Relax, I wasn't defending it, I was just suggesting that it isn't actually a big deal.
if this weren't Apple, the company in question would be ridiculed.
And if this weren't Apple the news would have sunk without comment, rather than being blown out of all proportion.
OK, so fewer than 1% of the last month's supply were actually affected. Those that were had one virus that anyone with decent up-to-date anti virus software (an accepted must on Windows boxen) would have been protected from. Do you not think calling this "virus-ridden hardware" is overstating the matter just a bit?
It'd be interesting to find out if there were in fact *any* instances of this virus getting out into the wild at the customer end? - the CNet article doesn't say but I'm guessing few if any end users were troubled by this since a good number of iPods never see the USB port of a Windows box, and those that do are usually being hooked to newish machines which should all have adequate virus protection installed and running.
it still won't impact Blizzard's bottom line, because they have masses of artists and sound engineers that I *can't* get
I can't help wondering if you've hit on the uncomfortable core of this whole argument here: vile though the DMCA is, and massively multinational though Vivendi are, Is it not possible that this isn't plain and simple evil coporate badness? maybe what's being protected here is the work of those masses of artists? in which case isn't that exactly what copyright law is supposed to be about?
The masses of (frankly, incredibly talented) artists at Blizzard aren't there as slaves to the man, they're getting paid for doing what they love (and are really good at): collaboratively producing a finished product that's then protected under copyright law, so that there's still a market for their susequent work.
If I were one of these guys I think I'd want the suits to persue this case with extreme prejudice. After all if Vivendi lost, and the courts rules it was fair use to bolt my artwork onto any old OSS RTS project, then who'd be paying for new art in a couple of years? Say what you like about Blizzard but over the years they've significantly raised the bar for the artistic standard of games.
OK, so bnetd itself is just a means to play Blizzard's games online without going through battle.net, but in legal terms that's the thin end of the wedge. Looked at in those terms, just maybe they're right to be stomping on it hard.
If we want OSS RTS gaming to flourish as competition to the big corps, we've got to do it entirely sepparately from commercial projects, and that means finding tallented digital artists who are as commited to the OSS idea as the coders are...
more of the same: up until last month I worked in a 100% Mac school where old hardware was routinely flogged off cheap or in cases where it was considered more hassle than it was worth to upgrade, given away free.
As an example, I set up my folks with a discarded G3 iMac (tray loader, revD, 333mhz) about a year ago. They spent about £70 on RAM and a new hard drive which I installed for them so it could run OS X albeit at a modest pace. That system whetted their appetite and has since been passed on again while they bought themselves a late '04 model PowerBook potentially creating a kind of "cascade switch".
Over the four years I worked at that school I took on around 10 free 'obsolete' machines (ranging from beige G3s to slot loading iMacs) three of which I found uses for myself, the rest were refurbished and went to friends and family to replace older PCs (or occasionally similar aged machines which didn't cut it any more). That's seven low-end 'switchers' which wouldn't factor in these market share calculations, though at least one that I know of resulted in a later purchase of a new Mac...
Partly this is down to the fact that Apple's machines can last longer as useful up-to-date computers: After all how many 1997 vintage Wintel boxes could be revamped with either spare parts or a modest outlay on new RAM and/pr storage to run XP? exactly.
*grins* I knew someone would say this - iSync would (you're absolutely right) be the better choice to handle a 'global' iPod sync (i.e. anything beyond just music) like I said though iTunes is what's already been introduced thtough the Gates of Troy so to speak... maybe when all these millions of PC & iPod owners have all bought their next computer (which you just know is gonna be a Mac) Apple can rationalise iPod synchronisation under the one"right" app but in the meantime doing it this way makes sense because of what the iPod is for (in the company's eyes) namely veviatlising their Mac business
I also want to know, where does this leave iPhoto? "Now, you too can organize your pictures.. in iTunes! But you don't. You just download them there. You organize your pictures in iPhoto but you download them with iTunes, but you can also do it in iTunes if you want. Got it?"
No: as I understand it iTunes 4.7 can't organise photos, that's still iPhoto's job (or Photoshop Element,or whatever the other supported PC Photo app is) it just syncs them. This makes sense for two main reasons: firstly (as others have already pointed out elsewhere) Apple would otherwise have to port iPhoto to Windows in order for PC iPod Photo owners to use the photo functionality, and the fewer iApps they're forced to port, the happier Apple is. Secondly (and probably more significantly, given this is Apple) you'd need two apps to talk to your iPod, not one. That would mess with the functional simplicity of the beast which is exactly the reverse of Apple's (winning) approach.
's a shame this all blurs the lines around what iTunes is actually for, but then again I guess that's the inevitable consequence of Apple having made iTunes and the iPod their Trojan Horse in Windowsland.
maybe it will inspire more people to get an education and boost India's GNP in technology-related businesses.
Inspiring people in India to get an education isn't a problem,inspiring themto want to stay in/return to India once they have that education is another matter. Unless the spin-offs include a lot of well paid high prestige jobs in India, this isn't really a factor.
Is Apple going to delay the G5 iBook because it'd canibalize iMac sales?
no, but they're probably going to delay the G5 iBook because it'd melt if they built one now.
The main advantage this design has over a laptop is that the computer can be cooled by air moving vertically through the components - most importantly that G5 processor which runs very very hot.
Unless the G5 Powerbook (and later iBook) designs reverse the usual laptop layout much as the new iMac has, it's going to be a while before the kind of cooling systems you can fit in a laptop (with a horizontal, not vertical mobo) will cope with the heat generated by a G5
I made the mistake myself of equating Sky+ and TiVo until I looked into it and discovered there are significant differences which (imho) make TiVo a far better platform.
Shame that the marketing might of the Murdoch media empire squashed competition in this country yet again on this one. Happily we got hold of a TiVo before they became too scarce and still enjoy the (full) service.
...or maybe the Alfa and FIAT owners who responded to the Top Gear survey were just unlucky? either way I figure that statistics based on Waranty claims are more impartially representative than consumer surveys like the Top Gear one.
I mentioned this site in another comment further down, admittedly Alfas put in a pretty poor showing (they're sixth worst, ranked between such unreliable brands as SAAB and Landrover...) but by contrast FIATs do pretty well, some individual models (including the one I currently drive) have a reliability index to rival the marques in the top ten, and the overall score for the marque is roughly on a par with that of marques like Toyota, Volvo, Nissan, Volkswagen... the company historically have a bad rep for reliability but the numbers don't bear that out, it's more about perception of the brand than what their products are actually like.
I've always thought it must have been designed as a cruel joke on the upscale SUV buyers of the world (emminently deserving targets if you ask me) that's the only sane explanation for that abberation.
I can't speak for the person you're "sitting opposite" but I've personally owned three FIATs, and had years of trouble free motoring out of each of them... then again I also happen to like the design of the Multipla (c'mon! the title for ugliest car has to go to the Porsche Cayenne!)
This worries me - I really like FIATs and to date I've never owned or wanted to own a car built by another company - I've driven plenty, I just keep coming back to FIAT, partly because (in my personal experience) they're very reliable.
At this point those of you laughing and rushing to regurgite the "Fix It Again Tony" quips from the 70s might want to check your facts against the reliability index for some of the company's recent models - as an individual model my current car (built in 2001) scores better than the any of the over all makes in the top ten list - the (mis)perception of FIATs as unreliable simply doesn't match up with the records of their current cars.
Integrating my consumer electronics (cell phone, iPod, PDA etc) with my car is something I'm really keen on, but my experience of Microsoft products makes me deeply sceptical of this alliance. As someone else pointed out, it probably owes more to FIAT's financial woes and M$'s deep pockets than the merits of their system... here's hoping it remains a cost option I can avoid and that a decent 3rd party alternative surfaces before I next change my car.
seriously though (for the benefit of all you state-side/.ers) FIAT's not the company it was way back when they were selling cars over there, their output is actually pretty damned good these days, mechanically that is - this move is likely to mean really sucky in-car electronics
nicely put: the point after all wasn't that the parent comment wasn't funny, but that (intentionally or not) it's quite patently false. arguably even an example of the self same FUD as the Money Magazine article itself.
(though personally I don't think the AC trolling of either of our comments really warranted a response)
from what I understand even the worst outcome of this WINE project would probably run faster than the piece o' shit innards this kid gutted his G5 to install, especially since the brat was too dumb to realise he could have re-used the G5's gfx card...
"fewer cars in the city" and "fewer cars on the road". What do you suppose the cars are used for?
lawn orniments perhaps? OK seriously the distinction was made because while there are fewer cars in Edinburgh there are also vastly fewer roads for them to be driven on and so there are likely to be roughly the same numbers of cars on comparable stretches of road in each city, despite there being more cars total in Houston.
I see so you meant there are fewer cars in the city, not fewer cars on the roads - it still leaves something of a hole in your argument, but either way it's just speculation eh?
Slashdot Mirror
Relax, I wasn't defending it, I was just suggesting that it isn't actually a big deal. if this weren't Apple, the company in question would be ridiculed. And if this weren't Apple the news would have sunk without comment, rather than being blown out of all proportion.
OK, so fewer than 1% of the last month's supply were actually affected. Those that were had one virus that anyone with decent up-to-date anti virus software (an accepted must on Windows boxen) would have been protected from. Do you not think calling this "virus-ridden hardware" is overstating the matter just a bit?
It'd be interesting to find out if there were in fact *any* instances of this virus getting out into the wild at the customer end? - the CNet article doesn't say but I'm guessing few if any end users were troubled by this since a good number of iPods never see the USB port of a Windows box, and those that do are usually being hooked to newish machines which should all have adequate virus protection installed and running.
it still won't impact Blizzard's bottom line, because they have masses of artists and sound engineers that I *can't* get
I can't help wondering if you've hit on the uncomfortable core of this whole argument here: vile though the DMCA is, and massively multinational though Vivendi are, Is it not possible that this isn't plain and simple evil coporate badness? maybe what's being protected here is the work of those masses of artists? in which case isn't that exactly what copyright law is supposed to be about?
The masses of (frankly, incredibly talented) artists at Blizzard aren't there as slaves to the man, they're getting paid for doing what they love (and are really good at): collaboratively producing a finished product that's then protected under copyright law, so that there's still a market for their susequent work.
If I were one of these guys I think I'd want the suits to persue this case with extreme prejudice. After all if Vivendi lost, and the courts rules it was fair use to bolt my artwork onto any old OSS RTS project, then who'd be paying for new art in a couple of years? Say what you like about Blizzard but over the years they've significantly raised the bar for the artistic standard of games.
OK, so bnetd itself is just a means to play Blizzard's games online without going through battle.net, but in legal terms that's the thin end of the wedge. Looked at in those terms, just maybe they're right to be stomping on it hard.
If we want OSS RTS gaming to flourish as competition to the big corps, we've got to do it entirely sepparately from commercial projects, and that means finding tallented digital artists who are as commited to the OSS idea as the coders are...
more of the same: up until last month I worked in a 100% Mac school where old hardware was routinely flogged off cheap or in cases where it was considered more hassle than it was worth to upgrade, given away free.
As an example, I set up my folks with a discarded G3 iMac (tray loader, revD, 333mhz) about a year ago. They spent about £70 on RAM and a new hard drive which I installed for them so it could run OS X albeit at a modest pace. That system whetted their appetite and has since been passed on again while they bought themselves a late '04 model PowerBook potentially creating a kind of "cascade switch".
Over the four years I worked at that school I took on around 10 free 'obsolete' machines (ranging from beige G3s to slot loading iMacs) three of which I found uses for myself, the rest were refurbished and went to friends and family to replace older PCs (or occasionally similar aged machines which didn't cut it any more). That's seven low-end 'switchers' which wouldn't factor in these market share calculations, though at least one that I know of resulted in a later purchase of a new Mac...
Partly this is down to the fact that Apple's machines can last longer as useful up-to-date computers: After all how many 1997 vintage Wintel boxes could be revamped with either spare parts or a modest outlay on new RAM and/pr storage to run XP? exactly.
um, nice but the link you posted lists it as $2199 - which isn't exactly "about $1000" in most people's books.
*grins* I knew someone would say this - iSync would (you're absolutely right) be the better choice to handle a 'global' iPod sync (i.e. anything beyond just music) like I said though iTunes is what's already been introduced thtough the Gates of Troy so to speak... maybe when all these millions of PC & iPod owners have all bought their next computer (which you just know is gonna be a Mac) Apple can rationalise iPod synchronisation under the one"right" app but in the meantime doing it this way makes sense because of what the iPod is for (in the company's eyes) namely veviatlising their Mac business
I also want to know, where does this leave iPhoto? "Now, you too can organize your pictures.. in iTunes! But you don't. You just download them there. You organize your pictures in iPhoto but you download them with iTunes, but you can also do it in iTunes if you want. Got it?"
No: as I understand it iTunes 4.7 can't organise photos, that's still iPhoto's job (or Photoshop Element,or whatever the other supported PC Photo app is) it just syncs them. This makes sense for two main reasons: firstly (as others have already pointed out elsewhere) Apple would otherwise have to port iPhoto to Windows in order for PC iPod Photo owners to use the photo functionality, and the fewer iApps they're forced to port, the happier Apple is. Secondly (and probably more significantly, given this is Apple) you'd need two apps to talk to your iPod, not one. That would mess with the functional simplicity of the beast which is exactly the reverse of Apple's (winning) approach.
's a shame this all blurs the lines around what iTunes is actually for, but then again I guess that's the inevitable consequence of Apple having made iTunes and the iPod their Trojan Horse in Windowsland.
a 6th cube (appropriately enough) can be found in iPhoto 4 - that same cube effect is one of the slideshow transitions :)
maybe it will inspire more people to get an education and boost India's GNP in technology-related businesses.
Inspiring people in India to get an education isn't a problem,inspiring themto want to stay in/return to India once they have that education is another matter. Unless the spin-offs include a lot of well paid high prestige jobs in India, this isn't really a factor.
Is Apple going to delay the G5 iBook because it'd canibalize iMac sales?
no, but they're probably going to delay the G5 iBook because it'd melt if they built one now.
The main advantage this design has over a laptop is that the computer can be cooled by air moving vertically through the components - most importantly that G5 processor which runs very very hot.
Unless the G5 Powerbook (and later iBook) designs reverse the usual laptop layout much as the new iMac has, it's going to be a while before the kind of cooling systems you can fit in a laptop (with a horizontal, not vertical mobo) will cope with the heat generated by a G5
I made the mistake myself of equating Sky+ and TiVo until I looked into it and discovered there are significant differences which (imho) make TiVo a far better platform.
Shame that the marketing might of the Murdoch media empire squashed competition in this country yet again on this one. Happily we got hold of a TiVo before they became too scarce and still enjoy the (full) service.
FYI the Duna wasn't built in Turin, it was built in Brazil.
...or maybe the Alfa and FIAT owners who responded to the Top Gear survey were just unlucky? either way I figure that statistics based on Waranty claims are more impartially representative than consumer surveys like the Top Gear one.
I mentioned this site in another comment further down, admittedly Alfas put in a pretty poor showing (they're sixth worst, ranked between such unreliable brands as SAAB and Landrover...) but by contrast FIATs do pretty well, some individual models (including the one I currently drive) have a reliability index to rival the marques in the top ten, and the overall score for the marque is roughly on a par with that of marques like Toyota, Volvo, Nissan, Volkswagen... the company historically have a bad rep for reliability but the numbers don't bear that out, it's more about perception of the brand than what their products are actually like.
I've always thought it must have been designed as a cruel joke on the upscale SUV buyers of the world (emminently deserving targets if you ask me) that's the only sane explanation for that abberation.
um, as an iPod owning FIAT driver I beg to differ ;p
*chortle* I take it you didn't rtfa?
To date, Microsoft's telematics customers include Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Citroen, Honda, Hyundai, Toyota and Volvo
I can't speak for the person you're "sitting opposite" but I've personally owned three FIATs, and had years of trouble free motoring out of each of them... then again I also happen to like the design of the Multipla (c'mon! the title for ugliest car has to go to the Porsche Cayenne!)
ymmv.
This worries me - I really like FIATs and to date I've never owned or wanted to own a car built by another company - I've driven plenty, I just keep coming back to FIAT, partly because (in my personal experience) they're very reliable.
At this point those of you laughing and rushing to regurgite the "Fix It Again Tony" quips from the 70s might want to check your facts against the reliability index for some of the company's recent models - as an individual model my current car (built in 2001) scores better than the any of the over all makes in the top ten list - the (mis)perception of FIATs as unreliable simply doesn't match up with the records of their current cars.
Integrating my consumer electronics (cell phone, iPod, PDA etc) with my car is something I'm really keen on, but my experience of Microsoft products makes me deeply sceptical of this alliance. As someone else pointed out, it probably owes more to FIAT's financial woes and M$'s deep pockets than the merits of their system... here's hoping it remains a cost option I can avoid and that a decent 3rd party alternative surfaces before I next change my car.
1974 called: it wants its joke back.
/.ers) FIAT's not the company it was way back when they were selling cars over there, their output is actually pretty damned good these days, mechanically that is - this move is likely to mean really sucky in-car electronics
seriously though (for the benefit of all you state-side
mmm manly
...excellent quotage though!
nicely put: the point after all wasn't that the parent comment wasn't funny, but that (intentionally or not) it's quite patently false. arguably even an example of the self same FUD as the Money Magazine article itself.
;)
(though personally I don't think the AC trolling of either of our comments really warranted a response)
But in the midst of the rescue attempt, the battery died and couldn't be replaced!
aw, see this would have been funny only you went one clause too far: everybody knows iPod batteries can easily be replaced
from what I understand even the worst outcome of this WINE project would probably run faster than the piece o' shit innards this kid gutted his G5 to install, especially since the brat was too dumb to realise he could have re-used the G5's gfx card...
"fewer cars in the city" and "fewer cars on the road". What do you suppose the cars are used for?
lawn orniments perhaps? OK seriously the distinction was made because while there are fewer cars in Edinburgh there are also vastly fewer roads for them to be driven on and so there are likely to be roughly the same numbers of cars on comparable stretches of road in each city, despite there being more cars total in Houston.
I see so you meant there are fewer cars in the city, not fewer cars on the roads - it still leaves something of a hole in your argument, but either way it's just speculation eh?