The costs of migration are a one-time cost. The costs of licensing are a continuing cost. Sometimes you have to eat it in the short term to meet your long term goals.
I think it's because the Karma is square and so it fits in your hand nicely whereas the iPod, being longer, sticks out a little at the ends. It makes the Karma seem smaller even though it isn't.
If "size" = "height" then, yes, the Karma is smaller. However the iPod is smaller in the other two dimensions and smaller in overall volume. If Apple wanted the iPod to be 33% larger I am sure they could add more battery life too.
Just because something is repeated does not make it fact. Conventional wisdom is often wrong. And it leads people to make really stupid decisions sometimes.
And it's truly sad that so many people don't understand that just because A and B happened synchronously does not mean that A caused B.
Apple niched itself by charging more for something that did not deliver extra value to the customers they should have been trying to sell to (corporations). Apple got niched because they were trying to sell a computer that seemed like a toy to companies used to using mainframes. PCs looked like mainframe terminals that did more....and they were cheaper.
It's funny how people think something magical would have happened if Apple had licensed the OS. What would have happened? Would machines running MacOS have become cheaper? Possibly. But why could Apple not have simply offered a cheaper machine of their own? Why would it take licensing to accomplish this? Apple chose not to do this.
Apple chose to remain premium. That was the business decision. "Not licensing" was simply the logical implementation of remaining premium.
This is just a pissing contest. It started with Glaser insulting Jobs and calling him "afraid". Jobs just returned the favor by reminding Glaser of his place.
Lots of people are comparing this to licensing the OS or not. Of course that's a flawed analogy because 1) the OS is a whole platform that needs developers, etc... All the iPod needs is songs 2) it ignores the real reasons for the failure of MacOS which had nothing to do with licensing
The bottom line is that Real has nothing to offer at the table. So Glaser tries to goad Jobs into cutting a deal by offering insults and threats. Jobs is not the type to fall for that.
Anyone who's concerned about what little DRM Apple has put in the ITMS files can just burn it to an audio cd (on a rewritable disc) and then rip it to MP3. It's what my girlfriend and I do.
I have been told you can even use Toast to do this without creating a coaster.
But, honestly, this was bound to happen. If you can use Quicktime to play the song on your computer, it was only a matter of time before someone wrote a program to take that audio stream and recompress it to AAC (or any other format). Sure it's lossy, but it's good enough.
Of course, for me, having the songs stored in Fairplay encrypted AAC is good enough:)
Diamonds are just as nice to look at as other stones. Stones that, I might add, cost a small fraction of what diamonds do despite their relative rarity (in nature - not the artificial rarity that DeBeers constructed).
And, thankfully, my fiancee is not all doped up on diamonds like most women. She wanted a $250 sapphire from Sam's Club for her engagement ring. Yes, gentlemen....I have found the perfect woman:)
Agreed. Buying a diamond is saying "here DeBeers, have some money" just so other people can see that you gave DeBeers lots of money. It's simply a more socially accepted method of throwing your money away.
The Apple patent application has likely only been published for a limited time (it still hasn't even hit the 18 month mark). Any IP department worth salt regularly looks at the published applications and patents in the gazette to see if anything reads on their products and inventions.
So at this point Creative, Archos, and anyone else who thinks they invented the "invention" or publicly used/sold this "invention" prior to October 28, 2001 will be sending into the USPTO documentary evidence of that fact. That's what the publication of the application is for.
Not only that, but often you try to claim the sun and the moon as well as what you are *absolutely sure* is your invention. Unfortunately, this has led to the crazy patent situation we are in because people are gaming the USPTO.
Patents can only be overturned if prior-art is shown to exist. And as mentioned in a recent slashdot story only 151 patents have been overturned since 1988.
You're misunderstanding that reference. The Eolas case is a reexamination proceeding. And it's true that patents rarely get overturned by that method. However, if memory serves, patents are frequently overturned or restricted via lawsuits.
If an inventor contributes to the inventive spark on even a single claim they will (have to) be listed as co-inventor on the patent. That's just the way it works.
It would not surprise me if this was the case for Jobs on the iPod interface.
Now, whether that interface was in fact "inventive" I'll leave as the subject of the other threads...
I am referring to the Dell business server ads where they imply that Unix servers are more expensive, lock you in to a vendor, require tons more support, etc...
Also Quality is an opinion, survey results usually depend on who you ask. Neither fastest or first are an opinion (per say), becasue you can just benchmark them and look at hard data. If you have some one sided benchmarks and somene can prove that well, no soup for you!
Quality can be factual. Problems per 100 computers sold. Number of calls per computer sold. Mean Time to Failure.
Benchmarks can also be opinion. Computers can do a nearly limitless variety of things. Who is to determine which small number of those possibilities qualify for proof?
I don't remember the ads but perhaps if Apple had done something like:
THE NEW G5. THE WORLD'S FASTEST PERSONAL COMPUTER*
*based on floating point vector processing as measured by such-and-such benchmark
I have never understood.....when companies lie (or make questionable claims) about "fastest" or "first" people get all up-in-arms. But when companies lie about quality or other things people don't care.
Case in point: I didn't see Apple (or anyone else) complaining that Dell was lying in ads where they implied that the night call center workers were actually in the US.
And Dell directly implies in their ads that if you're running Unix there are all sorts of negative things that will happen to you that are pretty much not true.
Whatever. The BBB is just another piece of the marketing machine I guess.
I bet Napster, MusicMatch, etc... are already getting their lawyers warmed up for this.
It's pretty easy to explain that a media player is an integral part of the OS. But if Microsoft actually tries to embed their store inside WMP instead of having it on the web in MSN.com and/or on their MSN service, I think they're going to run afoul of the Sherman Act in a serious way.
Restricting isn't the only way to deal with it, though. And sometimes the government IS needed to step in.
Is it fair that workers in Mexico or India get paid less? I would say it's unfair to them, not unfair to us.
But it really IS unfair when a company can move to another country and setup a factory that pollutes and has unsafe machinery. They are doing a disservice to their workers (here and in the new factory) and saving money in the process. This is where the government can step in - by making sure free trade agreements require fair environmental and workplace safety laws.
Things like that won't stop the tide of outsourcing. That is an inevitable train that is going to require us to shift our track slightly. But there are ways to slow the tide by equalizing the cost structure somewhat.
Good post. And I believe the best way to fight outsourcing is to work to remove the benefits in the other country. For instance: - removing incentives by other governments (WTO doesn't like these) - equalizing environmental laws on both sides of the border (preferrably UP on their side!) - equalizing workplace safety rules on both sides of the border (same here!)
We can't do much about wages. We probably don't want to do much about organized labor. But there are things that we can try to influence (for instance, I believe John Kerry is in favor of putting requirements for environmental laws into NAFTA).
Slashdot Mirror
The costs of migration are a one-time cost. The costs of licensing are a continuing cost. Sometimes you have to eat it in the short term to meet your long term goals.
I think it's because the Karma is square and so it fits in your hand nicely whereas the iPod, being longer, sticks out a little at the ends. It makes the Karma seem smaller even though it isn't.
Smaller than an iPod
If you're going to talk something up at least be correct.
Karma: 2.7 * 3.0 * 1.1 = 8.91 cubic inches
iPod: 4.1 * 2.4 * 0.62 = 6.1008 cubic inches
If "size" = "height" then, yes, the Karma is smaller. However the iPod is smaller in the other two dimensions and smaller in overall volume. If Apple wanted the iPod to be 33% larger I am sure they could add more battery life too.
I think the deal with HP shows that Apple is willing to deal with the right partner. Apple didn't have to make the HP deal.
Just because something is repeated does not make it fact. Conventional wisdom is often wrong. And it leads people to make really stupid decisions sometimes.
And it's truly sad that so many people don't understand that just because A and B happened synchronously does not mean that A caused B.
Apple niched itself by charging more for something that did not deliver extra value to the customers they should have been trying to sell to (corporations). Apple got niched because they were trying to sell a computer that seemed like a toy to companies used to using mainframes. PCs looked like mainframe terminals that did more....and they were cheaper.
It's funny how people think something magical would have happened if Apple had licensed the OS. What would have happened? Would machines running MacOS have become cheaper? Possibly. But why could Apple not have simply offered a cheaper machine of their own? Why would it take licensing to accomplish this? Apple chose not to do this.
Apple chose to remain premium. That was the business decision. "Not licensing" was simply the logical implementation of remaining premium.
News flash:
something doesn't have to be licensed to become a de facto standard
Eventually it may have to be. But timing is critical. If you do it too early you lose your competitive edge.
But it's bad PR to be that cocky.
is it similarly bad PR to call a potential partner "afraid" and threaten to run to the competition?
Actually in the case of MP3 player sales it's
...*
... ) * 2
apple > #2 + #3 +
And in the case of music downloads it's
apple > (#2 + #3 +
Do you actually read marketshare numbers?
* based on revenue
Don't you just wish there was a "-1 Totally, incomprehensibly wrong" mod?
This is just a pissing contest. It started with Glaser insulting Jobs and calling him "afraid". Jobs just returned the favor by reminding Glaser of his place.
Lots of people are comparing this to licensing the OS or not. Of course that's a flawed analogy because
1) the OS is a whole platform that needs developers, etc... All the iPod needs is songs
2) it ignores the real reasons for the failure of MacOS which had nothing to do with licensing
The bottom line is that Real has nothing to offer at the table. So Glaser tries to goad Jobs into cutting a deal by offering insults and threats. Jobs is not the type to fall for that.
Anyone who's concerned about what little DRM Apple has put in the ITMS files can just burn it to an audio cd (on a rewritable disc) and then rip it to MP3. It's what my girlfriend and I do.
:)
I have been told you can even use Toast to do this without creating a coaster.
But, honestly, this was bound to happen. If you can use Quicktime to play the song on your computer, it was only a matter of time before someone wrote a program to take that audio stream and recompress it to AAC (or any other format). Sure it's lossy, but it's good enough.
Of course, for me, having the songs stored in Fairplay encrypted AAC is good enough
Heheh
g le .email.ap/index.html
It made it to CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/31/goo
Diamonds are just as nice to look at as other stones. Stones that, I might add, cost a small fraction of what diamonds do despite their relative rarity (in nature - not the artificial rarity that DeBeers constructed).
:)
And, thankfully, my fiancee is not all doped up on diamonds like most women. She wanted a $250 sapphire from Sam's Club for her engagement ring. Yes, gentlemen....I have found the perfect woman
I'd pay 30 bucks to not have to look at crappy porn when I get on the internet. Damn adware!!
I suppose a real diamond ring is a status symbol
Agreed. Buying a diamond is saying "here DeBeers, have some money" just so other people can see that you gave DeBeers lots of money. It's simply a more socially accepted method of throwing your money away.
The Apple patent application has likely only been published for a limited time (it still hasn't even hit the 18 month mark). Any IP department worth salt regularly looks at the published applications and patents in the gazette to see if anything reads on their products and inventions.
So at this point Creative, Archos, and anyone else who thinks they invented the "invention" or publicly used/sold this "invention" prior to October 28, 2001 will be sending into the USPTO documentary evidence of that fact. That's what the publication of the application is for.
Not only that, but often you try to claim the sun and the moon as well as what you are *absolutely sure* is your invention. Unfortunately, this has led to the crazy patent situation we are in because people are gaming the USPTO.
Patents can only be overturned if prior-art is shown to exist. And as mentioned in a recent slashdot story only 151 patents have been overturned since 1988.
You're misunderstanding that reference. The Eolas case is a reexamination proceeding. And it's true that patents rarely get overturned by that method. However, if memory serves, patents are frequently overturned or restricted via lawsuits.
If an inventor contributes to the inventive spark on even a single claim they will (have to) be listed as co-inventor on the patent. That's just the way it works.
It would not surprise me if this was the case for Jobs on the iPod interface.
Now, whether that interface was in fact "inventive" I'll leave as the subject of the other threads...
Can you elaborate on this?
I am referring to the Dell business server ads where they imply that Unix servers are more expensive, lock you in to a vendor, require tons more support, etc...
Also Quality is an opinion, survey results usually depend on who you ask. Neither fastest or first are an opinion (per say), becasue you can just benchmark them and look at hard data. If you have some one sided benchmarks and somene can prove that well, no soup for you!
Quality can be factual. Problems per 100 computers sold. Number of calls per computer sold. Mean Time to Failure.
Benchmarks can also be opinion. Computers can do a nearly limitless variety of things. Who is to determine which small number of those possibilities qualify for proof?
I don't remember the ads but perhaps if Apple had done something like:
THE NEW G5. THE WORLD'S FASTEST PERSONAL COMPUTER*
*based on floating point vector processing as measured by such-and-such benchmark
That may have kept them out of as much trouble.
I have never understood.....when companies lie (or make questionable claims) about "fastest" or "first" people get all up-in-arms. But when companies lie about quality or other things people don't care.
Case in point: I didn't see Apple (or anyone else) complaining that Dell was lying in ads where they implied that the night call center workers were actually in the US.
And Dell directly implies in their ads that if you're running Unix there are all sorts of negative things that will happen to you that are pretty much not true.
Whatever. The BBB is just another piece of the marketing machine I guess.
We don't know what the Veridisc - Apple licensing agreement looks like. There is such a thing as an exclusive license.
I bet Napster, MusicMatch, etc... are already getting their lawyers warmed up for this.
It's pretty easy to explain that a media player is an integral part of the OS. But if Microsoft actually tries to embed their store inside WMP instead of having it on the web in MSN.com and/or on their MSN service, I think they're going to run afoul of the Sherman Act in a serious way.
Restricting isn't the only way to deal with it, though. And sometimes the government IS needed to step in.
Is it fair that workers in Mexico or India get paid less? I would say it's unfair to them, not unfair to us.
But it really IS unfair when a company can move to another country and setup a factory that pollutes and has unsafe machinery. They are doing a disservice to their workers (here and in the new factory) and saving money in the process. This is where the government can step in - by making sure free trade agreements require fair environmental and workplace safety laws.
Things like that won't stop the tide of outsourcing. That is an inevitable train that is going to require us to shift our track slightly. But there are ways to slow the tide by equalizing the cost structure somewhat.
Good post. And I believe the best way to fight outsourcing is to work to remove the benefits in the other country. For instance:
- removing incentives by other governments (WTO doesn't like these)
- equalizing environmental laws on both sides of the border (preferrably UP on their side!)
- equalizing workplace safety rules on both sides of the border (same here!)
We can't do much about wages. We probably don't want to do much about organized labor. But there are things that we can try to influence (for instance, I believe John Kerry is in favor of putting requirements for environmental laws into NAFTA).