. The failure of Copland and the dark age during which AAPL traded at $12/share and Sun take-over rumors ran rampant. Michael Dell's ass-hat punditry.
Then we saw the awesome Second Golden Age, a.k.a. the Return of Jobs - something we never thought could come to pass. We got the G3 (a terrific processor for its time) and the iMac. Of course it wasn't all rosy, we also had the The G4 MHz stall and the MHz Myth. But since Jobs' return there have been few misses and many outstanding hits. The greatness of OS X returned the Mac to its original place of software technological leadership. The iPod was a game changer, and even those of us who were among the hard-core Apple faithful never predicted what game changer it would prove to be in short order. And yes, the Intel defection proved to be (despite my anger toward it) a galvanizing force behind Mac platform growth. Now we have the iPhone (and iTouch) platform making history in its own right.
Apple has successfully captured so much market share in the last few years, people who will not likely return to the non-Apple world. Yes, the company is probably moderately overvalued right now, but with such growth and market saturation, a high valuation is sensible as long as the broader market can sustain recent rallies. Look at the iPhone sales estimates and then think about Apple's valuation. Google is a great company - unquestionably so - but it's an Internet property that can be replaced by a simple click of an address bar if a superior solution becomes available. (I'm not trivializing Google's place in the market but rather pointing to the fact that Internet leadership can change in quick order with disruptive technologies.) Not so with Apple, which isn't just a creative hardware vendor nor just a leading software producer, nor just a cultural business icon, but all that and more put together.
The only real question is, going forward, how long will Steve Jobs continue to lead the company. For he has always been the driving visionary force behind Apple's success, and without him Apple's value would take a substantial hit. I wouldn't want to be an AAPL share holder on the day he announces his retirement. Until then though, one can make a lot of money by buying Apple toward the bottom of market lows and holding on for almost inevitable new highs.
Yes, the EULA is clear, but the one violating it in this situation isn't the third party hardware company but rather the end user - thus Apple would have to base a lawsuit against this company on the concept that it is abetting the violation of the EULA. I don't think the EULA currently forbids a company from advertising and selling hardware capable of running OS X. That's a more difficult case to make than the one against Pystar, which was selling boxes with OS X installed.
The only tenuous EULA claim Apple may make in this case is that this company is encouraging people to violate the EULA by installing OS X on their unauthorized hardware. I doubt such a claim would find much favor in a court, but that doesn't mean Apple won't attempt it (and try to bully this upstart into submission).
I'm not opposed to leaving excerpted web errors in print, but for some reason I really detest seeing it on television, especially TV news. Here in Los Angeles I recently saw a local news report that was highlighting Internet sentiment on gas prices, and when they showed misspellings and poor grammar, it really annoyed me - I considered it to be lowering quality of the segment. My view is probably based largely on the fact that the newscaster was reading off these opinions with so much seriousness and gravity (which a good newscaster should normally do). I'd rather have intelligent posts discussed or none at all.
AT&T likes to protect its iPhone revenue stream. If too many people catch on, expect Apple to crack down on AOL. At least we've found one reason not to completely hate AOL.
So according to this story Pelosi wants to impose the fairness doctrine on all political communiques by Congressmen. They would no longer have the ability to maintain even their own websites or speak to their constituents through any of the media without ensuring identical coverage would be granted to the opposition. I wonder how the Founders would have reacted to such proposed restrictions on their conduct.
This demand indicates to me a dangerous precedent is being set. This court is indulging in a fishing expedition ordered by Viacom, with no concern for the 4th Amendment. It indicates to me that corporations will be able to obtain orders for the indiscriminate dissemination of all logs collected by any Internet provider at any time. A U.S. court wouldn't grant the government this much power, yet a court will gladly bend over to corporation in the name of the I.P. crusade. This is enough to make a free-market believer wary.
Except I think this case is an illustration of exactly how the patent system is supposed to work. Company A thought it had a case so it sued, then Company B found exculpatory evidence in the form of prior art. The companies will probably decide to settle now that this new fact has come to light. It would have been better if the prior art had been found sooner so that the trial could have been avoided, but that's not always possible.
tracker's aren't centralized databases in the way Napster's database was. Napster's central database served as a single global tracker. That doesn't exist in torrent land. Downloaders were inconvenienced by Demonoid going down for a period of time, but BT wasn't threatened.
I looked at Drupal and Joomal and found sites powered by both of them to be lacking for my needs. Right now I'm in the initial stages of transitioning a prominent not-for-profit site I administer to Expression Engine, which seems to be nicer than anything else out there than any CMS I have looked at. Of course, it isn't free like many of the alternatives, but it seems to deliver exactly what I want in terms of functionality, visual appeal and extensibility.
Here's the relevant EULA excerpt: "You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."
Apple's EULA says that OS X can only be installed on Apple branded hardware, so if Pystar is pre-installing Leopard on these computers Apple will certainly respond.
If they are indeed pre-installing Leopard on these systems then Apple will pounce. Of course, that's what they (actually the one guy who seems to be running the show there) promised to do from the outset and they're now apparently delivering computers - I would have expected Apple to take the company down just based on that promise. It's only a matter of time before Apple goes after Pystar , unfortunately, since Apple wants to try to enforce its EULAs. I personally think it's healthy for Apple to have some competition; I think this guy is doing a good thing by addressing a market segment that Apple is completely ignoring right now (consumer towers).
This sounds like quite an onerous burden on businesses, and I imagine it will be struck down by the courts soon enough unless it's much narrower and specific a regulation than the story makes it appear. Private parties should not be expected to do the job of law enforcement.
Slashdot Mirror
The evil telephoto lens. . . .
I remember the ups and the downs. Apple's stagnation during the Scully-Spindler-Amelio years. The failure of Copland and the dark age during which AAPL traded at $12/share and Sun take-over rumors ran rampant. Michael Dell's ass-hat punditry.
Then we saw the awesome Second Golden Age, a.k.a. the Return of Jobs - something we never thought could come to pass. We got the G3 (a terrific processor for its time) and the iMac. Of course it wasn't all rosy, we also had the The G4 MHz stall and the MHz Myth. But since Jobs' return there have been few misses and many outstanding hits. The greatness of OS X returned the Mac to its original place of software technological leadership. The iPod was a game changer, and even those of us who were among the hard-core Apple faithful never predicted what game changer it would prove to be in short order. And yes, the Intel defection proved to be (despite my anger toward it) a galvanizing force behind Mac platform growth. Now we have the iPhone (and iTouch) platform making history in its own right.
Apple has successfully captured so much market share in the last few years, people who will not likely return to the non-Apple world. Yes, the company is probably moderately overvalued right now, but with such growth and market saturation, a high valuation is sensible as long as the broader market can sustain recent rallies. Look at the iPhone sales estimates and then think about Apple's valuation. Google is a great company - unquestionably so - but it's an Internet property that can be replaced by a simple click of an address bar if a superior solution becomes available. (I'm not trivializing Google's place in the market but rather pointing to the fact that Internet leadership can change in quick order with disruptive technologies.) Not so with Apple, which isn't just a creative hardware vendor nor just a leading software producer, nor just a cultural business icon, but all that and more put together.
The only real question is, going forward, how long will Steve Jobs continue to lead the company. For he has always been the driving visionary force behind Apple's success, and without him Apple's value would take a substantial hit. I wouldn't want to be an AAPL share holder on the day he announces his retirement. Until then though, one can make a lot of money by buying Apple toward the bottom of market lows and holding on for almost inevitable new highs.
Uh, if you didn't know, Standard Oil became Exxon Mobile (XOM), and I don't think they're doing too badly. . . .
Yes, the EULA is clear, but the one violating it in this situation isn't the third party hardware company but rather the end user - thus Apple would have to base a lawsuit against this company on the concept that it is abetting the violation of the EULA. I don't think the EULA currently forbids a company from advertising and selling hardware capable of running OS X. That's a more difficult case to make than the one against Pystar, which was selling boxes with OS X installed.
The only tenuous EULA claim Apple may make in this case is that this company is encouraging people to violate the EULA by installing OS X on their unauthorized hardware. I doubt such a claim would find much favor in a court, but that doesn't mean Apple won't attempt it (and try to bully this upstart into submission).
Now all the hypochondriac hyper-nerds have another reason to sit home on their computers, cloistered from the outside world. :-)
I'm not opposed to leaving excerpted web errors in print, but for some reason I really detest seeing it on television, especially TV news. Here in Los Angeles I recently saw a local news report that was highlighting Internet sentiment on gas prices, and when they showed misspellings and poor grammar, it really annoyed me - I considered it to be lowering quality of the segment. My view is probably based largely on the fact that the newscaster was reading off these opinions with so much seriousness and gravity (which a good newscaster should normally do). I'd rather have intelligent posts discussed or none at all.
Ontological typologies? Am I reading a philosopohy essay here?
AT&T likes to protect its iPhone revenue stream. If too many people catch on, expect Apple to crack down on AOL. At least we've found one reason not to completely hate AOL.
I'd agree with you there. Otherwise you have to attribute it to really poor M$ QA, which is just slightly less believable.
So according to this story Pelosi wants to impose the fairness doctrine on all political communiques by Congressmen. They would no longer have the ability to maintain even their own websites or speak to their constituents through any of the media without ensuring identical coverage would be granted to the opposition. I wonder how the Founders would have reacted to such proposed restrictions on their conduct.
This demand indicates to me a dangerous precedent is being set. This court is indulging in a fishing expedition ordered by Viacom, with no concern for the 4th Amendment. It indicates to me that corporations will be able to obtain orders for the indiscriminate dissemination of all logs collected by any Internet provider at any time. A U.S. court wouldn't grant the government this much power, yet a court will gladly bend over to corporation in the name of the I.P. crusade. This is enough to make a free-market believer wary.
Except I think this case is an illustration of exactly how the patent system is supposed to work. Company A thought it had a case so it sued, then Company B found exculpatory evidence in the form of prior art. The companies will probably decide to settle now that this new fact has come to light. It would have been better if the prior art had been found sooner so that the trial could have been avoided, but that's not always possible.
tracker's aren't centralized databases in the way Napster's database was. Napster's central database served as a single global tracker. That doesn't exist in torrent land. Downloaders were inconvenienced by Demonoid going down for a period of time, but BT wasn't threatened.
This bill sounds far from ideal, but at least there's some effort being waged to protect Internet freedom.
I really tried to care about this story, but then I realized that there was simply no way to do it. Sorry.
They substituted infrared with something like WIFI for longer ranges and made the parts move even faster.
I looked at Drupal and Joomal and found sites powered by both of them to be lacking for my needs. Right now I'm in the initial stages of transitioning a prominent not-for-profit site I administer to Expression Engine, which seems to be nicer than anything else out there than any CMS I have looked at. Of course, it isn't free like many of the alternatives, but it seems to deliver exactly what I want in terms of functionality, visual appeal and extensibility.
From the summary: "It might run Mac OS X, but one thing this OQO is not is a Mac." Is not is a Mac. That's interesting. So it is a Mac? ;-)
Here's the relevant EULA excerpt: "You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."
Apple's EULA says that OS X can only be installed on Apple branded hardware, so if Pystar is pre-installing Leopard on these computers Apple will certainly respond.
If they are indeed pre-installing Leopard on these systems then Apple will pounce. Of course, that's what they (actually the one guy who seems to be running the show there) promised to do from the outset and they're now apparently delivering computers - I would have expected Apple to take the company down just based on that promise. It's only a matter of time before Apple goes after Pystar , unfortunately, since Apple wants to try to enforce its EULAs. I personally think it's healthy for Apple to have some competition; I think this guy is doing a good thing by addressing a market segment that Apple is completely ignoring right now (consumer towers).
We seem to have trouble each time we launch a single space shuttle. . . .
Linux, Mac OS X, or Windows XP?
This sounds like quite an onerous burden on businesses, and I imagine it will be struck down by the courts soon enough unless it's much narrower and specific a regulation than the story makes it appear. Private parties should not be expected to do the job of law enforcement.