Risk vs. reward for the decision-maker is going to be a key factor. If I am a CIO or CTO I am likely unwilling to bet my career on the risk of the unknown. There are possibly great cost advantages to deploying Linux on the desktop in the enterprise, but if that's not a primary focus area for the head of corporate technology then it is better to stay with what is know to work. Security factors are another big consideration, but in both of these cases it's a bit of a leap of faith. Windows is the known quantity and there is a massive budget in place around it. In other words, the main technology decision-maker is not likely to be rewarded as a hero for the advantages that Linux might bring, but would be sacrificed for any unforeseen downsides. One does not have to be too risk-averse to see why Microsoft remains entrenched.
Eisner & Co. may get the last laugh. The Pixar deal has one more picture to go, "Cars" in November 2005. Disney has said that the previous offer that Pixar rejected was the best they would offer and if they return to the bargaining table will not even be that generous again. Of course there is a lot of corporate posturing going on here by both sides and both companies are run by men of extraordinary egos. Pixar stands to gain huge by owning their movies and just cutting a distribution deal - as George Lucas has with Fox for the Star Wars franchise. But Disney has an Ace up their sleeve. They will retain the sequel rights to all the Pixar movies made under the current contract. So they can churn out straight-to-video sequels to Toy Story at will. The Incredibles practically begs for a sequel. But ask yourself if you want the company responsible for The Lion King 1 1/2 or The Return of Jafar (aka Aladdin II) to make them. Can the Pixar talent that crafted these films bear to see that happen? Can they cut all ties to their creations and move forward with the same drive and determination? And will they continue to create new films that are both critical and commercial hits? While they are contemplating this Disney has a lot of time and money to build a new kind of animation studio to compete with Pixar. Maybe they will even find some of that old time Disney magic and start prioritizing great storytelling. I'm still willing to bet on Pixar in head to head competition, but I think Disney is in a much better bargaining position than most people realize.
Of course Jef means programs written in Apple Basic and run on an original Apple or Apple II computer (i.e., simple programs on a simple computer platform). I suppose this was true partly because there was so little overhead then in terms of loading graphics, libraries, and such, as well as maintaining background processes and preemptively multitasking other applications. And the programs did so much less. Running an app written in BASIC on a primitive computer to print "Hello, World" can be faster than launching an app written in C++ under XP or OS X that does the same thing. As the application gets more complicated the modern faster hardware will eventually overcome the burden of the initial launch and the increased overhead and beat the old platform on a program that does the exact same thing. But that's all academic anyway since modern applications on modern computers usually do so much more. I think Jef is pining more for simplicity than the actual computers and OS of yore.
Something just occurred to me. If cars had something imbedded in their rear bumper that could be sensed from a distance, such an avoidance system could actually work. Let's say the government could mandate all new cars have a low-powered transmitter with a unique identifier. Let's call it a radio frequency identification system. The car would also have a collision avoidance system with a sensor in front that detects these so-called RFIDs so it can tell the distance of a object and if that object is a car - at least a new RFID-equipped car. It would ignore proximity warnings of any other object. Anything else is likely a stationary object anyway so it would only really be effective for avoiding a slowing vehicle in front since the speed differential would be less. A side benefit would be that sensors could be set up in various locations to monitor the chips in the bumper and since they are unique our overlords could track individuals wherever they go. The public might object at first to allowing this, but it could be sold in the name of safety. If that doesn't work then there might be some way to spin it as a defense against terrorism. Just a thought.
Interesting perspective. Of course if we didn't have babies there would be no human race. That's not to say that any one individual's decision will really make a difference. Just like an election will happen whether or not you vote. But there must be something ingrained in us that makes us not just have babies (that could be explained away in physical terms) but raise them. There are obviously many reasons that we desire babies and go through incredible effort and sacrifice to raise them, even if it is not easy to articulate. You could also look at your question as a challenge to any altruistic activity at all. After all, why hold the door open for a stranger? There's no benefit to you. I'm sure that you don't act selfishly and without regard for the feelings of others in all aspects of your life, but you might not have a compelling explanation for why you would be motivated to do anything for anyone else if it has no benefit to you. Whatever is in us that drives that sense of altruistic behavior might be similar to what motivates us to raise children. Regardless, people ought to stop bothering you about having children. That's obnoxious.
Come on now, Steve. There are three ways to get music onto a portable digital music player: paid downloads, rip from CDs (or other source) one already owns, or to "steal" it from another source. In the paid downloads category the iTunes Music Store dominates. It's far and away the market leader and those tracks can only be played on the iPod. All the other players that are capable of playing Microsoft's Windows Media format with DRM can get music from a variety of paid download services. But if more people by far are downloading legitimately from iTunes, and necessarily are playing such legal, paid-for music on their iPods, doesn't it stand to reason that iPod owners are more likely to have legally downloaded music than users of other portable players? Furthermore, Mac users have demonstrated over the years that they will pay more for hardware/OS/software that they perceive to be better. The iTunes Music Store was launched first for Mac users because it was reasoned that they would be willing to pay for the quality and ease of using the legal channel over the free file sharing networks. To the extent that Mac users represent a higher percentage of iPod owners than of other brands, doesn't it also stand to reason that the iPod user base is more likely to pay for their content? This is not to say that there is not music from dubious sources, or "stolen" to use Balmer's term, on iPods just like on other players, but I think it very likely that iPods contain a lower percentage of such content than the Windows Media players.
"Can't tell the difference between a dissenting viewpoint and a flame."
Perhaps stupid me for posting instead of moderating. My point was really my internal thought process on Java, since I am not a programmer. I am disappointed that it didn't live up to its advance billing and bring more applications to the various mobile devices I've used over the years, or to my Mac. No disrespect to Java as a language, since I understand it has many advantages. I can handle the karma hit so I thought it worthwhile to pose an alternate viewpoint. Live and learn.
"Frankly, if he was any good at all, he wouldn't be on PBS. Sort of a slam at PBS out of nowhere, but it's true enough."
He is on PBS because he is forbidden by a legal settlement from writing for technology publications. In return he gets to continue to use his nom de plume, Robert X. Cringley, which he appropriated from Infoworld magazine. He was one of a series of authors of a gossip column written under that fictional name before he took it as his own to continue his career elsewhere.
"DVDs are cheaper per GB, and in 5 years optical storage will still be cheaper per GB than hard disks."
But that's based on the assumption that drives would be used in the same way as optical storage discs. They won't. A drive can be reused whereas a disc has to be pressed and incurs the cost of the distribution and inventory system. There is more to consider than the raw cost of the media itself. Rewritable drives would not have to be created, formatted with content, and stored for a single use (short rental life as a new release) before discarding.
That's Cuban's argument as I see it. It's hard to say in the future which would really be the best form of distribution. Rewritable high-capacity optical discs could well be more cost-effective than magnetic hard drives. Or that 100 Mbits to the home he anticipates would seem to make physical distribution unnecessary.
First, the U.S. telecoms are not "losing." I work for one and it is making more money than ever. Sure land line usage has decreased for the first time ever, but revenue is up as more homes embrace broadband. And don't forget who owns the wireless companies.
Second, the "old wires" are not "gonna start to be taken down." There is a billion dollar infrastructure buried under the U.S. that's going nowhere. And a century of tweaking has made it rock solid. A new generation growing up on wireless phones won't appreciate the five nines of reliability that the PSTN provides, but most of the population is nowhere near ready to give up the phone line that stays up during power failures.
That said, the future is certainly IP based. The phone company knows that and will be well positioned to be the dominant provider. The RBOCs and the cable companies are the only players likely to survive in the broadband and IP-based future.
The problem is that as soon as you've taken a company public, it isn't your baby anymore.
Right, it belongs to the share holders. Or more specifically to the votes corresponding to those outstanding shares. The interesting thing here is that Google's founders and insiders gave themselves supershares with 10x voting rights. So while Google is a public company it is tightly controlled almost like a private company. In a sense this is a benefit because if you presume the current owners know best them they are free to run the company as they see fit without pleasing the share-holders for the short term. The market can decide if that is a good thing over time.
Right. Except for the fact that you can buy a CD from any of approximately 1 million stores, rip the MP3's, and play them on your iPod. Or acquire MP3's through any other means and play them on your iPod.
And the music you buy from iTunes can be played on any CD player.
But other than that they're an evil monopoly stifling your consumer choice. It's too bad there are not other online music stores or portable players.
From today's Wall Street Journal article on automobile black boxes:
"A few Ford vehicles, including the Lincoln LS, F series pickups, Thunderbird and Explorer, have a more advanced recorder that's part of an electronic throttle system that also stores vehicle speed and braking information for the last five seconds before a crash. In 2005, Ford's Navigator, Expedition, E series vans and Aviator will also have the system."
So the data is kept indefinitely after a crash, or presumably an airbag deployment. The recorder constantly records the specific data mentioned, speed and braking, and holds only the last five seconds at any given moment. The recording stops and the information is locked in on impact. Thus accident investigators have access to those critical seconds just before the crash. A cop cannot run to your vehicle and download incriminating evidence during a traffic stop.
A system like this seems ideal to me. Sure an insurance company can use the data against you, but they can do that right now by using the inferences of investigators or even their own conclusions to punish you the same way. This technology just allows for more accuracy in determining fault. The bigger concern would be the slippery slope argument where we could instead have more data recorded, the data held for longer, and wireless access to it. Then you could be revealing yourself as a reckless speeder just by passing by a tollbooth that reads your driving history.
Funny, but actually there are two about Google - one about its IPO price being too high and a sign of arrogance, and one about it being hit by MyDoom. Plus one article about Real hacking the iPod. Nothing about Open Source being a security threat though. Must've read that at a less reputable source.
"I feel like 'Cactus Gavvy' Cravath. Do you know who that is? Right. Nobody does. He's the guy who had the home run record before Babe Ruth came along." Tom Walsh, of Washington, D.C., who held the record for "Jeopardy" winnings until Ken Jennings of Salt Lake City broke it recently
We're getting a little far from the original recommendation by Gartner that, "Companies should consider banning portable storage devices such as Apple's iPod from corporate networks as they can be used to introduce malware or steal corporate data." That's a lot different than saying you can't listen to your MP3 player.
Are you actually building an office? That is, will you have a say in where walls and offices are constructed?
I am a fan of a floorplan that has offices at or near the center, cubes around the perimeter, and lots of windows. More light gets in that way and those without a walled office don't feel so much like a lower class of employee because they will be closer to the windows.
Also wireless and meeting spaces / conference rooms of various sizes encourage people to move around and collaborate.
Slashdot Mirror
Risk vs. reward for the decision-maker is going to be a key factor. If I am a CIO or CTO I am likely unwilling to bet my career on the risk of the unknown. There are possibly great cost advantages to deploying Linux on the desktop in the enterprise, but if that's not a primary focus area for the head of corporate technology then it is better to stay with what is know to work. Security factors are another big consideration, but in both of these cases it's a bit of a leap of faith. Windows is the known quantity and there is a massive budget in place around it. In other words, the main technology decision-maker is not likely to be rewarded as a hero for the advantages that Linux might bring, but would be sacrificed for any unforeseen downsides. One does not have to be too risk-averse to see why Microsoft remains entrenched.
Eisner & Co. may get the last laugh. The Pixar deal has one more picture to go, "Cars" in November 2005. Disney has said that the previous offer that Pixar rejected was the best they would offer and if they return to the bargaining table will not even be that generous again. Of course there is a lot of corporate posturing going on here by both sides and both companies are run by men of extraordinary egos. Pixar stands to gain huge by owning their movies and just cutting a distribution deal - as George Lucas has with Fox for the Star Wars franchise. But Disney has an Ace up their sleeve. They will retain the sequel rights to all the Pixar movies made under the current contract. So they can churn out straight-to-video sequels to Toy Story at will. The Incredibles practically begs for a sequel. But ask yourself if you want the company responsible for The Lion King 1 1/2 or The Return of Jafar (aka Aladdin II) to make them. Can the Pixar talent that crafted these films bear to see that happen? Can they cut all ties to their creations and move forward with the same drive and determination? And will they continue to create new films that are both critical and commercial hits? While they are contemplating this Disney has a lot of time and money to build a new kind of animation studio to compete with Pixar. Maybe they will even find some of that old time Disney magic and start prioritizing great storytelling. I'm still willing to bet on Pixar in head to head competition, but I think Disney is in a much better bargaining position than most people realize.
Of course Jef means programs written in Apple Basic and run on an original Apple or Apple II computer (i.e., simple programs on a simple computer platform). I suppose this was true partly because there was so little overhead then in terms of loading graphics, libraries, and such, as well as maintaining background processes and preemptively multitasking other applications. And the programs did so much less. Running an app written in BASIC on a primitive computer to print "Hello, World" can be faster than launching an app written in C++ under XP or OS X that does the same thing. As the application gets more complicated the modern faster hardware will eventually overcome the burden of the initial launch and the increased overhead and beat the old platform on a program that does the exact same thing. But that's all academic anyway since modern applications on modern computers usually do so much more. I think Jef is pining more for simplicity than the actual computers and OS of yore.
Something just occurred to me. If cars had something imbedded in their rear bumper that could be sensed from a distance, such an avoidance system could actually work. Let's say the government could mandate all new cars have a low-powered transmitter with a unique identifier. Let's call it a radio frequency identification system. The car would also have a collision avoidance system with a sensor in front that detects these so-called RFIDs so it can tell the distance of a object and if that object is a car - at least a new RFID-equipped car. It would ignore proximity warnings of any other object. Anything else is likely a stationary object anyway so it would only really be effective for avoiding a slowing vehicle in front since the speed differential would be less. A side benefit would be that sensors could be set up in various locations to monitor the chips in the bumper and since they are unique our overlords could track individuals wherever they go. The public might object at first to allowing this, but it could be sold in the name of safety. If that doesn't work then there might be some way to spin it as a defense against terrorism. Just a thought.
Interesting perspective. Of course if we didn't have babies there would be no human race. That's not to say that any one individual's decision will really make a difference. Just like an election will happen whether or not you vote. But there must be something ingrained in us that makes us not just have babies (that could be explained away in physical terms) but raise them. There are obviously many reasons that we desire babies and go through incredible effort and sacrifice to raise them, even if it is not easy to articulate. You could also look at your question as a challenge to any altruistic activity at all. After all, why hold the door open for a stranger? There's no benefit to you. I'm sure that you don't act selfishly and without regard for the feelings of others in all aspects of your life, but you might not have a compelling explanation for why you would be motivated to do anything for anyone else if it has no benefit to you. Whatever is in us that drives that sense of altruistic behavior might be similar to what motivates us to raise children. Regardless, people ought to stop bothering you about having children. That's obnoxious.
Come on now, Steve. There are three ways to get music onto a portable digital music player: paid downloads, rip from CDs (or other source) one already owns, or to "steal" it from another source. In the paid downloads category the iTunes Music Store dominates. It's far and away the market leader and those tracks can only be played on the iPod. All the other players that are capable of playing Microsoft's Windows Media format with DRM can get music from a variety of paid download services. But if more people by far are downloading legitimately from iTunes, and necessarily are playing such legal, paid-for music on their iPods, doesn't it stand to reason that iPod owners are more likely to have legally downloaded music than users of other portable players? Furthermore, Mac users have demonstrated over the years that they will pay more for hardware/OS/software that they perceive to be better. The iTunes Music Store was launched first for Mac users because it was reasoned that they would be willing to pay for the quality and ease of using the legal channel over the free file sharing networks. To the extent that Mac users represent a higher percentage of iPod owners than of other brands, doesn't it also stand to reason that the iPod user base is more likely to pay for their content? This is not to say that there is not music from dubious sources, or "stolen" to use Balmer's term, on iPods just like on other players, but I think it very likely that iPods contain a lower percentage of such content than the Windows Media players.
Perhaps stupid me for posting instead of moderating. My point was really my internal thought process on Java, since I am not a programmer. I am disappointed that it didn't live up to its advance billing and bring more applications to the various mobile devices I've used over the years, or to my Mac. No disrespect to Java as a language, since I understand it has many advantages. I can handle the karma hit so I thought it worthwhile to pose an alternate viewpoint. Live and learn.
Is it really Java that we love to hate, or is it the failure to live up to the "write-once, run-anywhere hype"?
He is on PBS because he is forbidden by a legal settlement from writing for technology publications. In return he gets to continue to use his nom de plume, Robert X. Cringley, which he appropriated from Infoworld magazine. He was one of a series of authors of a gossip column written under that fictional name before he took it as his own to continue his career elsewhere.
First you have to prove you can handle two buttons on your mouse. Then they will give you that fifth indicator light.
But that's based on the assumption that drives would be used in the same way as optical storage discs. They won't. A drive can be reused whereas a disc has to be pressed and incurs the cost of the distribution and inventory system. There is more to consider than the raw cost of the media itself. Rewritable drives would not have to be created, formatted with content, and stored for a single use (short rental life as a new release) before discarding.
That's Cuban's argument as I see it. It's hard to say in the future which would really be the best form of distribution. Rewritable high-capacity optical discs could well be more cost-effective than magnetic hard drives. Or that 100 Mbits to the home he anticipates would seem to make physical distribution unnecessary.
Whadya mean? I though Taco made billions on VA Linux stock.
First, the U.S. telecoms are not "losing." I work for one and it is making more money than ever. Sure land line usage has decreased for the first time ever, but revenue is up as more homes embrace broadband. And don't forget who owns the wireless companies.
Second, the "old wires" are not "gonna start to be taken down." There is a billion dollar infrastructure buried under the U.S. that's going nowhere. And a century of tweaking has made it rock solid. A new generation growing up on wireless phones won't appreciate the five nines of reliability that the PSTN provides, but most of the population is nowhere near ready to give up the phone line that stays up during power failures.
That said, the future is certainly IP based. The phone company knows that and will be well positioned to be the dominant provider. The RBOCs and the cable companies are the only players likely to survive in the broadband and IP-based future.
Right, it belongs to the share holders. Or more specifically to the votes corresponding to those outstanding shares. The interesting thing here is that Google's founders and insiders gave themselves supershares with 10x voting rights. So while Google is a public company it is tightly controlled almost like a private company. In a sense this is a benefit because if you presume the current owners know best them they are free to run the company as they see fit without pleasing the share-holders for the short term. The market can decide if that is a good thing over time.
"If I get one I have to buy music from Apple."
Right. Except for the fact that you can buy a CD from any of approximately 1 million stores, rip the MP3's, and play them on your iPod. Or acquire MP3's through any other means and play them on your iPod.
And the music you buy from iTunes can be played on any CD player.
But other than that they're an evil monopoly stifling your consumer choice. It's too bad there are not other online music stores or portable players.
From today's Wall Street Journal article on automobile black boxes:
"A few Ford vehicles, including the Lincoln LS, F series pickups, Thunderbird and Explorer, have a more advanced recorder that's part of an electronic throttle system that also stores vehicle speed and braking information for the last five seconds before a crash. In 2005, Ford's Navigator, Expedition, E series vans and Aviator will also have the system."
So the data is kept indefinitely after a crash, or presumably an airbag deployment. The recorder constantly records the specific data mentioned, speed and braking, and holds only the last five seconds at any given moment. The recording stops and the information is locked in on impact. Thus accident investigators have access to those critical seconds just before the crash. A cop cannot run to your vehicle and download incriminating evidence during a traffic stop.
A system like this seems ideal to me. Sure an insurance company can use the data against you, but they can do that right now by using the inferences of investigators or even their own conclusions to punish you the same way. This technology just allows for more accuracy in determining fault. The bigger concern would be the slippery slope argument where we could instead have more data recorded, the data held for longer, and wireless access to it. Then you could be revealing yourself as a reckless speeder just by passing by a tollbooth that reads your driving history.
Funny, but actually there are two about Google - one about its IPO price being too high and a sign of arrogance, and one about it being hit by MyDoom. Plus one article about Real hacking the iPod. Nothing about Open Source being a security threat though. Must've read that at a less reputable source.
"I feel like 'Cactus Gavvy' Cravath. Do you know who that is? Right. Nobody does. He's the guy who had the home run record before Babe Ruth came along." Tom Walsh, of Washington, D.C., who held the record for "Jeopardy" winnings until Ken Jennings of Salt Lake City broke it recently
- Newsweek 7/12/04 issue
We're getting a little far from the original recommendation by Gartner that, "Companies should consider banning portable storage devices such as Apple's iPod from corporate networks as they can be used to introduce malware or steal corporate data." That's a lot different than saying you can't listen to your MP3 player.
"What's to stop you simply encrypting the data, then wrapping it up or tagging it on the end of valid MP3 songs?"
Honesty. Dislike of prison. Attachment to receiving a paycheck. Fear of John Ashcroft.
Any number of things.
... sound of crickets chirping .....
No takers, I guess.
This is a brilliant plan for Dell employees to get iPods. Give that promotion manager a raise!
Google turns the tables to imitate its rivals. Changes motto to "Be Evil."
Are you actually building an office? That is, will you have a say in where walls and offices are constructed?
I am a fan of a floorplan that has offices at or near the center, cubes around the perimeter, and lots of windows. More light gets in that way and those without a walled office don't feel so much like a lower class of employee because they will be closer to the windows.
Also wireless and meeting spaces / conference rooms of various sizes encourage people to move around and collaborate.
In case you were wondering...
From the FAQ:
Q: Will Skype for Linux beta be made available as open source code?
A: No.
So don't expect any potential spyware to be sitting there in the code for you to look at.