The vacuum builds up and is stored for some considerable time - enough that it still works for some time after the engine is turned off. There would be *plenty* of stored vacuum to bring a car to a stop at high throttle.
Even so, there is *some* vacuum at high throttle, not zero. Only a small amount of pressure differential is required to make the brake assist very effective (pressure = force/area), and the maximum is only atmospheric pressure anyway- and the brakes themselves are considerably stronger than the engine, even with weak assist.
Not only is it very easy to steer a car with no power steering when it is moving (it gets easier the faster it goes in fact), the vacuum assist also lasts for a little while after the engine dies - should be more than long enough to provide help to bring the car to a stop. The assist dies after a few actions on the brake - try pumping your brake pedal without the engine on. When it goes solid, that's when the assist has run out.
So, my question: will this stop projects like Android?
Will this kill Linux?
Will this stop open source?
Of course not - you will always have choice, and there will always be other options. All this can do is a) make money for Apple (or not) and b) encourage competition.
The rise of the iPhone spurred the rise of numerous open competitors and everyone is better off.
You can avoid Apple (and the PSX, and the Xbox 360 etc) all you want, and stick to open alternatives. The market can only get stronger with the addition of competition. That was my point here, that this is just another entry into the arena, not the death of everything else and every other business model.
They don;t sell OS X for whiteboxes because that's not their business model. They make their money from selling the hardware. This doesn't mean they can't keep the OS itself open (in the sense of operability).
What parts of OSS have they "taken and closed off"? I'm sure there's probably some BSD code floating about somewhere that has ended up with changes that were not released, but who knows. Their stance on OSS has been positive from OS X onwards - and yes, they have been successful in using OSS to make a profit, but they also give an awful lot back - a lot more than is merely required legally. They are well aware that a combination of open source, closed source and open standards work very well for them, and just so happens to help OSS as a whole.
They clearly don't go to a lot of trouble to prevent whitebox installs though, even after the switch to Intel. They take the same attitude to the one that came with the original iTMS - yes, there's DRM, but we strongly encourage you to burn your purchases to Audio CD every time you downloaded. Someone else posted before in another thread that it was "speedbump DRM" - minimal, minorly intrusive but trivial to remove (and it;s not even DRM on the install DVD).
Moving to unrestricted AAC for the iTMS as soon as it could and being one of the driving forces for H.264 over WMV as the future standard of web video (for the forseeable future) are all beneficial. We can save the patent-encumbered argument for another time, the battle for media on the web is first against WMV and Flash, and then we can look at other formats. It's clearly not ideal for the OSS community, but it is better than a closed format like WMV from becoming the standard. Little steps, towards the light, just like iTMS originally - DRM, now no DRM. Get the web and OSes in general using open standards first, then start refining it.
Apple will do what is in its best interests to make money, and closing off OS X is clearly not the way to do that. If it turns out that they would make more if the iPhone/iPad was open then they will do that too, but I doubt it very much at the moment.
And as far as Games For Windows, sure, it's an example of trying to bring a console model to Windows, but Windows itself it untouched. I can't see them moving to a single store model for general apps, just like I can't see it happening on OS X.
Ah, the legal obligation part - that old chestnut. How can you say that Webkit is "one of the uninteresting parts" when it is emerging as a very powerful contender as a rendering engine that is going far beyond where KHTML would have been without it - both camps benefit, even if Apple is "legally obliged" - they chose KHTML rather than rolling their own. They could have gone a different route, with a more liberal (for them) licence, but they did not.
They have also released a lot of their code to the community, and continue to support and encourage OSS development - even stuff they are not "legally obliged" to support.
The burn support thing is to ensure compatibility. Ones that come up with "supported: Apple Shipping" are assured to work since they have been tested, but this doesn't mean that other third party drives *don't* work - have you actually tried it? I tend not to use Disk Utility to burn CDs though, I usually use the open source "Burn.app" which works with anything you chuck at it, and offers more options.
The Airport interface is there to support the Airport cards - if you have a third party one, of course you need a driver and config utility. I'm amazed I can't configure my ATI graphics card with Nvidia's tools - oh the humanity! The beauty of the system preferences window is that you can easily make a pane for your app/device/thingy, since it is designed to be easy to develop for, with open documentation, and human-readable preference files (which you can muck about with at the command line level if you prefer). If you put in a Broadcom card though, which the Airport cards are based on, the Airport interface config works, since the cards are essentially the same. They didn't need to add any code or drivers to support third party cards because they don't ship any - they only ship Airport cards, for every model they make. If you want a third party wireless card, you can use the third party driver that comes with it.
They are "open" in a very meaningful way. Their continued support for open standards, protocols and codecs is very important in the industry as a whole - GCC, OpenGL, OpenAL, NFS, CUPS, AAC, H.264, Webkit, CSS, HTML, HTML5 to name just a few.
All well and good, but there is no DRM on the iTunes Music Store music anymore - they are regular AAC files that are just tagged with your Apple ID. They will play in anything that supports AAC.
Initially though, I agree, it was all about doing the bare minimum to appease the music industry (who own the content), and encouraging you to break the DRM by burning to audio CD when you downloaded.
So how is this forcing you towards a closed environment?
Are they forcing you to buy one?
Will this business model cause OSS offerings like android to become weaker? Will it cause other manufacturers to stop making products?
Half the time the tune is "Apple will fail! Android will crush them!" and the rest of the time it's "Everyone will adopt this model and our freedom will be gone!"
I have OS X running on a whitebox - next question. Just because they officially discourage it, doesn't mean it is not possible. They don;t even make it difficult. The install DVD is not encrypted, has no serial numbers, does not phone home, does not need online activation. While it technically infringes the licence to do so, it is not hard to do.
"Every product locked down" - this is just nonsense. While OS X itself features closed source components, just because this is the case doesn't mean it cannot be open. Open and open source are not the same thing. OS X features a multitude of open protocols, codecs, standards and features that are designed to make it play well with other operating systems, as well as a continued commitment to open source projects that it includes and bases large parts of its systems on - CUPS, Webkit, libdispatch, OpenGL, OpenAL, GCC etc etc, just to name a couple. The reason OS X is good to use is that it combines open standards with with a business model that works well, and thus allows them to continue to exist as a large business.
If Apple wanted to lock people into an App Store for OS X they would have done so already - they will do what works for them in a business sense, nothing more, nothing less. They're not some evil emperor sitting on a throne trying to decide how best to screw over people - they are a company who exists to make money. For the iPhone, the model they have chosen happens to work for them, and is very profitable.
For OS X and the Mac, the model they have chosen is somewhat different and is very profitable for them also. They may not have the marketshare of windows, but they really don't need it. It works for them, and has seen their profits continue to look healthy year on year.
The "us" is in quotes because he is claiming to speak for everyone, which he clearly does not.
It is a fallacy to suggest that because the iPhone business model was successful for Apple that they would try and shoehorn that onto the Mac business model. You might as well say that now that Xbox live and the 360 are so well entrenched that MS will be moving that business model onto Windows.
Is it such a stretch to imagine that a company can have multiple different business models for the different products that it sells without resorting to end of the world scenarios?
No he's not. He's trying to spin some FUD that this product somehow will affect his (and our) freedom in computer choices, which it will clearly not. In fact, it offers more choice and will hopefully spur competition in an otherwise quiet niche.
It doesn't have to be open source for it to be friendly to the OSS community - the developments with Webkit and other projects that Apple has contributed to, as well as things it has created itself and released like libdispatch - are beneficial for everyone.
It doesn't have to be open source for it to be open - it's a posix compliant unix OS with a nice GUI on top (not just "unix like"), that can also support X (if you choose to install it) and numerous other OSS stuff. It's also based on a bit more than just "old BSD code" - it's not like they just nailed the lid shut and called it done - they continue to develop the code at the core (and push their changes back to the community).
It doesn't make sense *at all* for Apple to close up OS X into the same business model as the iPhone OS - they're just totally different markets. The iPhone OS market works because it provides a single, consistent store with a plethora of free or cheap apps (with the odd expensive one which tend not to be the norm). This is pretty much the polar opposite of the way they have positioned OS X, especially with regard to the open source *parts* of the OS that they continue to develop and push.
By your logic, since "it makes perfect sense", I assume that Microsoft is going to adopt the same model it uses for Xbox live and the Xbox 360 software for Windows. I mean, they're all about control right - it only makes sense!
Because the OS on the Zune is so free and easy to modify.
Apple has a closed environment on the iPad/iPhone/iPod line, the rest of the hardware contains an OS that is just as open (more so in some respects) than Windows. A software platform that it continues to develop and open up. You don't need to jailbreak an OS X box.
There is nothing to suggest Apple are moving "us" towards closed environments. If the iPad doesn't work for you - don't buy it.
Firefox was around at the time Safari was released, as was a Mac-native (ie, Aqua UI) version called.... I forget now... phoenix, chimera, something like that (had to keep changing the name). Apple's concern was that they had no bundled browser, other than the obsolete IE5, so they either had to roll their own or go with Firefox - as it turns out, they went for KHTML rather than Gecko.
I really don;t think they will get into search though - the article reads like a marketing company desperate for some page hits, with total nonsense content.
I think you'll find that it's some "analyst" who is saying there is a "70% chance" that Apple will do this. Apple themselves have said nothing of the sort, and probably quite rightly have determined that search engines are non of their concern.
Apple don't want to do anything - some analyst desperate to validate his existence and paycheck decided to make up a wild claim that he cannot possibly prove. What is he basing his 70% figure on? It's not like he has any prior history of a computer maker being suddenly successful with a phone and then deciding to release a search engine. It's just nonsense.
Yet another nonsense rumour that will now be considered as "fact", and a whole list of reasons why Apple are so evil for doing this, or why they will surely fail when it's nothing but pure hot air.
The comments already here are acting like this is an Apple press release.
Isn't there enough fodder without having to make stuff up?
You think I'm insecure about my sexuality? You really aren't reading my posts right. We can talk about my sexuality all you like and I assure you I won;t be the one who is insecure.
People who jump on the "you're gay" bandwagon for insults are more often than not the insecure ones - it's a reflection of the personality of the person using the insults about the things they are insecure about. It doesn't bother me one way or the other; I'm perfectly comfortable with my own sexuality to shrug off some guy calling me a fag or a homo. It's funny more than anything.
I usually ignore ACs - why bother arguing with someone who's not even man enough to post with an account that is largely anonymous anyway (or worse, are worried for their precious karma score), but sometimes it's fun.
"Came down in the last shower" is not a homosexual metaphor, although I suppose any phrase can be given sexual connotations; it's one of the benefits of the English language. It is a British expression similar to "you must think I was born yesterday".
The difference between the AC (which I assume is you since you slipped back into the first person at the end there) and I is that I really don't care whether I am a "loser" or not in the eyes of someone posting on a message board, especially one who won't even use an account.
My "excuse" is that I was bored and fancied a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Well, the content of slashdot is controlled by the editors and those who submit the stories. Someone is interested, clearly.
Whether it gets coverage or not, the point was that some products just don't make sense to some people, but that doesn't necessarily make them invalid.
The current slashdot thinking from a vocal minority is that because the iPad is no good to them, it will fail, which is missing the demographic entirely. (Or alternatively claiming that because it doesn't do x, y or z that it must fail, or because it's not fully open etc).
It might flop, it might not. But just because some nerds on/. don't like it doesn't assure it being a flop.
And I'm sorry what? You're not a "loser enough" to have a slashdot account, but you still post here. Riiiiiiiight. You must think I came down in the last shower.
Good to see you being a productive member of society though. I'll leave you to your beer bong and hopeless attempts to have a GHB-fueled grope that you can later brag about to your buddies.
Slashdot Mirror
The vacuum builds up and is stored for some considerable time - enough that it still works for some time after the engine is turned off. There would be *plenty* of stored vacuum to bring a car to a stop at high throttle.
Even so, there is *some* vacuum at high throttle, not zero. Only a small amount of pressure differential is required to make the brake assist very effective (pressure = force/area), and the maximum is only atmospheric pressure anyway- and the brakes themselves are considerably stronger than the engine, even with weak assist.
Not only is it very easy to steer a car with no power steering when it is moving (it gets easier the faster it goes in fact), the vacuum assist also lasts for a little while after the engine dies - should be more than long enough to provide help to bring the car to a stop. The assist dies after a few actions on the brake - try pumping your brake pedal without the engine on. When it goes solid, that's when the assist has run out.
Oh my my. You have never driven a manual car I see.
Aside from the better fuel economy, the car is much nicer to drive.
So, my question: will this stop projects like Android?
Will this kill Linux?
Will this stop open source?
Of course not - you will always have choice, and there will always be other options. All this can do is a) make money for Apple (or not) and b) encourage competition.
The rise of the iPhone spurred the rise of numerous open competitors and everyone is better off.
You can avoid Apple (and the PSX, and the Xbox 360 etc) all you want, and stick to open alternatives. The market can only get stronger with the addition of competition. That was my point here, that this is just another entry into the arena, not the death of everything else and every other business model.
They don;t sell OS X for whiteboxes because that's not their business model. They make their money from selling the hardware. This doesn't mean they can't keep the OS itself open (in the sense of operability).
What parts of OSS have they "taken and closed off"? I'm sure there's probably some BSD code floating about somewhere that has ended up with changes that were not released, but who knows. Their stance on OSS has been positive from OS X onwards - and yes, they have been successful in using OSS to make a profit, but they also give an awful lot back - a lot more than is merely required legally. They are well aware that a combination of open source, closed source and open standards work very well for them, and just so happens to help OSS as a whole.
They clearly don't go to a lot of trouble to prevent whitebox installs though, even after the switch to Intel. They take the same attitude to the one that came with the original iTMS - yes, there's DRM, but we strongly encourage you to burn your purchases to Audio CD every time you downloaded. Someone else posted before in another thread that it was "speedbump DRM" - minimal, minorly intrusive but trivial to remove (and it;s not even DRM on the install DVD).
Moving to unrestricted AAC for the iTMS as soon as it could and being one of the driving forces for H.264 over WMV as the future standard of web video (for the forseeable future) are all beneficial. We can save the patent-encumbered argument for another time, the battle for media on the web is first against WMV and Flash, and then we can look at other formats. It's clearly not ideal for the OSS community, but it is better than a closed format like WMV from becoming the standard. Little steps, towards the light, just like iTMS originally - DRM, now no DRM. Get the web and OSes in general using open standards first, then start refining it.
Apple will do what is in its best interests to make money, and closing off OS X is clearly not the way to do that. If it turns out that they would make more if the iPhone/iPad was open then they will do that too, but I doubt it very much at the moment.
And as far as Games For Windows, sure, it's an example of trying to bring a console model to Windows, but Windows itself it untouched. I can't see them moving to a single store model for general apps, just like I can't see it happening on OS X.
Ah, the legal obligation part - that old chestnut. How can you say that Webkit is "one of the uninteresting parts" when it is emerging as a very powerful contender as a rendering engine that is going far beyond where KHTML would have been without it - both camps benefit, even if Apple is "legally obliged" - they chose KHTML rather than rolling their own. They could have gone a different route, with a more liberal (for them) licence, but they did not.
They have also released a lot of their code to the community, and continue to support and encourage OSS development - even stuff they are not "legally obliged" to support.
The burn support thing is to ensure compatibility. Ones that come up with "supported: Apple Shipping" are assured to work since they have been tested, but this doesn't mean that other third party drives *don't* work - have you actually tried it? I tend not to use Disk Utility to burn CDs though, I usually use the open source "Burn.app" which works with anything you chuck at it, and offers more options.
The Airport interface is there to support the Airport cards - if you have a third party one, of course you need a driver and config utility. I'm amazed I can't configure my ATI graphics card with Nvidia's tools - oh the humanity! The beauty of the system preferences window is that you can easily make a pane for your app/device/thingy, since it is designed to be easy to develop for, with open documentation, and human-readable preference files (which you can muck about with at the command line level if you prefer). If you put in a Broadcom card though, which the Airport cards are based on, the Airport interface config works, since the cards are essentially the same. They didn't need to add any code or drivers to support third party cards because they don't ship any - they only ship Airport cards, for every model they make. If you want a third party wireless card, you can use the third party driver that comes with it.
They are "open" in a very meaningful way. Their continued support for open standards, protocols and codecs is very important in the industry as a whole - GCC, OpenGL, OpenAL, NFS, CUPS, AAC, H.264, Webkit, CSS, HTML, HTML5 to name just a few.
All well and good, but there is no DRM on the iTunes Music Store music anymore - they are regular AAC files that are just tagged with your Apple ID. They will play in anything that supports AAC.
Initially though, I agree, it was all about doing the bare minimum to appease the music industry (who own the content), and encouraging you to break the DRM by burning to audio CD when you downloaded.
So how is this forcing you towards a closed environment?
Are they forcing you to buy one?
Will this business model cause OSS offerings like android to become weaker? Will it cause other manufacturers to stop making products?
Half the time the tune is "Apple will fail! Android will crush them!" and the rest of the time it's "Everyone will adopt this model and our freedom will be gone!"
You can't argue both ways.
I have OS X running on a whitebox - next question. Just because they officially discourage it, doesn't mean it is not possible. They don;t even make it difficult. The install DVD is not encrypted, has no serial numbers, does not phone home, does not need online activation. While it technically infringes the licence to do so, it is not hard to do.
"Every product locked down" - this is just nonsense. While OS X itself features closed source components, just because this is the case doesn't mean it cannot be open. Open and open source are not the same thing. OS X features a multitude of open protocols, codecs, standards and features that are designed to make it play well with other operating systems, as well as a continued commitment to open source projects that it includes and bases large parts of its systems on - CUPS, Webkit, libdispatch, OpenGL, OpenAL, GCC etc etc, just to name a couple. The reason OS X is good to use is that it combines open standards with with a business model that works well, and thus allows them to continue to exist as a large business.
If Apple wanted to lock people into an App Store for OS X they would have done so already - they will do what works for them in a business sense, nothing more, nothing less. They're not some evil emperor sitting on a throne trying to decide how best to screw over people - they are a company who exists to make money. For the iPhone, the model they have chosen happens to work for them, and is very profitable.
For OS X and the Mac, the model they have chosen is somewhat different and is very profitable for them also. They may not have the marketshare of windows, but they really don't need it. It works for them, and has seen their profits continue to look healthy year on year.
The "us" is in quotes because he is claiming to speak for everyone, which he clearly does not.
It is a fallacy to suggest that because the iPhone business model was successful for Apple that they would try and shoehorn that onto the Mac business model. You might as well say that now that Xbox live and the 360 are so well entrenched that MS will be moving that business model onto Windows.
Is it such a stretch to imagine that a company can have multiple different business models for the different products that it sells without resorting to end of the world scenarios?
No he's not. He's trying to spin some FUD that this product somehow will affect his (and our) freedom in computer choices, which it will clearly not. In fact, it offers more choice and will hopefully spur competition in an otherwise quiet niche.
It doesn't have to be open source for it to be friendly to the OSS community - the developments with Webkit and other projects that Apple has contributed to, as well as things it has created itself and released like libdispatch - are beneficial for everyone.
It doesn't have to be open source for it to be open - it's a posix compliant unix OS with a nice GUI on top (not just "unix like"), that can also support X (if you choose to install it) and numerous other OSS stuff. It's also based on a bit more than just "old BSD code" - it's not like they just nailed the lid shut and called it done - they continue to develop the code at the core (and push their changes back to the community).
It doesn't make sense *at all* for Apple to close up OS X into the same business model as the iPhone OS - they're just totally different markets. The iPhone OS market works because it provides a single, consistent store with a plethora of free or cheap apps (with the odd expensive one which tend not to be the norm). This is pretty much the polar opposite of the way they have positioned OS X, especially with regard to the open source *parts* of the OS that they continue to develop and push.
By your logic, since "it makes perfect sense", I assume that Microsoft is going to adopt the same model it uses for Xbox live and the Xbox 360 software for Windows. I mean, they're all about control right - it only makes sense!
Because the OS on the Zune is so free and easy to modify.
Apple has a closed environment on the iPad/iPhone/iPod line, the rest of the hardware contains an OS that is just as open (more so in some respects) than Windows. A software platform that it continues to develop and open up. You don't need to jailbreak an OS X box.
There is nothing to suggest Apple are moving "us" towards closed environments. If the iPad doesn't work for you - don't buy it.
This is definitely +1 informative. She is indeed.
I am also sold on Matt Smith now after being initially disappointed that it wasn't Simon Pegg.
Apple are not getting greedy. Some analyst says "they will do this" and suddenly Apple is getting greedy?
Jobs is a vegetarian, so it's unlikely. It's also the reason that Apple doesn't make any leather cases or bags for their products.
Firefox was around at the time Safari was released, as was a Mac-native (ie, Aqua UI) version called.... I forget now ... phoenix, chimera, something like that (had to keep changing the name). Apple's concern was that they had no bundled browser, other than the obsolete IE5, so they either had to roll their own or go with Firefox - as it turns out, they went for KHTML rather than Gecko.
I really don;t think they will get into search though - the article reads like a marketing company desperate for some page hits, with total nonsense content.
Or it could be some blowhard speculating on what Apple is "70% assured" of doing - ie, total nonsense.
I think you'll find that it's some "analyst" who is saying there is a "70% chance" that Apple will do this. Apple themselves have said nothing of the sort, and probably quite rightly have determined that search engines are non of their concern.
Apple don't want to do anything - some analyst desperate to validate his existence and paycheck decided to make up a wild claim that he cannot possibly prove. What is he basing his 70% figure on? It's not like he has any prior history of a computer maker being suddenly successful with a phone and then deciding to release a search engine. It's just nonsense.
Yet another nonsense rumour that will now be considered as "fact", and a whole list of reasons why Apple are so evil for doing this, or why they will surely fail when it's nothing but pure hot air.
The comments already here are acting like this is an Apple press release.
Isn't there enough fodder without having to make stuff up?
Quote fail.
Who says I'm defending my honour?
Are you making a pass at me? If so, I'm afraid you're not my type.
You think I'm insecure about my sexuality? You really aren't reading my posts right. We can talk about my sexuality all you like and I assure you I won;t be the one who is insecure.
People who jump on the "you're gay" bandwagon for insults are more often than not the insecure ones - it's a reflection of the personality of the person using the insults about the things they are insecure about. It doesn't bother me one way or the other; I'm perfectly comfortable with my own sexuality to shrug off some guy calling me a fag or a homo. It's funny more than anything.
I usually ignore ACs - why bother arguing with someone who's not even man enough to post with an account that is largely anonymous anyway (or worse, are worried for their precious karma score), but sometimes it's fun.
"Came down in the last shower" is not a homosexual metaphor, although I suppose any phrase can be given sexual connotations; it's one of the benefits of the English language. It is a British expression similar to "you must think I was born yesterday".
The difference between the AC (which I assume is you since you slipped back into the first person at the end there) and I is that I really don't care whether I am a "loser" or not in the eyes of someone posting on a message board, especially one who won't even use an account.
My "excuse" is that I was bored and fancied a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Well, the content of slashdot is controlled by the editors and those who submit the stories. Someone is interested, clearly.
Whether it gets coverage or not, the point was that some products just don't make sense to some people, but that doesn't necessarily make them invalid.
The current slashdot thinking from a vocal minority is that because the iPad is no good to them, it will fail, which is missing the demographic entirely. (Or alternatively claiming that because it doesn't do x, y or z that it must fail, or because it's not fully open etc).
It might flop, it might not. But just because some nerds on /. don't like it doesn't assure it being a flop.
-1 sarcasm fail.
And I'm sorry what? You're not a "loser enough" to have a slashdot account, but you still post here. Riiiiiiiight. You must think I came down in the last shower.
The word English is capitalised when talking about the language. You should also try to avoid using sentence fragments where possible.
It seems clear I have struck a nerve. Did I hit too close to home? Is that why you won't post with your account?
Who says I don't already have one up there?
Good to see you being a productive member of society though. I'll leave you to your beer bong and hopeless attempts to have a GHB-fueled grope that you can later brag about to your buddies.