Your talking to somebody who's had his Linux/Apache server rooted shortly after putting it on-line. I neglected to get the latest security updates. Which is it: I'm an idiot or did the developers build me a faulty airplane?
"So, you may have saved money on the bottom line, but you have squandered trust the consumer had for you. At some point in the future, you will realize what a valuable commodity this was and how expensive it is to re-acquire."
I like how it's completely Microsoft's fault even though a.) some dickhead maliciously broke into their server b.) it could have been prevented by the non-MS people in charge by staying up to date.
Can we at least make a couple of 'Insightful' speeches about the real bad guy?
"In an accounting sense, it depends on how you define "profit"."
That's a big problem with Gord's assessment. 'Profit' wasn't defined at all. Not even in the terms you mentioned.
Even if Sony was saying they'd make that much AFTER recouping their 2 billion dollar investment, it still doesn't add up. If they sold 5 million units with a $120 profit on each one, that's still only 600 million. 10 million? Okay, 1.2 billion. Catch my drift?
I understand that Sony did a lot of their own production. But I do find it curious that if it was really all that lucrative, then why are they using an IBM processor and an NVidia graphics chip? There's probably a strong rationale for this, no worries, but I still find this to be a bit of an odd change for Sony.
On top of all that, if the PS2s initially were that lucrative, why only a 400 million dollar profit? Why hasn't Sony denied this 'myth'? Why is Gord the only guy publishing this info?
Some of my questions probably have rational answers, but I still can't help but think that he read too much in a document intended to make shareholders of Sony stock happy.
" but what about cell phones? Aren't their battery lifetimes inflated MUCH more than that of the iPod?"
There are some key differences between a cell phone and an iPod:
1.) An iPod's battery life isn't dependent on how close it is to a cell tower.
2.) The only real reason to have an iPod on is to play music. A cell phone stays on to monitor whether or not it's recieving calls.
3.) This sort of relates to 2, but I'm going to go into a little more detail. Cell phones these days do other things besides make/recieve calls. My phone, for example, also works as an alarm clock and appointment calendar. The more I do with it (i.e. playing with settings), the more the battery is drained.
Yes, cell phone battery life is disgustingly optimistic, but its use is nowhere near as consistent as an iPod's.
"But I'm torn. $50 in Apple pr0n or join the evil empire of class action lawsuits where the lawyeres get huge chunks of the settlement and the 'injured' party gets a gift cert or a measly check relatively speaking to the cost of the item you bought."
The silver lining is that the 'evil empire' is going to think harder about how Apple presents its future products. I don't have an iPod, but if I did, I'd join the suit just to send Apple a message that I want realistic expectations of the stuff I buy of theirs.
"Why would the type of headphones attached change the drain on the battery?"
Does it really matter if it affects battery life? The point is to have a consistent and fair test that everybody can agree on. The iPod comes with earbuds, so it makes sense.
Although, if I'm right about that, I wonder why they didn't specify a volume setting or bit-rate for the music being played. Eh, maybe this post is just chocked full of poo.
"Hm. This seems a bit of an odd move, unless they're dropping it to try to get back below the $400 price point, in which case it makes total sense."
Makes you wonder if they're overloading it a bit in the graphics department.
Me personally: I'd rather they lowered the clock speed (thus lowering the price of the CPUs) and put the savings into more RAM. That'd be a cute way to kick the XBOX 360 in the ass.
"Just to (sort-of) back that up, here's a bit of history:"
Errm. Take what 'Gord' says with a grain of salt. His blabber about the PS2 not being sold for a loss is based on some seriously questionable logic. (For example: If Sony was making $120 per PS2, then why did they need to sell another million to actually turn a profit?)
I find it really amusing that so many people bought that little work of fiction.
Nintendo makes a billion dollars of profit compared to Sony's 400 million, and that's a 'bullshit statistic'?
"... but with the threat of the entrance of Sony into handheld, and perhaps cel-phone type gaming platforms, Nintendo is in serious trouble."
You mean like Nintendo was in trouble SNK, Nec, Tiger, Sega (twice), and a bunch of no-name companies entered the market?
This has been pointed out before, but I figure it's worth reminding you again: You're coming from an ignorant point of view.
a.) Nintendo doesn't make money from selling consoles. (Just like Sony and Microsoft don't.) They make it from games, just like Sony and Microsoft do. The big difference is that Nintendo is a FIRST PARTY game developer. In other words, when they release a million+ seller, they reap a shitload of money over it. BTW, they do this quite regularly.
b.) Nintendo didn't 'cheat' by having high portable sales. They're not 'afloat' with portable sales because it's an untapped market. They're making ridiculous profits over it because they're the only company who has demonstrated that they know what they're doing in this market. They've made lightning strike TWICE here. (Original Game Boy, and GBA.) Sega's tried twice and failed. SNK enjoyed a little success, but couldn't keep up. Atari, NEC, and Sega released really powerful portable systems, but that wasn't enough to give them any real market share.
In other words, there's no guarantees that Sony will disrupt Nintendo in the portable market. They may actually manage to get some market share out of it, but there's still the problem that Nintendo is a damn good game developer.
You can cry bullshit all you want, but you really should be mindful that you're narrowing your view way too much to make Nintendo look bad and Sony look good.
"Proper sysadmins use a command line, and to use a command line, you need a proper keyboard."
a.) Actually, no. You can easily do case sensitive command line stuff with a TabletPC. It's not as fast as a keyboard, I'll grant you that.
b.) You have a very narrow view of what a Sysadmin does. He does not spend 100% of his time in a terminal window, especially if he's doing something like software inventory or verifying if a particular ethernet cable is working.
"Sony is facing a similar situation with PlayStation Portable (and the PS2 before that, but the PS2 was able to overcome this obstacle very quickly because of strong sales)."
"Handwriting: vastly slower than typing, even for crummy typists like me."
Keyboards may be the fastest, but they only work if you have a flat surface to lay the input device on. For mobile applications, you have two options:
1.) Thumb board. 2.) Stylus and handwriting recog OR an OSK
The thumb board is not a keyboard, but faster than text input. However, it eats up badly needed space.
The stylus interface is probably the slowest UI for typing/writing, but it also works like a mouse, which is much faster than a keyboard for a lot of UI related tasks.
Let me put it another way: I have a TabletPC. In one mode, I have a mouse + KB. In the other mode, I have simply a stylus. When I'm sitting at a desk, the KB + mouse is much preferred. When I'm walking around the office and using my TPC, the stylus is far better. I can hold the TPC in one hand and my other hand works the stylus.
Which is better depends on the context. And, seeing as how the Newton was a hand held device...
"I know some of you don't like the idea of Tablet PC but I think they are terrific personally."
Truth be told, I'm stunned that the Slashdot community hasn't gone wild over the concept. (I suspect that the main reason here is that MS is touting it, therefore everybody goes into cynic mode...)
The appeal of the TPC isn't the handwriting or all that malarky, it's that you can hold the unit and provide input to it while you're standing. In other words, you don't need a flat surface to use it like you do with a laptop. For anybody doing a sysadmin'ish job (or carrying a clipboard around), it's MUCH preferable to a laptop.
I bought mine so I could have an all-digital sketch pad, but I've found that being able to use it in more places (i.e. on the couch or a cramped airplane) to be a surprising and unexpected benefit. It's a portable computer that's significantly more portable than the traditional laptop.
Honestly, I'm surprised this concept isn't getting more cheers around here. WiFi and portable devices are a BFD, but TabletPC's arent?
"Use proper grammatical sentences. This is Slashdot - we have standards to maintain."
I was following the standard! I post using bad grammar, the grammar nazis come out and correct it! If I didn't do that, how else would we show off our amazing ability to dwell on the superficial?
Slashdot Mirror
"But at least it wasn't a faulty $1000 airplane built by a company with $50B available that could have funded design reviews and testing."
Funny, my 'faulty $1000 airplane' ran for nearly 2 years without an exploit or a reboot.
"The site is running IIS/6.0. (obviously) Does this mean that it hard to patch Windows/IIS ?"
Difficulty is not necessarily a prerequisite to neglect. Ask any woman who's ever bitched about the elevation of the toilet seat.
"It is MS's fault because MS did not do enough to ensure their subcontractor ran a secure system:"
If the contractors didn't live up to their end of the contract, the burden's on them.
"Why was a patch required? (Faulty airplane.)"
Your talking to somebody who's had his Linux/Apache server rooted shortly after putting it on-line. I neglected to get the latest security updates. Which is it: I'm an idiot or did the developers build me a faulty airplane?
"So, you may have saved money on the bottom line, but you have squandered trust the consumer had for you. At some point in the future, you will realize what a valuable commodity this was and how expensive it is to re-acquire."
I like how it's completely Microsoft's fault even though a.) some dickhead maliciously broke into their server b.) it could have been prevented by the non-MS people in charge by staying up to date.
Can we at least make a couple of 'Insightful' speeches about the real bad guy?
"Looks like they didn't install SP2, enabled the firewall, and have automatic download of Windows Updates enabled."
Probably not since they weren't using XP as a server.
"Yet another security issue related to microsoft."
Actually, it was related to a patch not getting installed. (Pilot error.)
"In an accounting sense, it depends on how you define "profit"."
That's a big problem with Gord's assessment. 'Profit' wasn't defined at all. Not even in the terms you mentioned.
Even if Sony was saying they'd make that much AFTER recouping their 2 billion dollar investment, it still doesn't add up. If they sold 5 million units with a $120 profit on each one, that's still only 600 million. 10 million? Okay, 1.2 billion. Catch my drift?
I understand that Sony did a lot of their own production. But I do find it curious that if it was really all that lucrative, then why are they using an IBM processor and an NVidia graphics chip? There's probably a strong rationale for this, no worries, but I still find this to be a bit of an odd change for Sony.
On top of all that, if the PS2s initially were that lucrative, why only a 400 million dollar profit? Why hasn't Sony denied this 'myth'? Why is Gord the only guy publishing this info?
Some of my questions probably have rational answers, but I still can't help but think that he read too much in a document intended to make shareholders of Sony stock happy.
" but what about cell phones? Aren't their battery lifetimes inflated MUCH more than that of the iPod?"
There are some key differences between a cell phone and an iPod:
1.) An iPod's battery life isn't dependent on how close it is to a cell tower.
2.) The only real reason to have an iPod on is to play music. A cell phone stays on to monitor whether or not it's recieving calls.
3.) This sort of relates to 2, but I'm going to go into a little more detail. Cell phones these days do other things besides make/recieve calls. My phone, for example, also works as an alarm clock and appointment calendar. The more I do with it (i.e. playing with settings), the more the battery is drained.
Yes, cell phone battery life is disgustingly optimistic, but its use is nowhere near as consistent as an iPod's.
"But I'm torn. $50 in Apple pr0n or join the evil empire of class action lawsuits where the lawyeres get huge chunks of the settlement and the 'injured' party gets a gift cert or a measly check relatively speaking to the cost of the item you bought."
The silver lining is that the 'evil empire' is going to think harder about how Apple presents its future products. I don't have an iPod, but if I did, I'd join the suit just to send Apple a message that I want realistic expectations of the stuff I buy of theirs.
"Why would the type of headphones attached change the drain on the battery?"
Does it really matter if it affects battery life? The point is to have a consistent and fair test that everybody can agree on. The iPod comes with earbuds, so it makes sense.
Although, if I'm right about that, I wonder why they didn't specify a volume setting or bit-rate for the music being played. Eh, maybe this post is just chocked full of poo.
"Hm. This seems a bit of an odd move, unless they're dropping it to try to get back below the $400 price point, in which case it makes total sense."
Makes you wonder if they're overloading it a bit in the graphics department.
Me personally: I'd rather they lowered the clock speed (thus lowering the price of the CPUs) and put the savings into more RAM. That'd be a cute way to kick the XBOX 360 in the ass.
"Just to (sort-of) back that up, here's a bit of history:"
Errm. Take what 'Gord' says with a grain of salt. His blabber about the PS2 not being sold for a loss is based on some seriously questionable logic. (For example: If Sony was making $120 per PS2, then why did they need to sell another million to actually turn a profit?)
I find it really amusing that so many people bought that little work of fiction.
Nintendo makes a billion dollars of profit compared to Sony's 400 million, and that's a 'bullshit statistic'?
"... but with the threat of the entrance of Sony into handheld, and perhaps cel-phone type gaming platforms, Nintendo is in serious trouble."
You mean like Nintendo was in trouble SNK, Nec, Tiger, Sega (twice), and a bunch of no-name companies entered the market?
This has been pointed out before, but I figure it's worth reminding you again: You're coming from an ignorant point of view.
a.) Nintendo doesn't make money from selling consoles. (Just like Sony and Microsoft don't.) They make it from games, just like Sony and Microsoft do. The big difference is that Nintendo is a FIRST PARTY game developer. In other words, when they release a million+ seller, they reap a shitload of money over it. BTW, they do this quite regularly.
b.) Nintendo didn't 'cheat' by having high portable sales. They're not 'afloat' with portable sales because it's an untapped market. They're making ridiculous profits over it because they're the only company who has demonstrated that they know what they're doing in this market. They've made lightning strike TWICE here. (Original Game Boy, and GBA.) Sega's tried twice and failed. SNK enjoyed a little success, but couldn't keep up. Atari, NEC, and Sega released really powerful portable systems, but that wasn't enough to give them any real market share.
In other words, there's no guarantees that Sony will disrupt Nintendo in the portable market. They may actually manage to get some market share out of it, but there's still the problem that Nintendo is a damn good game developer.
You can cry bullshit all you want, but you really should be mindful that you're narrowing your view way too much to make Nintendo look bad and Sony look good.
" PS2 fans tend to call that unfair, citing reasons such as the GBA costing way less and providing way less."
"Your honor, I object!"
"Why?"
"It's devastating to my case!!"
"Proper sysadmins use a command line, and to use a command line, you need a proper keyboard."
a.) Actually, no. You can easily do case sensitive command line stuff with a TabletPC. It's not as fast as a keyboard, I'll grant you that.
b.) You have a very narrow view of what a Sysadmin does. He does not spend 100% of his time in a terminal window, especially if he's doing something like software inventory or verifying if a particular ethernet cable is working.
I'm talking experience here, not theory.
"Sony is facing a similar situation with PlayStation Portable (and the PS2 before that, but the PS2 was able to overcome this obstacle very quickly because of strong sales)."
Hopefully this article will put to rest that myth that the PS2 was never sold at a loss.
"Handwriting: vastly slower than typing, even for crummy typists like me."
Keyboards may be the fastest, but they only work if you have a flat surface to lay the input device on. For mobile applications, you have two options:
1.) Thumb board.
2.) Stylus and handwriting recog OR an OSK
The thumb board is not a keyboard, but faster than text input. However, it eats up badly needed space.
The stylus interface is probably the slowest UI for typing/writing, but it also works like a mouse, which is much faster than a keyboard for a lot of UI related tasks.
Let me put it another way: I have a TabletPC. In one mode, I have a mouse + KB. In the other mode, I have simply a stylus. When I'm sitting at a desk, the KB + mouse is much preferred. When I'm walking around the office and using my TPC, the stylus is far better. I can hold the TPC in one hand and my other hand works the stylus.
Which is better depends on the context. And, seeing as how the Newton was a hand held device...
"Though Nintendo hasn't done very well compared to the PS2, they have a strong hold on the portable gaming market."
Nintendo may not have made #1, but they still made a healthy profit. If anybody's curious, that's also why Apple's still around.
"I know some of you don't like the idea of Tablet PC but I think they are terrific personally."
Truth be told, I'm stunned that the Slashdot community hasn't gone wild over the concept. (I suspect that the main reason here is that MS is touting it, therefore everybody goes into cynic mode...)
The appeal of the TPC isn't the handwriting or all that malarky, it's that you can hold the unit and provide input to it while you're standing. In other words, you don't need a flat surface to use it like you do with a laptop. For anybody doing a sysadmin'ish job (or carrying a clipboard around), it's MUCH preferable to a laptop.
I bought mine so I could have an all-digital sketch pad, but I've found that being able to use it in more places (i.e. on the couch or a cramped airplane) to be a surprising and unexpected benefit. It's a portable computer that's significantly more portable than the traditional laptop.
Honestly, I'm surprised this concept isn't getting more cheers around here. WiFi and portable devices are a BFD, but TabletPC's arent?
"Old news for Nerds. Stuff that doesn't matter."
Yet, still interesting enough to post a comment in. I wouldn't mind, but more comments means more apparent interest in these stories.
"Judging from the quality of some of the Photoshopped images I've seen out there, I really don't want to see what people will create with this..."
And with the clone tool I made... a monkey with four asses. Huh.
"Use proper grammatical sentences. This is Slashdot - we have standards to maintain."
I was following the standard! I post using bad grammar, the grammar nazis come out and correct it! If I didn't do that, how else would we show off our amazing ability to dwell on the superficial?
"This wonderful song used to cheer up the Japanese kids while they starving during WWII."
Ugh. I just watched Grave of the Fireflies the other day. If anybody's curious, that movie gives his post a lot more meaning.