It certainly appears that Jobs has no desire to sell the $10 hammer, which has kept a lot of people away from the Apple OS to begin with. I would include myself in that category.
IMHO, and it's only an opinion, I think the recession is going to drive people away from more expensive devices toward those that are a perceived bargain. Thus, if Apple can target that $10 hammer market, I think they'll do well. Jobs might think otherwise, and he's entitled to do so.
I will remain skeptical as to whether or not people will pay $1000 for something that costs much less if it's running Windows for Netbooks or Ubuntu. Again, I agree, there's a niche market for those $20 hammers, but will it sustain itself during "Recession 2009"? That remains to be seen.
Because the whole intent of a netbook is to give people a device that does less than a typical laptop, but more than a typical PDA. Thus, I would expect a netbook to lie somewhere between the iPhone and the Macbook.
I follow your logic, that you'd prefer the Cadillac over the Chevrolet. Such is your choice. However, if my goal is to own a netbook, the Dell hardware, which runs OS X very nicely, will suffice. If I want to do multimedia editing, graphic design, etc. I'm pretty sure a Mac netbook won't do. If it does, I'm not sure I would call it a netbook.
What will the price point be on this device? If it's in the $499 range, it might be worth a look. However, when I can buy a Dell Mini with a 16 GB SSD and 2 GB of memory for less than $350, and install Leopard on it for $85 + the cost of a couple of USB flash drives, why would I want to pay much more than that?
I couldn't agree more with the parent post. There is no quicker way to ensure that IT jobs get offshored than to unionize. Additionally, I don't want to answer to a monolithic quasi-political organization with an agenda that likely does not match my own.
Those of us who do IT work and are opposed to unionization likely are in IT primarily because we love what we do. If you don't like long hours, Blackberries, and being on call, then by all means, find another career path because IT isn't likely your cup of tea.
It may well be that HD DVD will be dead before the end of the year. However, that did not stop me from purchasing an HD-A3 for $129 with free shipping, no tax, and 7 HD DVDs, which I promptly eBayed for a total of $84. Thus, I acquired a device that plays "some" HD movies, and upscales most others, and plays well with my 42" LCD HDTV for a grand sum of $45. And I didn't have to give Sony a dime (like many/.ers, I refuse to even countenance Sony after their rootkit debacle). I don't feel like I wasted anything, because I guarantee you this - regular DVD isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and by the time it does, BluRay will be nowhere near the cost that it is now. Maybe then, I can feel better about having to give into Sony's dominance of the market.
"Many of these outsorcers (sic) have fairly long term commitments and can raise their prices and renogatiate at will..."
Not so, at least with my company. We offloaded some of our mundane programming tasks to an Indian firm, and the wages are fixed for 10 years, with only a cost of living increase, and limited merit increases. Otherwise, our company would not have signed the long-term contract.
And YahooMail can only be accessed through their site, which means that you see banner ads and other forms of advertisement, which means that they're getting some sort of compensation.
Not true. You can access Y! Mail via POP3... IF you pay Yahoo for the service.
I use the Plantronics M1000 ($119 MSRP), and it does just fine. I can even have coherent conversations in a machine shop, with 85 dB in the background. The cost - $51.86 plus shipping. The headsets reviewed here are far too expensive for my taste.
Actually, the statement was: "User's [sic!] can't get a list of all your shared files". In this context, it should read "Users can't get a list of all your shared files checkbox." So the original correction was correct.
to sustained success in the IT world is not being a capable programmer, but being flexible enough to use the tools that the enterprise uses -AND- being able to learn the business domain. Trust me, as an engineer, it is FAR easier to train someone in manufacturing how to program than it is to teach a coder how to be a manufacturing engineer.
Speaking for myself, I refuse to pay an email tax so Big Brother can filter my emails for me. In such a system, bulk rate fees would become inevitable (big businesses would have a cow if they had to pay "per parcel"). Larger telemarketers would gladly pay that bulk rate, and the problem would persist.
I would much prefer to use about a minute of my time to simply delete the emails that I don't want. Quite simply, I want to be able to choose the status quo, which is fine with me. Let's hope this urban legend stays an urban legend.
In free, democratic, representative societies, it is the responsibility of the governed to have oversight of those who govern them. The keyword here is responsibility. Responsible people, be they liberal or conservative, will seek such information, and base their voting decisions upon said information.
The misinformed, which would include most of the apathetic crowd, would be prone to vote online for downright asinine reasons (cute candidate, promise of government largesse, etc.) As a participant in the American constitutional republican system, I would be frightened to place such responsibility in the hands of such people. The privilege of voting should not be made easier, just for the sake of "one voter, one vote".
The market for IT jobs from where I sit has not as much become stagnant as it has become more demanding for people who understand the domain in which they are working. For example, I work for an aerospace firm. This company would, under no circumstances, hire an IT professional unless that IT professional had an understanding of the business. After all, it is FAR easier to train an aerospace engineer how to be an effective coder than it is to teach the coder how to understand aerodynamics, propulsion, and thermodynamics. If you understand your domain, you are infinitely more valuable than if you can present yourself as "just a coder".
It is my position that consumers should pay for that which they consume, and remove from their selection that which they do not. I'm not sure that I like the current business model for the simple reason that it requires me to spend on something I do not wish to use.
That being said, I also believe in the "public" airwaves which used to exist, but in their current form have such poor reception in most areas that a cable connection is almost always needed.
I believe that an amalgam of user-fees for the private airwaves, and public contributions for the "free" could result in an essentially advertisement-free business model. This would not only suffice in eliminating the ubiquitous product solicitations some of us wish to avoid, but it would actually improve the product (e.g, the better channels would survive; the lesser ones would not).
Further, if one is concerned with the absense of product visibility, it would certainly be worth a try to use product placement (E.T. eats Reese's Pieces), or non-obtrusive ads (NASCAR, or the banner at the top of soccer games). In a utopia, it could work....
But it won't because advertising executives would balk, network executives would balk, corporations that create the products would balk, etc.
So much for a more "viable" business model.
Slashdot Mirror
It certainly appears that Jobs has no desire to sell the $10 hammer, which has kept a lot of people away from the Apple OS to begin with. I would include myself in that category.
IMHO, and it's only an opinion, I think the recession is going to drive people away from more expensive devices toward those that are a perceived bargain. Thus, if Apple can target that $10 hammer market, I think they'll do well. Jobs might think otherwise, and he's entitled to do so.
I will remain skeptical as to whether or not people will pay $1000 for something that costs much less if it's running Windows for Netbooks or Ubuntu. Again, I agree, there's a niche market for those $20 hammers, but will it sustain itself during "Recession 2009"? That remains to be seen.
Because the whole intent of a netbook is to give people a device that does less than a typical laptop, but more than a typical PDA. Thus, I would expect a netbook to lie somewhere between the iPhone and the Macbook.
I follow your logic, that you'd prefer the Cadillac over the Chevrolet. Such is your choice. However, if my goal is to own a netbook, the Dell hardware, which runs OS X very nicely, will suffice. If I want to do multimedia editing, graphic design, etc. I'm pretty sure a Mac netbook won't do. If it does, I'm not sure I would call it a netbook.
What will the price point be on this device? If it's in the $499 range, it might be worth a look. However, when I can buy a Dell Mini with a 16 GB SSD and 2 GB of memory for less than $350, and install Leopard on it for $85 + the cost of a couple of USB flash drives, why would I want to pay much more than that?
I couldn't agree more with the parent post. There is no quicker way to ensure that IT jobs get offshored than to unionize. Additionally, I don't want to answer to a monolithic quasi-political organization with an agenda that likely does not match my own. Those of us who do IT work and are opposed to unionization likely are in IT primarily because we love what we do. If you don't like long hours, Blackberries, and being on call, then by all means, find another career path because IT isn't likely your cup of tea.
It may well be that HD DVD will be dead before the end of the year. However, that did not stop me from purchasing an HD-A3 for $129 with free shipping, no tax, and 7 HD DVDs, which I promptly eBayed for a total of $84. Thus, I acquired a device that plays "some" HD movies, and upscales most others, and plays well with my 42" LCD HDTV for a grand sum of $45. And I didn't have to give Sony a dime (like many /.ers, I refuse to even countenance Sony after their rootkit debacle). I don't feel like I wasted anything, because I guarantee you this - regular DVD isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and by the time it does, BluRay will be nowhere near the cost that it is now. Maybe then, I can feel better about having to give into Sony's dominance of the market.
"Many of these outsorcers (sic) have fairly long term commitments and can raise their prices and renogatiate at will..." Not so, at least with my company. We offloaded some of our mundane programming tasks to an Indian firm, and the wages are fixed for 10 years, with only a cost of living increase, and limited merit increases. Otherwise, our company would not have signed the long-term contract.
And YahooMail can only be accessed through their site, which means that you see banner ads and other forms of advertisement, which means that they're getting some sort of compensation.
Not true. You can access Y! Mail via POP3... IF you pay Yahoo for the service.
I use the Plantronics M1000 ($119 MSRP), and it does just fine. I can even have coherent conversations in a machine shop, with 85 dB in the background. The cost - $51.86 plus shipping. The headsets reviewed here are far too expensive for my taste.
Actually, the statement was: "User's [sic!] can't get a list of all your shared files". In this context, it should read "Users can't get a list of all your shared files checkbox." So the original correction was correct.
The Post article refers to a similar project initiated by John Young, a New York City architect.
FYI, Palm Digital Media has Ms. Ullman's tome available for the Palm Reader.
to sustained success in the IT world is not being a capable programmer, but being flexible enough to use the tools that the enterprise uses -AND- being able to learn the business domain. Trust me, as an engineer, it is FAR easier to train someone in manufacturing how to program than it is to teach a coder how to be a manufacturing engineer.
Speaking for myself, I refuse to pay an email tax so Big Brother can filter my emails for me. In such a system, bulk rate fees would become inevitable (big businesses would have a cow if they had to pay "per parcel"). Larger telemarketers would gladly pay that bulk rate, and the problem would persist.
I would much prefer to use about a minute of my time to simply delete the emails that I don't want. Quite simply, I want to be able to choose the status quo, which is fine with me. Let's hope this urban legend stays an urban legend.
In free, democratic, representative societies, it is the responsibility of the governed to have oversight of those who govern them. The keyword here is responsibility. Responsible people, be they liberal or conservative, will seek such information, and base their voting decisions upon said information.
The misinformed, which would include most of the apathetic crowd, would be prone to vote online for downright asinine reasons (cute candidate, promise of government largesse, etc.) As a participant in the American constitutional republican system, I would be frightened to place such responsibility in the hands of such people. The privilege of voting should not be made easier, just for the sake of "one voter, one vote".
The market for IT jobs from where I sit has not as much become stagnant as it has become more demanding for people who understand the domain in which they are working. For example, I work for an aerospace firm. This company would, under no circumstances, hire an IT professional unless that IT professional had an understanding of the business. After all, it is FAR easier to train an aerospace engineer how to be an effective coder than it is to teach the coder how to understand aerodynamics, propulsion, and thermodynamics. If you understand your domain, you are infinitely more valuable than if you can present yourself as "just a coder".
It is my position that consumers should pay for that which they consume, and remove from their selection that which they do not. I'm not sure that I like the current business model for the simple reason that it requires me to spend on something I do not wish to use. That being said, I also believe in the "public" airwaves which used to exist, but in their current form have such poor reception in most areas that a cable connection is almost always needed. I believe that an amalgam of user-fees for the private airwaves, and public contributions for the "free" could result in an essentially advertisement-free business model. This would not only suffice in eliminating the ubiquitous product solicitations some of us wish to avoid, but it would actually improve the product (e.g, the better channels would survive; the lesser ones would not). Further, if one is concerned with the absense of product visibility, it would certainly be worth a try to use product placement (E.T. eats Reese's Pieces), or non-obtrusive ads (NASCAR, or the banner at the top of soccer games). In a utopia, it could work.... But it won't because advertising executives would balk, network executives would balk, corporations that create the products would balk, etc. So much for a more "viable" business model.