How dare you make that stupid statement and claim it represents the view of all Christians. Christianity goes far beyond whatever sect you're a part of.
Christianity is a blanket term for all people who follow the various religions based on the belief in the existence and teachings of Christ (Jesus).
Jesus never preached that people were "'fallen' and inclined to be 'bad'". Rather, his teachings were based on the idea that people were inherently good.
Sigh... I suppose it is POSSIBLE to find individual christians that DON"T believe this but the VAST bulk of them do. I suppose there may even be a denomination that does not formally believe this but I do not know of any. Among the vast majority of christians aournd the world and throughout history I can't think of a LESS controversial subject than the fall, the sinful nature of man and a universal need for forgiveness (in it's rough outline - in the particulars it is perhaps the most controversial subject because it is so foundational). The fundamental view on human nature and theology is the same from one end of christianity to the other.
From Catholics, Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek, Coptic), and all they myriad Protestant sects from Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopaleans, Presbyterians, Puritans, Congregationalists, Baptists, Pentacostals, Seventh Day Adventists, The Salvation Army etc. etc. etc. From theological Traditionalists, to Liberals, to Evangelicals to Fundamentalists this is the foundational doctrine that ties them all together. They disagree passionately about the details and implications of it but in it's rough outline that is what christians believe. In fact I challenge you to find a particular christian sect that does NOT, at least officially, adhere to this doctrine. (I am aware of individual theologians in particular denominations but they are themselves controversial and at odds with the formally declared doctrines of their church) You may even find some, but for every denomination you find I'll bet I can find 50 denominations (and larger) that agree with my view.
Jesus never preached that people were "'fallen' and inclined to be 'bad'". Rather, his teachings were based on the idea that people were inherently good.
A quick look through the Gospels finds jesus generally doing a couple of things - telling the people with no pretensions to righteousness that their SINS are FORGIVEN (prostitutes, tax collecters, the lame, lepers). He doesn't tell these people that they are NOT sinners, or that their SINS are not important but that they are FORGIVEN - a pointless and deceptive exercise if they have no sins to forgive. The other thing he does is tell people that THINK they are righteous (or inately good) that they are mistaken and hypocrites. His sermons keep raising the ante to prove to those that think they are "good enough" that they are mistaken (just lusting in the mind = active adultery, just being angry = murder, etc.)
We rely on auditors to make sure the numbers jibe, but after Enron, I am starting to question everything that I read
This is why the normally hyper-pro business commentater Larry Kudlow advocates lynching the executives of Enron and Arther Anderson. Their high profile and massive fraud casts doubt on everybodies numbers. If you doubt the validity of those numbers you are not going to get into the market. A public execution (and I'm not too sure Larry was speaking figuritively;) is the only thing that will reassure the market that the numbers it relies upon are accurate.
Would it be OK for a company to buy up all the words in the English language so that you couldn't complain about them?
If I understand your meaning - and I apologise if I'm missunderstanding - this is just a silly fantasy hypothetical situation. A company can't buy words and then forbid you from using it to criticise them.
How can it be OK for them to buy up all the derogatory domain names, then?
Because unlike words domain names are a commodity that CAN be bought and sold. Turn the question on it's head - how can it be OK for someone (the government?) to STOP the company from buying the domain names it wants? Aren't the individuals who own the company afforded the same freedoms of speech and property that their detractors are?
Granted, you can still criticise them with a different domain name, but having a -sucks.com address does heighten your visibility.
This is actually a pet peeve of mine. The confusion over freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of speech which you can use to criticize the company. You do not however have a RIGHT to a soapbox! You have every right to buy, rent or borrow a soapbox from whoever might be selling. But you do not have a right to compel them to sell or to speak on your behalf. You do not have a right to air time on TV or Radio, in print, or to any particular web domain you don't already own. The government choosing to deny your NEA grant, the paper refusing to print your editorial, the *sucks.com domain the company you hate already bought - none of these scenarios is an abridgement of your freedoms of speech or property!!
Besides even this is an unrealistic hypothetical. Any creativity at all will suggest domains the company never would have thought of. Apple could buy Applesucks.com (they didn't but they could have) but they would most likely have missed crapple.com. If someone want their own domain as a soapbox but can't think of ONE the company didn't think of... well, if that's the case they're probably better off with a geoshanties site anyway.
I wonder why they even bother - if someone thinks they suck, and wanna have a site to say so, why not just let them.
Well, at least the politicians aren't suing the owners of parody sites (they KNOW as public figures they can't win). I really don't mind them taking all the *sucks domains they can think of - Just because your free to buy a domain and say whatever crap you wan't about me doesn't mean I'm not free to try and take all the "good" domains for myself.
Actually, it would be interesting to see them actually USE those domains to do a little self-parody. After all they all have (or are forced to have) a good attitude towards their parodies on SNL & the Tonight show. It might be an effective method of 'guerilla' campaigning. Steal the thunder of your opponents by making the jokes about yourself first (and obviously a little more gently.) They lose traffic to their sites and you get to shape even the "negative" spin on your campaign.
Actually, this is probably closer to the truth than most people realize.
I will agree with this. These kids are doing this to make themselves feel powerful. They want to feel important, significant. If they were made to feel their significance by the people to whom they should be significant - their parents - perhaps they would be less likely to seek a feeling of power in mindless destruction. Though there is no guarantee - even a person without excuse, loved, cared for, etc. can lack the self-control to tame their baser desires.
If you think about it, you realize it is only possible to hurt someone else (or their property) if you feel like you are hurting yourself.
Now I have to disagree - sort of. Their indulgence in malice and cruelty, their seeking after the thrill of power does them harm. But in their self absorbtion they are only aware of how good it feels to wield that power - to feel important. They do not feel hurt, they feel powerful.
The really sad thing is, when we find someone who is hurting, and has demonstrated this to us by hurting someone else, we hurt them more by punishing them. Thats a human approach, but it will only result in larger problems. When someone hurts us we should help them by giving them a hug... or something:)
Here I have to disagree - for several reasons. First: If someone cannot exersise enough self-control to refrain from hurting others they must be externally controlled by someone else (the state or their parents) - either by actual physical restraint or by the credible threat of punishment. Also, while they still need "a hug" love and acceptance from those from whom it is due - now that is not enough. I don't think their can be healing without honest regret (not just regret for being caught but for being *wrong*) - that is up to the criminal, no one can either force them through punishment or manipulate them through compassion to arrive at that repentance. There also can't be healing without suffering real (depending on the crime even harsh) consequences. Even kids have an inate sense of justice (that I believe is valid) and that even criminals will acknowledge. It does not do the do the victim or society at large - but especially the criminal - any favors by bypassing the requirements of justice. A penitant criminal who has been punished for his crimes can start again. A penitant criminal who has escaped punishment will feel the unfairness of that escape and a continued sense of guilt. He will be crippled in his ability to begin anew. An unrepentant criminal will take either scenario as an excuse to continue in their crime.
Can someone please clue me into why people do this?
This is a somewhat larger question than I think you realise and one that people have been struggling to understand for as long as there have been people. Why do people do bad things? Why are they selfish, cruel, malicious? Why do even good people not have the self control to always follow their better instincts? Why do some people not even seem to have those better instincts?
I'll be up front and mention that I am a christian (Now THAT is a statement to start a flame war on this board - not my intention but my experience is that there are a lot of people that are quite indignant with me for what I believe. But since it IS what I believe [I'm not making it up to start a flame war] & is relevant to your question I don't feel particularly compelled to keep silent.) Anyway, christians (and therefore, I) believe that every single person is 'fallen' and inclined to be 'bad' (or evil to use the old-fashioned term) and do 'bad things' (or sin to use the old-fashioned term). 'Bad' (or evil) ultimately being defined by christians as being selfish - living for oneself rather than for God & your fellow man. Though we are all the same in this regard it is expressed differently in each of us as individuals. The behaviour of these kids doesn't have any particular appeal to me but I think for them it is a way of selfishly having "power" they don't otherwise have. They are probably incapable of doing something positive that would have as much impact or bring them as much or notoriety. But here they are a few, or maybe even one immature kid that brought an entire company staffed by mature, technically astute adults to bankruptcy. Excersising power, having an impact, feels good, feels like importance - and in their self-absorbed state of mind the plight of the people affected does not enter in.
Those that you have duly elected stand to profit massively if they can keep oil _supply_ price down, through military means.
Don't be so coy. You put all the dot's on the map and supply the dark mysterious references but leave us to draw the conclusions for ourselves. Why not just come out and say what you are implying?
...Can you guess plan b?
I see what you're getting at: Bush, Cheney and the bin Laden family want to make a huge amount of money from sales of Central Asian oil through an Afghan pipeline instead of the currently existing Russian pipeline. But, the Taliban won't play along & gives the contract to an Argintine firm even though bin Laden's Arab forces are a significant portion of their military power. Unable to get the Taliban to agree to the pipeline this secret Cartel needs a pretext to topple the Taliban and install a government that will allow the pipeline to be built by Americans. Bush, Cheney and the bin Ladens get Usama to blow up the Pentagon & the World Trade Center and so provide the needed pretext. The plan goes off perfectly - The WTC topples, Bush fakes a few tears, and we get the new Afghan government we wanted.
A few questions: How exactly do the evil oil baron's behind this plot (Bush, Cheney & the bin Laden's) benefit from lower oil prices? After spending many billions of dollars to pull off this plot why not just spend far less and buy the Argentine firm? Why not just have Usama topple the Taliban directly? Why pull off the plot using airplanes - a way that will surely have a huge negative effect on demand for their product (I suppose the as yet unexplained way that the oil cartel profits from lower prices would also answer this question)? Why not simply bypass Afghanistan with it's warring tribes and high mountains and build the pipeline in Iran which doesn't have those problems? Why the WTC & Pentagon? An embassy or two would have served just as well - weren't alot of the leaders of the secret military/insdustrial cabal killed at the WTC? Was it a power play within the cabal? Did one faction kill off another with this ploy? Or where they, like the Jews of the other conspiracy behind it all (according to many respectable Arab commentators), warned ahead of time? (Ahh, that explains why the Pentagon was attacked on the side furthest from Rumsfelds office!!) Was this oil cabal working in cooperation with the Isreali cabal I hear so much about on Al Jazeera? Was Vince Foster killed because he threatened to reveal this plan as well as Clinton & Bush Sr's Somolian Oil plot to the press? The military mission in support of Oil in Somalia was scuttled by Usama bin Laden's aid to Aidid - Why does Usama cooperate in the later Central Asian oil consipiracy? Is Usama bin Laden really the hero working against his own family and the rest of the Oil Cabal? Are "those of us in parts of the world with halfway credible media sources" who can "work this out" also bothered by the mysterious black helicopters that plague their comrades in America? (Apparently Aidid was - but he struck back against the cabal) Do you get visited by men in black after alien abductions like we do? Is the X-Files as credible a media outlet as the BBC?
Inquiring minds want to know - don't just hint darkly - come out and tell us plainly what your suspicions are.
If your implication is that I group people like he did then you have yet to provide support for your claim, just some innuendo.
Sorry, you misunderstood my post. I was making a (probably bad) joke based on your word choice. (Just in case you don't know "spade" is a derogatory slang term for "negro".) I made a more substantive response to your post elsewhere. No I don't think you are really a racist - just having some fun with your choice of words.
Should we make a scale about how modern a society is based on the date they gave up slavery?
The issue of slavery seemed a minor point in the original post - an aside mentioned in the last paragraph. The actual argument (while the specific numbers are wrong) is valid. China has a huge population but that does not translate into a huge market for some items (like software) because it is also a very poor country whose government is still politically and economically oppressive (though it allows a measure of freedom in a few very selective regions).
...The US wouldn't be leading the pack if we did that.
Not really - we don't do so badly at all by such a metric. The northern states would lead the world and the southern states would come about the middle of the pack - shortly after Europe and a few latin american states - but well before the rest of the world*(see note below) Actually, you may be on to something since that is not far from the economic realities either.
* Granted much of the rest of the world was under the rule of those abolitionist European powersand so slavery was outlawed there as well. However abolition was imposed by imperialist edicts and not initiated by the people of those nations. Many nations not under colonial rule continued to engage in slavery until very recently - a few STILL engage in slavery. Of those under colonial rule many of them flouted the imperial laws and some reverted to the practice of slavery after their imperialist masters left.
I believe we should better China as the more affluent a society is the less problems you have with it. Ever notice a correlation between a nations wealth and the problems that aris from it? Give China a taste of capitalism/free market and they'll take care of their Government.
All valid arguments and a reasonable point of view. And one could have a reasonable debate about which is cause and which is effect (are political and economic freedom the result or the cause of wealth). Your argument that wealth causes freedom and so we should strengthen our economic ties with China could reasonably be countered by an argument that freedom is the cause of wealth and that our economic engagment with China is just propping up an oppresive and potentially dangerous regime. My own view is middle of the road on this issue - I think we should engage with China in the hopes that such engagement will foster openness and freedom but that we should be aware that currently there is very little of either, and there should be some things that we are willing to walk away from the table over. Tolerating a little oppression in the short run because we think it will lead to greater freedom in the long run is a tricky path and we should tread it very carefully
All of this however is irrelevant to the main point of the original poster that the actual size of the Chinese market for expensive items (like Adobe's software) is smaller than it would appear becuase it's poverty and economic backwardness.
I see an emotional argument that appears to be racist.
I'm profoundly confused by this statement. Could you please explain it? His numbers appear to be wrong, but his general point appears correct. China does in fact have a very large population yet the vast majority of that population is very poor and the small portion of it with the discretionary income sufficient to purchase software is really rather small and devotes much of that income to savings.
I don't see any emotional content in the argument whatsoever. I will concede he points out certain facts that may arouse an emotional response in you or I - the relatively recent abolition of slavery and the continued existense of practices very near to slavery. Yet he did not explicitly pass a moral judgement or appeal to emotions (i.e. we should not trade with China because of human rights abuses) but simply pointed out that an economy with these features is not one that will offer a large market for computer software despite it's large population.
Nor did he say or even imply anything racist unless it is racist to point out the fact the China is poor. If you do percieve an implicit moral argument in his bringing up child and forced labour it would NOT be racist to hold them to the same moral standards that we hold whites to. On the other hand it IS a racist argument that the Chinese (because of their race) are to be held to a lower standard than whites (Don't be hard on them, the poor savages don't know any better.)
How many other countries had abolished slavery before the US did?
Umm.. very few before the first abolition of slavery in the USA in Vermont (1777) Then three European states and their colonies (England, France, Dutch Colonies) and a few Latin American countries.
Of course I don't know how that is relevent. I took the posters main point to be that China is economically backwards only emerging from a slave economy 73 years ago (though 1929 is a generous estimate - slavery was known to exist in some remote chinese provinces as late as 1958 though the government moved aggresively against it) and still retaining many features of such an economy.
Do you know the dates for that?
Again, doesn't seem relevent but OK: Vermont 1777, Pennsylvania 1780, Massachusetts 1780, France 1791, French Colonies 1794,
Reestablished in France 1801,
England 1807,
Chile 1823,
Central America 1824,
Mexico 1829,
Bolivia 1831,
Rest of British Empire 1833 (though Britain kept conquering colonies and abolishing slavery in them after this)
France (again) 1845,
French Guiana in 1848.
Venezuala in 1854. Dutch Colonies 1863, USA 1865.
For the really late abolitions and continued slavery today (mostly in Africa) there is a good article here on slavery into the 21st century.
How many US states wanted to keep it and went to war over "states rights".
11
What was Davy Crocket fighting for at the Alamo? I'll give you a hint, Mexico had abolished slavery.
Granted.
And this is relevant to software sales in China... How?
It has not been proposed because HTML is not a page description language. It's a document structuring language
Despite the original intention HTML has almost NEVER been used as a document structuring language but as an easy (and really bad) page description language. Nobody uses HTML to structure their documents; they use it to display their documents. HTML has always been a bastard between page description and document structure and does neither terribly well. It was originally concieved as a document structuring language (with tags like P, STRONG, CITE, BLOCKQUOTE, H1, H2 etc.) but reflecting some confusion between structure and display it always included some display tags. With no other mechanism for defining display, people used the structure tags to define display. People used BLOCKQUOTE not because they were quoting a block of text but because they wanted margins on either side. As it developed HTML was increasingly encrusted with display tags (B, I, FONT, etc.) and hacks, particularly using TABLE to position elements. Because display is what people wanted. Unfortunately since it was never designed to do that it never did it very well and now doesn't do document structure very well either (on the few occasions someone may want to use it for that purpose). Despite these fundamental flaw HTML was a success because it was easy - attempts to address these flaws have undermined that initial advantage.
This is the gordian knot XML is designed cut. XML will handle document structure and CSS and someday XSL (eXtensible Stylesheet Language) will handle display/page description. Hopefully each component will be both more powerful for their respective function and remain easy to use (XML in my opinion succeeds in this, XSL I don't know enough about but I have high hopes).
This post is so silly I'm sure I am responding to a troll who is intentionally setting up a weak straw man for others to knock down. But the mindset you parody is so prevelant I can't overcome the temptation to be the one to knock it down.
...and all they can think about is the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR.
And what's wrong with that? Adobe is not a charity - and even if they were charities aren't very effective without the ALMIGHTY DOLLARS that the greedy people pursuing said dollars donate.
What about truth? What about freedom?!
They're nice and all, but you can't eat them. Also, they don't seem particularly relevent.
What about human rights...
Again seems irrelevant to a portable document format. I suppose now you can send a nicely formatted petition electronically. Is that what you are getting at?
...or helping developing countries?
You can't help them very much without the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR, as I said before truth and freedom (and petulant whining) are nice, but you can't eat them.
It's all well and good to be altruistically concerned with the welfare of everybody in the world but most people, including yourself, are far more concerned with the welfare of themselves and their families. Starvation in Somalia becomes only an academic concern when you yourself are starving. Altruism is a rich (or at least comfortable) mans game and you don't get rich (or even comfortable) unless you pursue the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR (at least a little) usually by being employed by someone who is pursuing the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR with great zeal.
Warnock like everybody else is primarily concerned about his own welfare, but to become wealthy he must be concerned about other peoples welfare. He must invent or sell something that will meet those other peoples needs sufficiently that they will spend their own money on his product. To produce and sell that product he must be concerned with the needs (money, health-care, vacations) of the people he will hire to help him sell his product to make himself rich. To get the money he needs to hire those employees he must concern himself with the needs of investors and fund their retirement so they won't starve when they are old. Finding himself a wealthy man. He is forced whether he wants to or not to give a large portion of his wealth to the maintenance of his government and to government charity to several hundred more people. Finally after inadvertently meeting the communications, employment, retirement and charitable needs of hundreds of thousands of people Warnock gives vastly greater sums than you or I to the poor and oppressed.
Considering the limited exposure they get they have a pretty strong following. Few people have seen it over here but those that have love it.
I wonder though if it would have the same appeal if it had wider exposure. Part of the appeal of "cult" movies (& animations, and operating systems) is the feeling of exclusiveness. There is a sense of geeky cultural superiority - to know of and appreciate something of which most people are ignorant.
They can't do hardware without making it cost twice as much as PC hardware while doing less.
While Apple computers generally cost more it's certainly not so bad as TWICE as much. Simple clock speed comparisons are invalid since the PowerPC chip while not as much faster as Apple marketing would claim IS more powerful cycle for cycle than even the high end Intel chips never mind the cheapo chips like the Celeron processor the eOne had. In fact I would wager that the 333Mhz G3 in the original iMac was probably actually more powerful than the 433Mhz Celeron in the eOne. Both had 64MB of ram (not officially but most mac resellers throw in extra ram to compete with Apples online store without violating pricing agreements) Both had 6GB hard drives, Both had 24X CD-ROM, both had a 15" monitor, the iMac had 10/100 ethernet while the eOne only had 10base-T. the eOne was more expandable and had more ports and of course a floppy drive. Finally the eOne was significantly cheaper (though not half the price the eOne was $800 the original iMac was half again as much at $1200). After comparing the bullet items on the marketing sheets I would be curious about the relative quality of those components. Apple tends to use better quality components because the depends more on their reputation and repeat business. If a fly-by-night company like eMachines sells you a lemon it is less a problem for them than if Apple does so. I am guessing that the iMac monitor was probably somewhat higher quality and had a better picture and calibration. I know Apple generally uses better power supplies (dirty power at one office I worked at screwed up the PC's and Mac clones but the Apple boxes didn't appear to suffer at all - it also taught my employer the value of a surge protector.) Little things like that can end up costing a lot more as you add them up.
That allegedly overpriced iMac sold millions and led Apple to profits that eMachines can only dream about. Figuring out the value you get for your dollar is even more difficult today. Comparing the CPU is still problematic though Intel is winning the battle through sheer speed (I'm curiuos to see if the introduction of the G5 does anything for Apple). The OS is now very different with Apple arguably leap-frogging Windows in the places where it used to be at a disadvantage. Apple includes a lot of very good software and services for free (iTools, iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes, as well as Apache, SAMBA etc.) and Apple machines are still very well engineered and designed and generally use high quality components. I think the overall effect of these changes actually makes Apple a little better off than it was before when figuring out what you get for your dollar.
It has shown profits for the last 3 quarters, and for the past three years before that. Not bad compared to the chronic year after year losses they used to post.
They've been losing money. Lots of it.
I will conceed that lost money in the 1st Quarter but they have shown a profit every quarter since. For the year they are down a paltry $25 million - not exactly a massive loss considering the size of the company and the size of the profits they stacked up in prior years $786 million in 2000, $601 million in 1999, $309 million in 1998.
You are right I should not have mentioned Dell which has done great - only showing a fairly small $101 million loss in the second quarter and on track to show a sizeable profit for the year. But Dell is the exception not the rule in the Wintel world. Of the other two companies I mentioned Compaq is just as fair a comparison and it has lost money 3 out of the last 4 quarters (as opposed to Apple of which the opposite is true) and Gateway has lost money every quarter this year.
I didn't mean to claim Apple was the most profitable or larger than its hardware competitors - just that recently it has done better than MOST of them.
cheap crap is the bread and butter of the computer market
Sadly this is true - Particularly for the Wintel market.
why else did Apple make/sell the iBook or the iMac?
Gee, and i thought the big complaint was that they weren't cheap enough. Yes they are cheaper than a PowerMac or PowerBook but they are (as frequently noted by the PC weenies) significantly more expensive than comperable Wintel machines. Some of that money goes into Apples higher profit margins, some goes into it's lower economies of scale - a result of it's smaller market share. But some portion of it's higher price goes into better engineering and better components. Every Mac I have ever bought, even the cheap consumer ones, is currently running just fine. Going back to my Mac Plus which I still use from time to time just because I can.
basically, it is just a Duron or a Celeron (less MHz, slower bus).
This isn't a very good comparison. The Duron and Celeron are CPU's and are designed to be the cheap, low-quality, bargain basement chips in the Wintel stable. The iMac is a whole system and to illustrate my point it does not use a lower-quality 'value' chip but the same G4 chip that is arguably of higher quality (if lower clock speed) than the top-of-the-line Pentium. Even Apples low end computers sell for a premium and that premium buys you the MacOS and quality components. I have no doubts that if I buy an iMac today it will still be running fine 5 years from now. If you have no such confidence in your Dell or Gateway (or homemade) machine that is just one of the differences between Apple and it's competitors.
Will they do the bold thing and license OS-X for non-Apple hardware and clones???
No - they will not. Despite everyones confusion on this point Apple is a HARDWARE company. The business plan and structure of the company is fundamentally different from Micro$oft. Better than 5/6ths of their revenue and profits come from Hardware sales. At one time perhaps they could have made the transition to an OS and application software vendor but that is a long lost oppurtunity. Even when they had that oppurtunity it would have been a difficult transition - it might have led to a better business model in the long run but they would have had to survive a MASSIVE downsizing. Back in those days Apple was already a huge company and Microsoft was comparitively tiny (and primarily pursuing the Mac application business). Even as late as 1997 when Micro$oft had 90% of the OS marketshare Apple was still a bigger company!! (according to their Fortune 500 ranking Apple was #150 Microsoft was #172) Imagine the difficulties and risks entailed in making a transition from a HUGE and reasonably profitable hardware manufacturer to a much smaller and only specutively more profitable software vendor.
What Katz is saying is that McDonalds is more successful (with success defined, I assume, as profits) than a 5* Michelin-approved restaurant.
No Katz is not defining success as profits, because if he was he would have noticed that Apple is a success on those terms. He is defining success as market domination a la Micro$oft. Apple may have at one time defined success the same way but that was a long time ago. Now they are happy to be profitable and their marketshare goal is not to "win" and become a monopoly but to get another 4.5-5% and doubling their share (and and revenue and profits)
.. the obvious fact that Apple has made an inferior OS for most of this history. Only OS-X attempts to try and catch up
I think OS-X is in a position not only to catch up but to leap frog it's competitors.
If Macs had better "ease of use, safety, and utility", I'd still be using one. Instead, their market share does indeed reflect their failure in this regard.
Granted they dropped the ball in OS development. As the MacOS got long in the tooth it became increasingly unstable and as their marketshare dropped they were abandoned by software developers and so lost out on "utility". But they were losing the war for marketshare even when they had a distinct advantage in all of those areas. It came down to price. The question is not so much about how Apple dropped the ball in the 80's and 90's but how it should move forward now. Being "cool" is not as Katz would imply a distraction that gets in the way of attracting new users. Far from it, "coolness" is necessary to overcome the disadvantages of high prices and low marketshare that Apple is stuck with as a result of those earlier missteps.
As for safety, of course you get less virus problem with Mac: when you have hardly anyone making software for a system, this includes hardly any viruses.
Part of the better security for the Mac is a function of it's smaller marketshare but part of it is also a (slightly) better attitude about security at Apple than at Microsoft. Apple seems to have more security minded defaults. As to the general compaint of less software: while Apple doesn't have the insane amount of software titles available that windows has it still has plenty of software titles and developers. You may not have 100's of titles for every possible category but you will likely have 2-5 strong competitors. I have yet to run across a need that I couldn't find software to meet. (Admittedly most of my needs are in graphics and web development two areas where Apple has a strong presence.) Now that MacOS X is BSD based there is even more software available particularly server software an area where Apple had been weak is now a strength.
this cycle seems to be 3 or 4 years with the ever important, and economy driving, middle class... most, not all, but most, computers will not last that long,
Huh??? What kind of cheap crap computers are you buying? I've used almost all of my Macs at least that long if not longer before upgrading. I'm currently using a beige G3, 233 Mhz bought in 1998. (I'll probably upgrade soon, OSX runs pretty slow at 233Mhz) My secondary machine is a 7200, 120Mhz bought in 1995. I even have a Mac Plus bought in 1986 that runs just fine - I don't use it for much, just a conversation piece but it runs perfectly. This new iMac WILL "live up the that kind of reliablity" because Macs are engineered to last that long. Not all of that price premium is for good looks, Apple also tends to use better quality parts and does quality engineering.
Apple's 4.5% share seems a lot less relevant when compared to the 95% Windows has, than BMW having 3% when the number one manufacturer (toyota) probably only has about 10%!
Yes, but you are only thinking about Apple as an OS software vendor. But from an economic standpoint Apple is not an OS vendor but a computer manufacturer that happens to develop and maintain it's own OS to differentiate it's product. That is what Apple IS, that is how they make their money. All their software (not just the OS, but Final Cut Pro, Filemaker, WebObjects, Quicktime etc.) brings in only about 1/6th of their revenue. The remaining 5/6ths is all from hardware sales. In that light it is in a much more valid comparison. Apple does VERY well in marketshare when compared to it's hardware competitors, and does even BETTER than it's competitors (at least recently) in terms of stability and profitability. While Dell, Compaq, Gateway etc. are laying off employees, and cutting each others throats in a price war; Apple, protected from the competition by it's OS and it's "coolness" continues to show a profit and even expand.
I'm sorry Katz but can't you expend a little more energy THINKING before you open your mouth? I particularly like the argument that Windows is a success because it has better "ease of use, safety and utility" than the Mac. Apple is aimed directly at the people you say it should be aimed at: The technophobic masses. It already has "ease of use" it already has "safety" (you wouldn't believe the number of times I get a message to 'look out' for a mail virus going around - that I just happily ignore) it already has "utility."
The ingredients Apple is missing to become a success (apparently defined by Katz not as profitability but only by market dominance) are the two ingredients he failed to mention.
The first is that market dominance/monopoly that guarantees that even an inferior OS will have a plethora of software available for it. Apple is in the unenviable and paradoxical position of having to succeed (gain marketshare) in order to create the conditions required to succeed (attract developers) Fortunately Apple has just enough marketshare to attract just enough software titles to maintain it's "utility."
The second missing ingredient is a competitive PRICE. Of course to be successful as defined by most businesses Apple must be PROFITABLE which unlike it's hardware competitors in the current market Apple IS. And it is profitable because of it's higher margins. Also, in order to justify those higher margins it must take on far greater costs in R&D (compared to other box makers) with far fewer economies of scale (compared to the wintel industry as a whole). Apple will always have a disadvantage in price which to a large extent is unavoidable.
So how can Apple address these two inherent disadvantages? How does it increase it's marketshare and so increase it's utility by increasing software availablity? How does it attract developers even though it's marketshare is small? How does it compensate for it's unavoidably higher price? By being "cool"!! Being "cool" gets it noticed (and maybe even purchased) by those technophobic masses that otherwise would just go along with the herd - even though the Mac better serves them because it HAS better "ease of use, safety and utility"
Slashdot Mirror
How dare you make that stupid statement and claim it represents the view of all Christians. Christianity goes far beyond whatever sect you're a part of.
Christianity is a blanket term for all people who follow the various religions based on the belief in the existence and teachings of Christ (Jesus).
Jesus never preached that people were "'fallen' and inclined to be 'bad'". Rather, his teachings were based on the idea that people were inherently good.
Sigh... I suppose it is POSSIBLE to find individual christians that DON"T believe this but the VAST bulk of them do. I suppose there may even be a denomination that does not formally believe this but I do not know of any. Among the vast majority of christians aournd the world and throughout history I can't think of a LESS controversial subject than the fall, the sinful nature of man and a universal need for forgiveness (in it's rough outline - in the particulars it is perhaps the most controversial subject because it is so foundational). The fundamental view on human nature and theology is the same from one end of christianity to the other.
From Catholics, Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek, Coptic), and all they myriad Protestant sects from Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopaleans, Presbyterians, Puritans, Congregationalists, Baptists, Pentacostals, Seventh Day Adventists, The Salvation Army etc. etc. etc. From theological Traditionalists, to Liberals, to Evangelicals to Fundamentalists this is the foundational doctrine that ties them all together. They disagree passionately about the details and implications of it but in it's rough outline that is what christians believe. In fact I challenge you to find a particular christian sect that does NOT, at least officially, adhere to this doctrine. (I am aware of individual theologians in particular denominations but they are themselves controversial and at odds with the formally declared doctrines of their church) You may even find some, but for every denomination you find I'll bet I can find 50 denominations (and larger) that agree with my view.
Jesus never preached that people were "'fallen' and inclined to be 'bad'". Rather, his teachings were based on the idea that people were inherently good.
A quick look through the Gospels finds jesus generally doing a couple of things - telling the people with no pretensions to righteousness that their SINS are FORGIVEN (prostitutes, tax collecters, the lame, lepers). He doesn't tell these people that they are NOT sinners, or that their SINS are not important but that they are FORGIVEN - a pointless and deceptive exercise if they have no sins to forgive. The other thing he does is tell people that THINK they are righteous (or inately good) that they are mistaken and hypocrites. His sermons keep raising the ante to prove to those that think they are "good enough" that they are mistaken (just lusting in the mind = active adultery, just being angry = murder, etc.)
We rely on auditors to make sure the numbers jibe, but after Enron, I am starting to question everything that I read
;) is the only thing that will reassure the market that the numbers it relies upon are accurate.
This is why the normally hyper-pro business commentater Larry Kudlow advocates lynching the executives of Enron and Arther Anderson. Their high profile and massive fraud casts doubt on everybodies numbers. If you doubt the validity of those numbers you are not going to get into the market. A public execution (and I'm not too sure Larry was speaking figuritively
Would it be OK for a company to buy up all the words in the English language so that you couldn't complain about them?
If I understand your meaning - and I apologise if I'm missunderstanding - this is just a silly fantasy hypothetical situation. A company can't buy words and then forbid you from using it to criticise them.
How can it be OK for them to buy up all the derogatory domain names, then?
Because unlike words domain names are a commodity that CAN be bought and sold. Turn the question on it's head - how can it be OK for someone (the government?) to STOP the company from buying the domain names it wants? Aren't the individuals who own the company afforded the same freedoms of speech and property that their detractors are?
Granted, you can still criticise them with a different domain name, but having a -sucks.com address does heighten your visibility.
This is actually a pet peeve of mine. The confusion over freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of speech which you can use to criticize the company. You do not however have a RIGHT to a soapbox! You have every right to buy, rent or borrow a soapbox from whoever might be selling. But you do not have a right to compel them to sell or to speak on your behalf. You do not have a right to air time on TV or Radio, in print, or to any particular web domain you don't already own. The government choosing to deny your NEA grant, the paper refusing to print your editorial, the *sucks.com domain the company you hate already bought - none of these scenarios is an abridgement of your freedoms of speech or property!!
Besides even this is an unrealistic hypothetical. Any creativity at all will suggest domains the company never would have thought of. Apple could buy Applesucks.com (they didn't but they could have) but they would most likely have missed crapple.com. If someone want their own domain as a soapbox but can't think of ONE the company didn't think of... well, if that's the case they're probably better off with a geoshanties site anyway.
I wonder why they even bother - if someone thinks they suck, and wanna have a site to say so, why not just let them.
Well, at least the politicians aren't suing the owners of parody sites (they KNOW as public figures they can't win). I really don't mind them taking all the *sucks domains they can think of - Just because your free to buy a domain and say whatever crap you wan't about me doesn't mean I'm not free to try and take all the "good" domains for myself.
Actually, it would be interesting to see them actually USE those domains to do a little self-parody. After all they all have (or are forced to have) a good attitude towards their parodies on SNL & the Tonight show. It might be an effective method of 'guerilla' campaigning. Steal the thunder of your opponents by making the jokes about yourself first (and obviously a little more gently.) They lose traffic to their sites and you get to shape even the "negative" spin on your campaign.
Do these kids need a hug?
:)
Actually, this is probably closer to the truth than most people realize.
I will agree with this. These kids are doing this to make themselves feel powerful. They want to feel important, significant. If they were made to feel their significance by the people to whom they should be significant - their parents - perhaps they would be less likely to seek a feeling of power in mindless destruction. Though there is no guarantee - even a person without excuse, loved, cared for, etc. can lack the self-control to tame their baser desires.
If you think about it, you realize it is only possible to hurt someone else (or their property) if you feel like you are hurting yourself.
Now I have to disagree - sort of. Their indulgence in malice and cruelty, their seeking after the thrill of power does them harm. But in their self absorbtion they are only aware of how good it feels to wield that power - to feel important. They do not feel hurt, they feel powerful.
The really sad thing is, when we find someone who is hurting, and has demonstrated this to us by hurting someone else, we hurt them more by punishing them. Thats a human approach, but it will only result in larger problems. When someone hurts us we should help them by giving them a hug... or something
Here I have to disagree - for several reasons. First: If someone cannot exersise enough self-control to refrain from hurting others they must be externally controlled by someone else (the state or their parents) - either by actual physical restraint or by the credible threat of punishment. Also, while they still need "a hug" love and acceptance from those from whom it is due - now that is not enough. I don't think their can be healing without honest regret (not just regret for being caught but for being *wrong*) - that is up to the criminal, no one can either force them through punishment or manipulate them through compassion to arrive at that repentance. There also can't be healing without suffering real (depending on the crime even harsh) consequences. Even kids have an inate sense of justice (that I believe is valid) and that even criminals will acknowledge. It does not do the do the victim or society at large - but especially the criminal - any favors by bypassing the requirements of justice. A penitant criminal who has been punished for his crimes can start again. A penitant criminal who has escaped punishment will feel the unfairness of that escape and a continued sense of guilt. He will be crippled in his ability to begin anew. An unrepentant criminal will take either scenario as an excuse to continue in their crime.
Can someone please clue me into why people do this?
This is a somewhat larger question than I think you realise and one that people have been struggling to understand for as long as there have been people. Why do people do bad things? Why are they selfish, cruel, malicious? Why do even good people not have the self control to always follow their better instincts? Why do some people not even seem to have those better instincts?
I'll be up front and mention that I am a christian (Now THAT is a statement to start a flame war on this board - not my intention but my experience is that there are a lot of people that are quite indignant with me for what I believe. But since it IS what I believe [I'm not making it up to start a flame war] & is relevant to your question I don't feel particularly compelled to keep silent.) Anyway, christians (and therefore, I) believe that every single person is 'fallen' and inclined to be 'bad' (or evil to use the old-fashioned term) and do 'bad things' (or sin to use the old-fashioned term). 'Bad' (or evil) ultimately being defined by christians as being selfish - living for oneself rather than for God & your fellow man. Though we are all the same in this regard it is expressed differently in each of us as individuals. The behaviour of these kids doesn't have any particular appeal to me but I think for them it is a way of selfishly having "power" they don't otherwise have. They are probably incapable of doing something positive that would have as much impact or bring them as much or notoriety. But here they are a few, or maybe even one immature kid that brought an entire company staffed by mature, technically astute adults to bankruptcy. Excersising power, having an impact, feels good, feels like importance - and in their self-absorbed state of mind the plight of the people affected does not enter in.
Those that you have duly elected stand to profit massively if they can keep oil _supply_ price down, through military means.
...Can you guess plan b?
Don't be so coy. You put all the dot's on the map and supply the dark mysterious references but leave us to draw the conclusions for ourselves. Why not just come out and say what you are implying?
I see what you're getting at: Bush, Cheney and the bin Laden family want to make a huge amount of money from sales of Central Asian oil through an Afghan pipeline instead of the currently existing Russian pipeline. But, the Taliban won't play along & gives the contract to an Argintine firm even though bin Laden's Arab forces are a significant portion of their military power. Unable to get the Taliban to agree to the pipeline this secret Cartel needs a pretext to topple the Taliban and install a government that will allow the pipeline to be built by Americans. Bush, Cheney and the bin Ladens get Usama to blow up the Pentagon & the World Trade Center and so provide the needed pretext. The plan goes off perfectly - The WTC topples, Bush fakes a few tears, and we get the new Afghan government we wanted.
A few questions: How exactly do the evil oil baron's behind this plot (Bush, Cheney & the bin Laden's) benefit from lower oil prices? After spending many billions of dollars to pull off this plot why not just spend far less and buy the Argentine firm? Why not just have Usama topple the Taliban directly? Why pull off the plot using airplanes - a way that will surely have a huge negative effect on demand for their product (I suppose the as yet unexplained way that the oil cartel profits from lower prices would also answer this question)? Why not simply bypass Afghanistan with it's warring tribes and high mountains and build the pipeline in Iran which doesn't have those problems? Why the WTC & Pentagon? An embassy or two would have served just as well - weren't alot of the leaders of the secret military/insdustrial cabal killed at the WTC? Was it a power play within the cabal? Did one faction kill off another with this ploy? Or where they, like the Jews of the other conspiracy behind it all (according to many respectable Arab commentators), warned ahead of time? (Ahh, that explains why the Pentagon was attacked on the side furthest from Rumsfelds office!!) Was this oil cabal working in cooperation with the Isreali cabal I hear so much about on Al Jazeera? Was Vince Foster killed because he threatened to reveal this plan as well as Clinton & Bush Sr's Somolian Oil plot to the press? The military mission in support of Oil in Somalia was scuttled by Usama bin Laden's aid to Aidid - Why does Usama cooperate in the later Central Asian oil consipiracy? Is Usama bin Laden really the hero working against his own family and the rest of the Oil Cabal? Are "those of us in parts of the world with halfway credible media sources" who can "work this out" also bothered by the mysterious black helicopters that plague their comrades in America? (Apparently Aidid was - but he struck back against the cabal) Do you get visited by men in black after alien abductions like we do? Is the X-Files as credible a media outlet as the BBC?
Inquiring minds want to know - don't just hint darkly - come out and tell us plainly what your suspicions are.
If your implication is that I group people like he did then you have yet to provide support for your claim, just some innuendo.
...The US wouldn't be leading the pack if we did that.
Sorry, you misunderstood my post. I was making a (probably bad) joke based on your word choice. (Just in case you don't know "spade" is a derogatory slang term for "negro".) I made a more substantive response to your post elsewhere. No I don't think you are really a racist - just having some fun with your choice of words.
Should we make a scale about how modern a society is based on the date they gave up slavery?
The issue of slavery seemed a minor point in the original post - an aside mentioned in the last paragraph. The actual argument (while the specific numbers are wrong) is valid. China has a huge population but that does not translate into a huge market for some items (like software) because it is also a very poor country whose government is still politically and economically oppressive (though it allows a measure of freedom in a few very selective regions).
Not really - we don't do so badly at all by such a metric. The northern states would lead the world and the southern states would come about the middle of the pack - shortly after Europe and a few latin american states - but well before the rest of the world*(see note below) Actually, you may be on to something since that is not far from the economic realities either.
* Granted much of the rest of the world was under the rule of those abolitionist European powersand so slavery was outlawed there as well. However abolition was imposed by imperialist edicts and not initiated by the people of those nations. Many nations not under colonial rule continued to engage in slavery until very recently - a few STILL engage in slavery. Of those under colonial rule many of them flouted the imperial laws and some reverted to the practice of slavery after their imperialist masters left.
I believe we should better China as the more affluent a society is the less problems you have with it. Ever notice a correlation between a nations wealth and the problems that aris from it? Give China a taste of capitalism/free market and they'll take care of their Government.
All valid arguments and a reasonable point of view. And one could have a reasonable debate about which is cause and which is effect (are political and economic freedom the result or the cause of wealth). Your argument that wealth causes freedom and so we should strengthen our economic ties with China could reasonably be countered by an argument that freedom is the cause of wealth and that our economic engagment with China is just propping up an oppresive and potentially dangerous regime. My own view is middle of the road on this issue - I think we should engage with China in the hopes that such engagement will foster openness and freedom but that we should be aware that currently there is very little of either, and there should be some things that we are willing to walk away from the table over. Tolerating a little oppression in the short run because we think it will lead to greater freedom in the long run is a tricky path and we should tread it very carefully
All of this however is irrelevant to the main point of the original poster that the actual size of the Chinese market for expensive items (like Adobe's software) is smaller than it would appear becuase it's poverty and economic backwardness.
...but I call a spade a spade.
And you're accusing him of being racist?
I see an emotional argument that appears to be racist.
I'm profoundly confused by this statement. Could you please explain it? His numbers appear to be wrong, but his general point appears correct. China does in fact have a very large population yet the vast majority of that population is very poor and the small portion of it with the discretionary income sufficient to purchase software is really rather small and devotes much of that income to savings.
I don't see any emotional content in the argument whatsoever. I will concede he points out certain facts that may arouse an emotional response in you or I - the relatively recent abolition of slavery and the continued existense of practices very near to slavery. Yet he did not explicitly pass a moral judgement or appeal to emotions (i.e. we should not trade with China because of human rights abuses) but simply pointed out that an economy with these features is not one that will offer a large market for computer software despite it's large population.
Nor did he say or even imply anything racist unless it is racist to point out the fact the China is poor. If you do percieve an implicit moral argument in his bringing up child and forced labour it would NOT be racist to hold them to the same moral standards that we hold whites to. On the other hand it IS a racist argument that the Chinese (because of their race) are to be held to a lower standard than whites (Don't be hard on them, the poor savages don't know any better.)
How many other countries had abolished slavery before the US did?
Umm.. very few before the first abolition of slavery in the USA in Vermont (1777) Then three European states and their colonies (England, France, Dutch Colonies) and a few Latin American countries.
Of course I don't know how that is relevent. I took the posters main point to be that China is economically backwards only emerging from a slave economy 73 years ago (though 1929 is a generous estimate - slavery was known to exist in some remote chinese provinces as late as 1958 though the government moved aggresively against it) and still retaining many features of such an economy.
Do you know the dates for that?
Again, doesn't seem relevent but OK: Vermont 1777, Pennsylvania 1780, Massachusetts 1780, France 1791, French Colonies 1794, Reestablished in France 1801, England 1807, Chile 1823, Central America 1824, Mexico 1829, Bolivia 1831, Rest of British Empire 1833 (though Britain kept conquering colonies and abolishing slavery in them after this) France (again) 1845, French Guiana in 1848. Venezuala in 1854. Dutch Colonies 1863, USA 1865.
For the really late abolitions and continued slavery today (mostly in Africa) there is a good article here on slavery into the 21st century.
How many US states wanted to keep it and went to war over "states rights".
11
What was Davy Crocket fighting for at the Alamo? I'll give you a hint, Mexico had abolished slavery.
Granted.
And this is relevant to software sales in China... How?
It has not been proposed because HTML is not a page description language. It's a document structuring language
Despite the original intention HTML has almost NEVER been used as a document structuring language but as an easy (and really bad) page description language. Nobody uses HTML to structure their documents; they use it to display their documents. HTML has always been a bastard between page description and document structure and does neither terribly well. It was originally concieved as a document structuring language (with tags like P, STRONG, CITE, BLOCKQUOTE, H1, H2 etc.) but reflecting some confusion between structure and display it always included some display tags. With no other mechanism for defining display, people used the structure tags to define display. People used BLOCKQUOTE not because they were quoting a block of text but because they wanted margins on either side. As it developed HTML was increasingly encrusted with display tags (B, I, FONT, etc.) and hacks, particularly using TABLE to position elements. Because display is what people wanted. Unfortunately since it was never designed to do that it never did it very well and now doesn't do document structure very well either (on the few occasions someone may want to use it for that purpose). Despite these fundamental flaw HTML was a success because it was easy - attempts to address these flaws have undermined that initial advantage.
This is the gordian knot XML is designed cut. XML will handle document structure and CSS and someday XSL (eXtensible Stylesheet Language) will handle display/page description. Hopefully each component will be both more powerful for their respective function and remain easy to use (XML in my opinion succeeds in this, XSL I don't know enough about but I have high hopes).
This post is so silly I'm sure I am responding to a troll who is intentionally setting up a weak straw man for others to knock down. But the mindset you parody is so prevelant I can't overcome the temptation to be the one to knock it down.
...and all they can think about is the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR.
...or helping developing countries?
And what's wrong with that? Adobe is not a charity - and even if they were charities aren't very effective without the ALMIGHTY DOLLARS that the greedy people pursuing said dollars donate.
What about truth? What about freedom?!
They're nice and all, but you can't eat them. Also, they don't seem particularly relevent.
What about human rights...
Again seems irrelevant to a portable document format. I suppose now you can send a nicely formatted petition electronically. Is that what you are getting at?
You can't help them very much without the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR, as I said before truth and freedom (and petulant whining) are nice, but you can't eat them.
It's all well and good to be altruistically concerned with the welfare of everybody in the world but most people, including yourself, are far more concerned with the welfare of themselves and their families. Starvation in Somalia becomes only an academic concern when you yourself are starving. Altruism is a rich (or at least comfortable) mans game and you don't get rich (or even comfortable) unless you pursue the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR (at least a little) usually by being employed by someone who is pursuing the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR with great zeal.
Warnock like everybody else is primarily concerned about his own welfare, but to become wealthy he must be concerned about other peoples welfare. He must invent or sell something that will meet those other peoples needs sufficiently that they will spend their own money on his product. To produce and sell that product he must be concerned with the needs (money, health-care, vacations) of the people he will hire to help him sell his product to make himself rich. To get the money he needs to hire those employees he must concern himself with the needs of investors and fund their retirement so they won't starve when they are old. Finding himself a wealthy man. He is forced whether he wants to or not to give a large portion of his wealth to the maintenance of his government and to government charity to several hundred more people. Finally after inadvertently meeting the communications, employment, retirement and charitable needs of hundreds of thousands of people Warnock gives vastly greater sums than you or I to the poor and oppressed.
*I* know tbat. My point was that even a presumably well educated geek on slashdot didn't
Here is why they change the names of British books and films for Americans. From a few posts down:
toaster-cum-TV? (Score:2, Funny)
Wow, I didn't know a toaster could do all that! I mean, is that the greatest thing since sliced bread or what??
Sorry, couldn't help it. Seriously, is that some kind of British thing? Can someone translate?
Considering the limited exposure they get they have a pretty strong following. Few people have seen it over here but those that have love it.
I wonder though if it would have the same appeal if it had wider exposure. Part of the appeal of "cult" movies (& animations, and operating systems) is the feeling of exclusiveness. There is a sense of geeky cultural superiority - to know of and appreciate something of which most people are ignorant.
They can't do hardware without making it cost twice as much as PC hardware while doing less.
While Apple computers generally cost more it's certainly not so bad as TWICE as much. Simple clock speed comparisons are invalid since the PowerPC chip while not as much faster as Apple marketing would claim IS more powerful cycle for cycle than even the high end Intel chips never mind the cheapo chips like the Celeron processor the eOne had. In fact I would wager that the 333Mhz G3 in the original iMac was probably actually more powerful than the 433Mhz Celeron in the eOne. Both had 64MB of ram (not officially but most mac resellers throw in extra ram to compete with Apples online store without violating pricing agreements) Both had 6GB hard drives, Both had 24X CD-ROM, both had a 15" monitor, the iMac had 10/100 ethernet while the eOne only had 10base-T. the eOne was more expandable and had more ports and of course a floppy drive. Finally the eOne was significantly cheaper (though not half the price the eOne was $800 the original iMac was half again as much at $1200). After comparing the bullet items on the marketing sheets I would be curious about the relative quality of those components. Apple tends to use better quality components because the depends more on their reputation and repeat business. If a fly-by-night company like eMachines sells you a lemon it is less a problem for them than if Apple does so. I am guessing that the iMac monitor was probably somewhat higher quality and had a better picture and calibration. I know Apple generally uses better power supplies (dirty power at one office I worked at screwed up the PC's and Mac clones but the Apple boxes didn't appear to suffer at all - it also taught my employer the value of a surge protector.) Little things like that can end up costing a lot more as you add them up.
That allegedly overpriced iMac sold millions and led Apple to profits that eMachines can only dream about. Figuring out the value you get for your dollar is even more difficult today. Comparing the CPU is still problematic though Intel is winning the battle through sheer speed (I'm curiuos to see if the introduction of the G5 does anything for Apple). The OS is now very different with Apple arguably leap-frogging Windows in the places where it used to be at a disadvantage. Apple includes a lot of very good software and services for free (iTools, iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes, as well as Apache, SAMBA etc.) and Apple machines are still very well engineered and designed and generally use high quality components. I think the overall effect of these changes actually makes Apple a little better off than it was before when figuring out what you get for your dollar.
I'm a lousy typist and have a hostile relationship with proper grammer. I feel so at home on slashdot.
Apple has not been continuing to show profits.
It has shown profits for the last 3 quarters, and for the past three years before that. Not bad compared to the chronic year after year losses they used to post.
They've been losing money. Lots of it.
I will conceed that lost money in the 1st Quarter but they have shown a profit every quarter since. For the year they are down a paltry $25 million - not exactly a massive loss considering the size of the company and the size of the profits they stacked up in prior years $786 million in 2000, $601 million in 1999, $309 million in 1998.
You are right I should not have mentioned Dell which has done great - only showing a fairly small $101 million loss in the second quarter and on track to show a sizeable profit for the year. But Dell is the exception not the rule in the Wintel world. Of the other two companies I mentioned Compaq is just as fair a comparison and it has lost money 3 out of the last 4 quarters (as opposed to Apple of which the opposite is true) and Gateway has lost money every quarter this year.
I didn't mean to claim Apple was the most profitable or larger than its hardware competitors - just that recently it has done better than MOST of them.
cheap crap is the bread and butter of the computer market
Sadly this is true - Particularly for the Wintel market.
why else did Apple make/sell the iBook or the iMac?
Gee, and i thought the big complaint was that they weren't cheap enough. Yes they are cheaper than a PowerMac or PowerBook but they are (as frequently noted by the PC weenies) significantly more expensive than comperable Wintel machines. Some of that money goes into Apples higher profit margins, some goes into it's lower economies of scale - a result of it's smaller market share. But some portion of it's higher price goes into better engineering and better components. Every Mac I have ever bought, even the cheap consumer ones, is currently running just fine. Going back to my Mac Plus which I still use from time to time just because I can.
basically, it is just a Duron or a Celeron (less MHz, slower bus).
This isn't a very good comparison. The Duron and Celeron are CPU's and are designed to be the cheap, low-quality, bargain basement chips in the Wintel stable. The iMac is a whole system and to illustrate my point it does not use a lower-quality 'value' chip but the same G4 chip that is arguably of higher quality (if lower clock speed) than the top-of-the-line Pentium. Even Apples low end computers sell for a premium and that premium buys you the MacOS and quality components. I have no doubts that if I buy an iMac today it will still be running fine 5 years from now. If you have no such confidence in your Dell or Gateway (or homemade) machine that is just one of the differences between Apple and it's competitors.
Will they do the bold thing and license OS-X for non-Apple hardware and clones???
No - they will not. Despite everyones confusion on this point Apple is a HARDWARE company. The business plan and structure of the company is fundamentally different from Micro$oft. Better than 5/6ths of their revenue and profits come from Hardware sales. At one time perhaps they could have made the transition to an OS and application software vendor but that is a long lost oppurtunity. Even when they had that oppurtunity it would have been a difficult transition - it might have led to a better business model in the long run but they would have had to survive a MASSIVE downsizing. Back in those days Apple was already a huge company and Microsoft was comparitively tiny (and primarily pursuing the Mac application business). Even as late as 1997 when Micro$oft had 90% of the OS marketshare Apple was still a bigger company!! (according to their Fortune 500 ranking Apple was #150 Microsoft was #172) Imagine the difficulties and risks entailed in making a transition from a HUGE and reasonably profitable hardware manufacturer to a much smaller and only specutively more profitable software vendor.
What Katz is saying is that McDonalds is more successful (with success defined, I assume, as profits) than a 5* Michelin-approved restaurant.
No Katz is not defining success as profits, because if he was he would have noticed that Apple is a success on those terms. He is defining success as market domination a la Micro$oft. Apple may have at one time defined success the same way but that was a long time ago. Now they are happy to be profitable and their marketshare goal is not to "win" and become a monopoly but to get another 4.5-5% and doubling their share (and and revenue and profits)
.. the obvious fact that Apple has made an inferior OS for most of this history. Only OS-X attempts to try and catch up
I think OS-X is in a position not only to catch up but to leap frog it's competitors.
If Macs had better "ease of use, safety, and utility", I'd still be using one. Instead, their market share does indeed reflect their failure in this regard.
Granted they dropped the ball in OS development. As the MacOS got long in the tooth it became increasingly unstable and as their marketshare dropped they were abandoned by software developers and so lost out on "utility". But they were losing the war for marketshare even when they had a distinct advantage in all of those areas. It came down to price. The question is not so much about how Apple dropped the ball in the 80's and 90's but how it should move forward now. Being "cool" is not as Katz would imply a distraction that gets in the way of attracting new users. Far from it, "coolness" is necessary to overcome the disadvantages of high prices and low marketshare that Apple is stuck with as a result of those earlier missteps.
As for safety, of course you get less virus problem with Mac: when you have hardly anyone making software for a system, this includes hardly any viruses.
Part of the better security for the Mac is a function of it's smaller marketshare but part of it is also a (slightly) better attitude about security at Apple than at Microsoft. Apple seems to have more security minded defaults. As to the general compaint of less software: while Apple doesn't have the insane amount of software titles available that windows has it still has plenty of software titles and developers. You may not have 100's of titles for every possible category but you will likely have 2-5 strong competitors. I have yet to run across a need that I couldn't find software to meet. (Admittedly most of my needs are in graphics and web development two areas where Apple has a strong presence.) Now that MacOS X is BSD based there is even more software available particularly server software an area where Apple had been weak is now a strength.
this cycle seems to be 3 or 4 years with the ever important, and economy driving, middle class... most, not all, but most, computers will not last that long,
Huh??? What kind of cheap crap computers are you buying? I've used almost all of my Macs at least that long if not longer before upgrading. I'm currently using a beige G3, 233 Mhz bought in 1998. (I'll probably upgrade soon, OSX runs pretty slow at 233Mhz) My secondary machine is a 7200, 120Mhz bought in 1995. I even have a Mac Plus bought in 1986 that runs just fine - I don't use it for much, just a conversation piece but it runs perfectly. This new iMac WILL "live up the that kind of reliablity" because Macs are engineered to last that long. Not all of that price premium is for good looks, Apple also tends to use better quality parts and does quality engineering.
Apple's 4.5% share seems a lot less relevant when compared to the 95% Windows has, than BMW having 3% when the number one manufacturer (toyota) probably only has about 10%!
Yes, but you are only thinking about Apple as an OS software vendor. But from an economic standpoint Apple is not an OS vendor but a computer manufacturer that happens to develop and maintain it's own OS to differentiate it's product. That is what Apple IS, that is how they make their money. All their software (not just the OS, but Final Cut Pro, Filemaker, WebObjects, Quicktime etc.) brings in only about 1/6th of their revenue. The remaining 5/6ths is all from hardware sales. In that light it is in a much more valid comparison. Apple does VERY well in marketshare when compared to it's hardware competitors, and does even BETTER than it's competitors (at least recently) in terms of stability and profitability. While Dell, Compaq, Gateway etc. are laying off employees, and cutting each others throats in a price war; Apple, protected from the competition by it's OS and it's "coolness" continues to show a profit and even expand.
I'm sorry Katz but can't you expend a little more energy THINKING before you open your mouth? I particularly like the argument that Windows is a success because it has better "ease of use, safety and utility" than the Mac. Apple is aimed directly at the people you say it should be aimed at: The technophobic masses. It already has "ease of use" it already has "safety" (you wouldn't believe the number of times I get a message to 'look out' for a mail virus going around - that I just happily ignore) it already has "utility."
The ingredients Apple is missing to become a success (apparently defined by Katz not as profitability but only by market dominance) are the two ingredients he failed to mention.
The first is that market dominance/monopoly that guarantees that even an inferior OS will have a plethora of software available for it. Apple is in the unenviable and paradoxical position of having to succeed (gain marketshare) in order to create the conditions required to succeed (attract developers) Fortunately Apple has just enough marketshare to attract just enough software titles to maintain it's "utility."
The second missing ingredient is a competitive PRICE. Of course to be successful as defined by most businesses Apple must be PROFITABLE which unlike it's hardware competitors in the current market Apple IS. And it is profitable because of it's higher margins. Also, in order to justify those higher margins it must take on far greater costs in R&D (compared to other box makers) with far fewer economies of scale (compared to the wintel industry as a whole). Apple will always have a disadvantage in price which to a large extent is unavoidable.
So how can Apple address these two inherent disadvantages? How does it increase it's marketshare and so increase it's utility by increasing software availablity? How does it attract developers even though it's marketshare is small? How does it compensate for it's unavoidably higher price? By being "cool"!! Being "cool" gets it noticed (and maybe even purchased) by those technophobic masses that otherwise would just go along with the herd - even though the Mac better serves them because it HAS better "ease of use, safety and utility"