I'm not talking about technology per se, or which system is better. I'm talking about Apple's general failure as a profitable company for the past decade. You may recall that the general topic is Apple possibly going out of business. It put forth the premise that Apple's business model is severely flawed, which you never really addressed, either in your vulgar initial response, and only vaguely in your most recent response (in the future, please refrain from ad hominem attacks; their improper in this forum and don't bolster your point).
And what helped save Apple from bankruptcy was a $500 million investment from Microsoft. Look at the stock performance for Apple since the release of iMac. It's a steep decline.
Market share matters because it reflects demand. If the demand for Apple was higher, it would be reflected in the market share. Additionally, XServe, which is aimed at corporate environments, is going to be governed by the same bottom line as other competitors in the market. I ask you to define "better" For business purposes, it is whichever platform offers the most capability at the lowest price. For this reason, although the XServe may, or may not, be technically superior to Itanium, Sun, or any other server, if it costs too much to implement, it will not succeed.
Additionally, your average corporate user does not need G4 processors in its workstations. Moreover, the better the workstations, the higher potential for employee theft. There is a certain wisdom in using last year's models in the workplace. Furthermore, any corporate IT manager worth his/her salt does not rush out and buy the newest machine, but rather keeps the current ones for at least 5 years to take advantage of depreciation for tax purposes. Most companies require only word-processing, spreadsheet, presentation, and internet/email capability, further supporting the idea of using moderately outdated machines.
Given that many companies already have networks firmly in place, many will be unwilling to switch, and unable to justify switching. The iMac strategy works only works on a consumer level, where the user only risks losing time and some non-critical user data. Apple is getting into the network game too late and with too little money too be able to gamble.
As to my sources, my information comes from Wired, WSJ, and PC Magazine.
What matters isn't what's in the box, but rather how people view it. Newton's fault is that it promised too much. The simple fact is it became a punchline for Leno. Specs count, but public perception counts more. And the vast buying public doesn't pencil MacExpo on its calendar.
iMac:
Apple's initial tagline for the iMac line was "3 down, 97 to go" referring to their market share of approximately 3%. Even by Apple's numbers, Apple when the first iMac was launched only commanded 3.8% of the computing market. It now holds 3.2% of the American market, and only slightly over 2% on a global scale. The iMac was supposed to increase market share, not decrease it.
XServe
I've seen the Xserve stats, but once again, there is still the bad memory of PowerMac networks of old, which were riddled with errors. Moreover, how many ads for XServe have you seen on Sunday morning TV, or the 24-hour news/financial networks? Or in the Journal? This is primarily where ads for servers are. XServe is conspicuous by its absence.
Viruses on the Mac:
Your arguments are specious. Prestige is garnered through impact. Inasmuch as only 2% of the global market is Mac, a Mac-targeted virus will not be able to have the impact of Code Red, Bugbear, or Slammer.
N.B. - Slammer didn't affect PC networks because of bad programming. If affected them because of bad network administration. The hole was known about for more than half a year, and MS had released several working patches to fix it. The networks affected were those who, after six months, still hadn't patched.
Your language:
I attempted to put forth a reasoned, fact-based argument on why Apple's business model is flawed, which you attempted to counter with puerile hystrionics. If you want to get your point across, profanity does not help.
As final empiric proof of the problems with Apple, I refer you to its market performance for the past 3 years. 3 years ago, Apple's stock price was at 70; it now hovers near 15. Apple, after attempting to mirror the Gateway model with Apple stores, has announced layoffs at those stores. It was much better with its "Authorized Dealer" arrangements, which presented a much lower overhead. These are the sort of business decisions that drag Apple down and keep it perpetually on the brink of insolvency.
Yes it is the software that matters. But you forgot to mention QuarkXPress, which is dangerously close to being vaporware for the Mac.
Mac has a long history of overinvesting in R&D and advertising, without reinvesting its surplus back into operating capital.
It's still can't get into the PDA market because the stink of Newton is still on it. Moreover, it's iMac division, for all the hype, has not performed as well as expected.
Finally, the AppleServer is a joke that even Apple doesn't believe in. After nearly a decade out of the server market, it's trying to get back in so it can promote a vision of a "non-monopoly" workplace with iMac workstations running off an Apple server. Apple will never make significant inroads into the office because no IT manager can justify paying 40% markup for a brand-name.
Apple has always been a brand, like Coke and Levis. As far as computers go, the PC market has improved to the point that AV editing, photo editing, and publishing can all be done just as well for a significantly lower cost.
If you don't believe that Apple has problems, look at how long Adobe held out before releasing Photoshop for OSX. That delay nearly killed OSX (and wasted the ad dollars spent on OSX). Apple has begun to exert its monopoly power over its users, as evidenced by both Jaguar, which isn't a point upgrade, like Apple wants people to think, but a new OS (Apple still couldn't afford to waste its aforementioned OSX ad dollars) Additionally, Apple's decision to charge users for iLife further evinces this outlook.
Apple needs better long-term business strategy if it's to survive. And if you want to know why there aren't viruses on the Mac, it's because it's a waste of time to come up with a virus that AT BEST will only affect 3% of the computer market. More bang for your buck by attacking PCs.
"The problem comes when someone who doesn't own the CD downloads the files from me. Now personally, I don't care -- I think it is up to each person to decide what laws they're willing to break".
You have to be careful, because (and check your local statutes for this one) it won't be long until some RIAA/MPAA argues that your attitude toward p2p users constitutes accomplice liability and/or conspiracy.
The apathy argument won't hold water much longer if RIAA/MPAA successfully argues that file-sharing is an overt act in furtherance of an unlawful act(theft). And that is the crime of conspiracy. Pretty soon, you will have to care about other p2p users intentions, if only to protect yourself from civil and criminal liability.
In order to counter-sue, you need an independent cause of action. You cannot counter-sue merely because a property owner is exercising his/her/its rights through process.
Any thing which tends to prove or disprove a fact in controversy is evidence. The things status as "evidence" is independent of the court's determinations of relevance and admissibility. The court only decides if that evidence is relevant and admissible.
Destruction of evidence in civil litigation is known as "spoliation" (yes, I spelled that right. It is not spoilation). A party found to have spoliated evidence is precluded from offering testimony or evidence regarding the spoilated evidence. Moreover, the finder of fact may draw any inference that the missing/altered evidence would have been unfavorable to the party responsible for the spoliation.
Thus, in an action where the defendant has deleted the files at issue, the finder of fact could draw the inference that the defendant did not have a legal right to the deleted files, thus being liable for the reasonable value of those files.
Finally, all civil complaints begin as unsubstantiated claims. Discovery exists for the disclosure of evidence to lead to a fair and equitable resolution of the controversy.
The problem isn't jailing people. It's the underlying principle of this law (and DMCA). Copyrights are, and have always been, private property rights. Traditionally, the venue for enforcement of these property rights has been through private civil action. The onus should be on the copyright holders to enforce their copyrights, rather than fobbing it off on the DOJ.
What scares me more is the prospect of people being sued by the RIAA, MPAA, and the member corporations of those associations. Many people are unfamiliar with the court systems and civil litigation in general. Civil action is a much bigger stick for Hollywood to weild simply because of the likelihood of people to scoff at a summons and complaint, thus leading to an enforceable judgment against them. Additionally, other people's reaction to civil litigation may be to delete the subject files from their computer. This is evidence, and attempting to delete it would also lead to an automatic loss of a civil case.
Of course, this will lead to an overburdening of an already overburdened court system. The five courts that are in NYC already see more than 150,000 new cases each year.
There is less to fear from the DOJ than from the litigation arms of the RIAA and MPAA members.
Slashdot Mirror
And what helped save Apple from bankruptcy was a $500 million investment from Microsoft. Look at the stock performance for Apple since the release of iMac. It's a steep decline.
Market share matters because it reflects demand. If the demand for Apple was higher, it would be reflected in the market share. Additionally, XServe, which is aimed at corporate environments, is going to be governed by the same bottom line as other competitors in the market. I ask you to define "better" For business purposes, it is whichever platform offers the most capability at the lowest price. For this reason, although the XServe may, or may not, be technically superior to Itanium, Sun, or any other server, if it costs too much to implement, it will not succeed.
Additionally, your average corporate user does not need G4 processors in its workstations. Moreover, the better the workstations, the higher potential for employee theft. There is a certain wisdom in using last year's models in the workplace. Furthermore, any corporate IT manager worth his/her salt does not rush out and buy the newest machine, but rather keeps the current ones for at least 5 years to take advantage of depreciation for tax purposes. Most companies require only word-processing, spreadsheet, presentation, and internet/email capability, further supporting the idea of using moderately outdated machines.
Given that many companies already have networks firmly in place, many will be unwilling to switch, and unable to justify switching. The iMac strategy works only works on a consumer level, where the user only risks losing time and some non-critical user data. Apple is getting into the network game too late and with too little money too be able to gamble.
As to my sources, my information comes from Wired, WSJ, and PC Magazine.
What matters isn't what's in the box, but rather how people view it. Newton's fault is that it promised too much. The simple fact is it became a punchline for Leno. Specs count, but public perception counts more. And the vast buying public doesn't pencil MacExpo on its calendar.
iMac:
Apple's initial tagline for the iMac line was "3 down, 97 to go" referring to their market share of approximately 3%. Even by Apple's numbers, Apple when the first iMac was launched only commanded 3.8% of the computing market. It now holds 3.2% of the American market, and only slightly over 2% on a global scale. The iMac was supposed to increase market share, not decrease it.
XServe
I've seen the Xserve stats, but once again, there is still the bad memory of PowerMac networks of old, which were riddled with errors. Moreover, how many ads for XServe have you seen on Sunday morning TV, or the 24-hour news/financial networks? Or in the Journal? This is primarily where ads for servers are. XServe is conspicuous by its absence.
Viruses on the Mac:
Your arguments are specious. Prestige is garnered through impact. Inasmuch as only 2% of the global market is Mac, a Mac-targeted virus will not be able to have the impact of Code Red, Bugbear, or Slammer.
N.B. - Slammer didn't affect PC networks because of bad programming. If affected them because of bad network administration. The hole was known about for more than half a year, and MS had released several working patches to fix it. The networks affected were those who, after six months, still hadn't patched.
Your language:
I attempted to put forth a reasoned, fact-based argument on why Apple's business model is flawed, which you attempted to counter with puerile hystrionics. If you want to get your point across, profanity does not help.
As final empiric proof of the problems with Apple, I refer you to its market performance for the past 3 years. 3 years ago, Apple's stock price was at 70; it now hovers near 15. Apple, after attempting to mirror the Gateway model with Apple stores, has announced layoffs at those stores. It was much better with its "Authorized Dealer" arrangements, which presented a much lower overhead. These are the sort of business decisions that drag Apple down and keep it perpetually on the brink of insolvency.
Mac has a long history of overinvesting in R&D and advertising, without reinvesting its surplus back into operating capital.
It's still can't get into the PDA market because the stink of Newton is still on it. Moreover, it's iMac division, for all the hype, has not performed as well as expected.
Finally, the AppleServer is a joke that even Apple doesn't believe in. After nearly a decade out of the server market, it's trying to get back in so it can promote a vision of a "non-monopoly" workplace with iMac workstations running off an Apple server. Apple will never make significant inroads into the office because no IT manager can justify paying 40% markup for a brand-name.
Apple has always been a brand, like Coke and Levis. As far as computers go, the PC market has improved to the point that AV editing, photo editing, and publishing can all be done just as well for a significantly lower cost.
If you don't believe that Apple has problems, look at how long Adobe held out before releasing Photoshop for OSX. That delay nearly killed OSX (and wasted the ad dollars spent on OSX). Apple has begun to exert its monopoly power over its users, as evidenced by both Jaguar, which isn't a point upgrade, like Apple wants people to think, but a new OS (Apple still couldn't afford to waste its aforementioned OSX ad dollars) Additionally, Apple's decision to charge users for iLife further evinces this outlook.
Apple needs better long-term business strategy if it's to survive. And if you want to know why there aren't viruses on the Mac, it's because it's a waste of time to come up with a virus that AT BEST will only affect 3% of the computer market. More bang for your buck by attacking PCs.
Think different.
Yes...we must all think different
"The problem comes when someone who doesn't own the CD downloads the files from me. Now personally, I don't care -- I think it is up to each person to decide what laws they're willing to break".
You have to be careful, because (and check your local statutes for this one) it won't be long until some RIAA/MPAA argues that your attitude toward p2p users constitutes accomplice liability and/or conspiracy.
The apathy argument won't hold water much longer if RIAA/MPAA successfully argues that file-sharing is an overt act in furtherance of an unlawful act(theft). And that is the crime of conspiracy. Pretty soon, you will have to care about other p2p users intentions, if only to protect yourself from civil and criminal liability.
Any thing which tends to prove or disprove a fact in controversy is evidence. The things status as "evidence" is independent of the court's determinations of relevance and admissibility. The court only decides if that evidence is relevant and admissible.
Destruction of evidence in civil litigation is known as "spoliation" (yes, I spelled that right. It is not spoilation). A party found to have spoliated evidence is precluded from offering testimony or evidence regarding the spoilated evidence. Moreover, the finder of fact may draw any inference that the missing/altered evidence would have been unfavorable to the party responsible for the spoliation.
Thus, in an action where the defendant has deleted the files at issue, the finder of fact could draw the inference that the defendant did not have a legal right to the deleted files, thus being liable for the reasonable value of those files.
Finally, all civil complaints begin as unsubstantiated claims. Discovery exists for the disclosure of evidence to lead to a fair and equitable resolution of the controversy.
What scares me more is the prospect of people being sued by the RIAA, MPAA, and the member corporations of those associations. Many people are unfamiliar with the court systems and civil litigation in general. Civil action is a much bigger stick for Hollywood to weild simply because of the likelihood of people to scoff at a summons and complaint, thus leading to an enforceable judgment against them. Additionally, other people's reaction to civil litigation may be to delete the subject files from their computer. This is evidence, and attempting to delete it would also lead to an automatic loss of a civil case.
Of course, this will lead to an overburdening of an already overburdened court system. The five courts that are in NYC already see more than 150,000 new cases each year.
There is less to fear from the DOJ than from the litigation arms of the RIAA and MPAA members.