Exactly. When I bought a cheap 1U server from a dot com fire sales and put in into a desktop case, I did consider it "building" a machine. I was merely assembling parts setup a desktop machine.
Ok, so if you release some software under GPL, you don't mind if I download it, modify it a bit and sell it as my own in binary format? After all, I made the changes "after" I downloaded it which would be equivalent of a purchase right? If the Apple EULA is just a license and you are so willing to ignore it why should heed the GPL? It's my code after I download it right? No? It's licensed? But possession is 9/10ths of the law right?
Worse news, buster - EULAs have generally been found to be unenforcable.
Really? Where? As I understand it, people claim that EULAs are unenforceable because allegedly, you have to purchase the product and open the box, begin installation of the product. That claim fall apart when it has been show that the license is available on the website, included in paper form with the installation disks and often included in the box outside of the shrink wrap enclosure for the media as wel as on disk outside of the installer program.
By that flawed logic, the GPL is unenforceable if you have to download the software first and yet licenses for GPLed software often is available separately as well as being included with the source and compiled binaries.
How can the/. community be so hypocritical? If you respect the right of copyright owners to release under GPL, shouldn't you respect the right of copyright owners to license usage of software they write?
How do you feel about software with differing licensing fees based on use? Ie. cheaper licenses for non-commercial/home use?
What Apple sells now is just a "shitty commodity PC" -- albeit in a pretty case.
What about Dual DVI connectors? High end and shitty commodity PCs may share some common components but what set apart the high end from the crap are the additional features apart from the chipset. For example, some shitty PC laptops have only integrated gfx and shared ram whereas the Macbook Pro has a decent gfx chipset and dedicated gfx ram. It also has the high quality iSight built-in and cool features like a backlit keyboard with ambient light sensor.
The clones drained away hardware sales without increasing the overall market. Those clone users also cost Apple money in terms of increased technical support and software maintenance costs.
700 million of that Billion dollars revenue will go to the Record labels and the rest is used to pay for the bandwidth, servers, sys admins, store staffing and advertising. Yes, Apple does now earn a profit now on music purchases but it is much smaller than you think despite the economies of scale they have now.
The bandwidth is not just for purchases but also for previews and movie trailers.
Where did you get those numbers? Out of your ass? I take it that you have never been involved in the development of commercial software and that you are not counting peripheral development costs such as QA, analysis, technical writing/documentation. You also are not counting those same cost in addition to development for after market maintenance. Those 10.4.x releases do not get written, tested or documented for free and yet Apple provides them to end users for no cost.
The way you guys talk about the software margins indicates that you think software was just written by coders and tested by beta testers. It is much more complicated than that.
Please apple, please wake up. We will pay, lots of us will. But I don't want your desktop hardware.
Remember the mac clones? Apple was loosing money because the license fees the clones makers paid and the price of bundled mac OS sold to those OEMs were not enough to pay for the increased support and development costs.
Apple hoped the clones would expand the market but they just ended up cannibalizing their hardware sales. The same thing would happen if Apple tried to make your nerdish wet dream come true because OS X development and support is subsidized mostly by hardware sales.
People often use MSFT as an example to justify their "wish" but they fail to realize that when MSFT started out, the market was much smaller and the hardware was less diverse on X86. They also had a less complex OS whereas OS X is built of several decades of technology from NeXT and Apple. As the complexity of software increases the cost of development and support go up as well.
Do I really need to remind everyone of NeXTStep for generic intel or BeOS? What about the lawsuit Be Inc won against MSFT posthumously for blocking entrance into the OEM market.
Look at the Macbook Pro or Intel iMac and compare with Core duo systems from the likes of Toshiba or Sony. Intel macs are competitively priced at least where I live in Canada. The Macbook Pro is perfectly capable as a desktop replacement as it has a dual link DVI port allowing you to drive even a 30" Cinema Display and yet it still offers light weight portability.
Actually, Dubai is often referred to as the Hong Kong of the middle east. Very liberal, very modern, very rich, and quite tolerant.
Ironically, it is more tolerant towards Christians and the celebration of traditional Christmas than some western nations which were founded by Christians. The political correctness in the west has gone too far in my opinion.
I honestly do not believe Apple will ever target the low end. They will target the mid to high end. It is not profitable to target the low end once you factor in support, repair and replacement costs. Dell does not earn its profit from the low end consumer market where margins are thin to non-existance even before you factor in after market costs. Rather, they earn money on subsidies from Intel, their server sales and from add-ons they coax people into adding to those "deals".
Look at IBM. They jettisoned the PC and laptop market because they were bleeding money in that market trying to compete with Dell. Had they stayed in the higher end market, they would still be doing fine.
Apple can make great strides in the business, higher end consumer and professional markets.
I don't know why so many people think it would be a good idea for Apple to put much effort into getting into the low end from a financial perspective. Besides IBM, you could look at HP (prior to restructuring) and Gateway as two examples of companies that were hurting when trying to compete with the Dell juggernaut.
You keep on saying that machines like the macbook pro and that Sony model are high end but I can see dozens of examples of higher end laptops that cost a great deal more. These laptops happen to be the cutting edge as far as processor technology is concerned and that kind of thing generally costs a bit more at first.
The above poster was implying that Apple's prices had gone down, which is true, but I think that masks reality that Apple's lineup has actually gone up-market over the last few years.
I would argue that more and more hardware is subsidized and more often than not, those "cheap" laptops are often used to bait and switch the user into buying a more configurable model for a higher price.
If you look at the new macbooks Pro 1.87Ghz Core Duo with a Sony Core Duo like the VGNFE550G FE-Series Notebook. The Sony is 300 CAD less but it has a slower processor, lower res screen, integrated gfx with shared ram, no Bluetooth, no DVI/Dual link DVI, no gigabit and a poor selection of bundled software.
Judging by this comparison, I believe the Macbook Prois competitively priced.
That might finally stem some of the tide of people in Astronomy using Macs for everything... they'd then have to seriously consider Linux if they wanted something to be Unix-based.
Are you you really such a blind linux zealot? If anything, OS X has helped bring linux to the forefront in peoples minds with a *nix OS like OS X having a lot of media exposure. The existence of OS X has certainly brought more developers into open source projects.
I would say that some of the new features like Cairo and other hardware accelerated opengl desktop projects were inspired by OS X and its Quartz rendering engine.
Right now, Apple sells overpriced hardware that runs overpriced software.
What the hell are you talking about? Photoshop costs about the same for both platforms. There are numerous shareware and open source applications on OS X which often have alternatives on windows that either cost more or are infested with spyware/adware.
Stop spreading disinformation like this. You will not get away with it because many of us OS X users are recent switchers at home and windows users at work.
OS X upgrades cost less than XP Pro upgrades. Don't even dare trying to compare with crippled XP Home edition.
XP Home edition lacks encryption support and joining a domain whereas OS X can join a domain and it has encrypted home directory support.
"but now one can buy a laptop for $500."
Would you buy one and trust it with your data? I know you are making a point but if price was everything, everyone would be buying them.
My guess is that model is limited in features (no firewire), integrated gfx, a small HD, DVD=ROM, 256MB ram, 1024X768 res screen.
I don't care if cheap laptops exist because most people will never even consider buying them. All Apple has to do is be competitive with the likes of Toshiba or Sony Vaio.
Software doesn't just want to be free, one must go to extraordinary lengths to make it un-free.
What a load of drivel. Software cannot want anything since it is not sentient. It is a contruct made by man. Code does not have a will of its own and it is not alive.
The drivers in this case are written by Apple, not ATI. They may consult with ATI people but you cannot compare Windows OpenGL driver support (not a high priority) with OpenGL support on a platform where it is the only graphic standard.
You don't seem to get it. You must own a PC in order to have access to Napster whereas iTMS purchased songs can be used on either OS X or Windows. You a free to use either OS with your purchases. Obviously both types of stores can be circumvented with burning of CD's but in the case of Napster, MSN and Rhapsody, you have to have access to a windows PC with a burner whereas iTMS does not have that restriction.
What am I not explaining here? I had an iPod long before I used iTMS to purchase songs and I also purchased MP3 songs from emusic which is not exclusive to the iPOD either.
Cats are quite clean animals that are often very useful.
Cat may be quite useful but they are hardly the cleanest of animals from a biological perspective. While they may groom themselves quite effectively, they do tend to prey on vermin and other carriers of disease. Now this might be useful in that they help to reduce the population of those carriers of disease but house pets can expose humans to the very diseases carried by their prey.
When I was growing up in the country, we had outside cats and dogs. All animals belong outside and I would argue that keeping pets in the city is a form of animal cruelty.
Slashdot Mirror
So if information wants to be free, give us your creditcard numbers, your SSN, bank account numbers, passwords, userids, full name, address etc...
Exactly. When I bought a cheap 1U server from a dot com fire sales and put in into a desktop case, I did consider it "building" a machine. I was merely assembling parts setup a desktop machine.
Ok, so if you release some software under GPL, you don't mind if I download it, modify it a bit and sell it as my own in binary format? After all, I made the changes "after" I downloaded it which would be equivalent of a purchase right? If the Apple EULA is just a license and you are so willing to ignore it why should heed the GPL? It's my code after I download it right? No? It's licensed? But possession is 9/10ths of the law right?
You mean like this MS EULA for XP Home?
Suppose this software is bundled with my brand new shiney intel macintosh?
You are free to read it beforehand here, here and here? In fact, you can read all of their licenses here.
Really? Where? As I understand it, people claim that EULAs are unenforceable because allegedly, you have to purchase the product and open the box, begin installation of the product. That claim fall apart when it has been show that the license is available on the website, included in paper form with the installation disks and often included in the box outside of the shrink wrap enclosure for the media as wel as on disk outside of the installer program.
By that flawed logic, the GPL is unenforceable if you have to download the software first and yet licenses for GPLed software often is available separately as well as being included with the source and compiled binaries.
How can the /. community be so hypocritical? If you respect the right of copyright owners to release under GPL, shouldn't you respect the right of copyright owners to license usage of software they write?
How do you feel about software with differing licensing fees based on use? Ie. cheaper licenses for non-commercial/home use?
What about Dual DVI connectors? High end and shitty commodity PCs may share some common components but what set apart the high end from the crap are the additional features apart from the chipset. For example, some shitty PC laptops have only integrated gfx and shared ram whereas the Macbook Pro has a decent gfx chipset and dedicated gfx ram. It also has the high quality iSight built-in and cool features like a backlit keyboard with ambient light sensor.
The clones drained away hardware sales without increasing the overall market. Those clone users also cost Apple money in terms of increased technical support and software maintenance costs.
Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_clone
The bandwidth is not just for purchases but also for previews and movie trailers.
Where did you get those numbers? Out of your ass? I take it that you have never been involved in the development of commercial software and that you are not counting peripheral development costs such as QA, analysis, technical writing/documentation. You also are not counting those same cost in addition to development for after market maintenance. Those 10.4.x releases do not get written, tested or documented for free and yet Apple provides them to end users for no cost.
The way you guys talk about the software margins indicates that you think software was just written by coders and tested by beta testers. It is much more complicated than that.
Remember the mac clones? Apple was loosing money because the license fees the clones makers paid and the price of bundled mac OS sold to those OEMs were not enough to pay for the increased support and development costs.
Apple hoped the clones would expand the market but they just ended up cannibalizing their hardware sales. The same thing would happen if Apple tried to make your nerdish wet dream come true because OS X development and support is subsidized mostly by hardware sales.
People often use MSFT as an example to justify their "wish" but they fail to realize that when MSFT started out, the market was much smaller and the hardware was less diverse on X86. They also had a less complex OS whereas OS X is built of several decades of technology from NeXT and Apple. As the complexity of software increases the cost of development and support go up as well.
Do I really need to remind everyone of NeXTStep for generic intel or BeOS? What about the lawsuit Be Inc won against MSFT posthumously for blocking entrance into the OEM market.
Look at the Macbook Pro or Intel iMac and compare with Core duo systems from the likes of Toshiba or Sony. Intel macs are competitively priced at least where I live in Canada. The Macbook Pro is perfectly capable as a desktop replacement as it has a dual link DVI port allowing you to drive even a 30" Cinema Display and yet it still offers light weight portability.
Ironically, it is more tolerant towards Christians and the celebration of traditional Christmas than some western nations which were founded by Christians. The political correctness in the west has gone too far in my opinion.
That's no moon!
Really? Have you actually tried Safari? I somehow doubt it.
Third Party OS X browsers:
Camino
Firefox
Mozilla/Seamonkey
Opera
Shiira
Omniweb
You were saying?
Look at IBM. They jettisoned the PC and laptop market because they were bleeding money in that market trying to compete with Dell. Had they stayed in the higher end market, they would still be doing fine.
Apple can make great strides in the business, higher end consumer and professional markets.
I don't know why so many people think it would be a good idea for Apple to put much effort into getting into the low end from a financial perspective. Besides IBM, you could look at HP (prior to restructuring) and Gateway as two examples of companies that were hurting when trying to compete with the Dell juggernaut.
You keep on saying that machines like the macbook pro and that Sony model are high end but I can see dozens of examples of higher end laptops that cost a great deal more. These laptops happen to be the cutting edge as far as processor technology is concerned and that kind of thing generally costs a bit more at first.
I would argue that more and more hardware is subsidized and more often than not, those "cheap" laptops are often used to bait and switch the user into buying a more configurable model for a higher price.
If you look at the new macbooks Pro 1.87Ghz Core Duo with a Sony Core Duo like the VGNFE550G FE-Series Notebook. The Sony is 300 CAD less but it has a slower processor, lower res screen, integrated gfx with shared ram, no Bluetooth, no DVI/Dual link DVI, no gigabit and a poor selection of bundled software.
Judging by this comparison, I believe the Macbook Prois competitively priced.
Are you you really such a blind linux zealot? If anything, OS X has helped bring linux to the forefront in peoples minds with a *nix OS like OS X having a lot of media exposure. The existence of OS X has certainly brought more developers into open source projects.
I would say that some of the new features like Cairo and other hardware accelerated opengl desktop projects were inspired by OS X and its Quartz rendering engine.
What the hell are you talking about? Photoshop costs about the same for both platforms. There are numerous shareware and open source applications on OS X which often have alternatives on windows that either cost more or are infested with spyware/adware.
Stop spreading disinformation like this. You will not get away with it because many of us OS X users are recent switchers at home and windows users at work.
OS X upgrades cost less than XP Pro upgrades. Don't even dare trying to compare with crippled XP Home edition.
XP Home edition lacks encryption support and joining a domain whereas OS X can join a domain and it has encrypted home directory support.
Want to keep score. Possibly 1 virus versus how many viruses for windows?
Would you buy one and trust it with your data? I know you are making a point but if price was everything, everyone would be buying them.
My guess is that model is limited in features (no firewire), integrated gfx, a small HD, DVD=ROM, 256MB ram, 1024X768 res screen.
I don't care if cheap laptops exist because most people will never even consider buying them. All Apple has to do is be competitive with the likes of Toshiba or Sony Vaio.
If it was destroyed a week after you got it, call up Apple and get a replacement under warranty.
What a load of drivel. Software cannot want anything since it is not sentient. It is a contruct made by man. Code does not have a will of its own and it is not alive.
The drivers in this case are written by Apple, not ATI. They may consult with ATI people but you cannot compare Windows OpenGL driver support (not a high priority) with OpenGL support on a platform where it is the only graphic standard.
What am I not explaining here? I had an iPod long before I used iTMS to purchase songs and I also purchased MP3 songs from emusic which is not exclusive to the iPOD either.
So tell me again how I can play/buy/sync songs from Napster,Real,MSN etc on a Mac? I don't like being locked into buying a windows PC.
Cat may be quite useful but they are hardly the cleanest of animals from a biological perspective. While they may groom themselves quite effectively, they do tend to prey on vermin and other carriers of disease. Now this might be useful in that they help to reduce the population of those carriers of disease but house pets can expose humans to the very diseases carried by their prey.
When I was growing up in the country, we had outside cats and dogs. All animals belong outside and I would argue that keeping pets in the city is a form of animal cruelty.