"It's only in the last 20 or 30 years or so here in the U.S. that "fundamentalist" Christains (they're not really fundamentalists in the original meaning of that word, but that's another topic) have been targeting science that did not agree with their religion."
Oh Pahleaze, your comment totally negates the fact that over the past 20-30 years the left wingers have been doing everything in their power to target Christianity or anything resembling a moral Christan influence to rid it from society. If you ask me, The fundamentalist Christains haven't even begun to counter the efforts brought against them as of yet.
While I'm sure the software has its flaws... shoot its a 1.0 release. What 1.0 software doesn't have some flaws.... but am I the only one that read his review and thought that he entered the review process trying to find points ANY POINTS he could harp on?
"Perhaps you could argue that they are leveraging their MP3 downloads market into the MP3 player market?"
Only if you assume that they're seperate products. Apple is creating a music download solution. Only when you look at it through Microsoft's/PC industry's piecemeal business model can it be considered harmful to the consumer.
"By the way, is there any need to write a one paragraph reply to every sentence from the OP?"
Yes, because the poster made several comments that were either grossly mis-informed or downright wrong. The post was geared to cause confusion and detract from Apple's strengths.
"It looks like your trolling."
It might only appear that way if you agreed with the parent comment... which was a troll in itself.
"The iPod and iTunes are as anti-competitive as it gets."
Not at all... watch as I destroy your whole argument.
"The hardware is completely closed and no third party software can run on it."
That's not anticompetitive... Apple creates the whole product. You might as well go after radio manufacturers (for example) for not allowing other companies to automatically be suppliers for their knobs and buttons. If you create the entire product (hardware and software) you can include as much or as little as you want with it. If Windows could be used to the exclusion of PC hardware... then they would be allowed to bundle as much as they want without concern of leveraging their illegal monopoly.
"There are also a limited number of codec's that work with the iPod."
Actually, the iPod is pretty much on par with all other music players with regard to the number of codecs it can play.
"The only thing that you can do is play AAC, MP3 and DRM'd apple music on it."
Wrong. The iPod can play songs encoded with these CODECS: MP3 (from 32 Kbps to 320 Kbps) MP3 Variable Bit Rate (VBR) AIFF * WAV (with no compression) The following require iPod software 1.3 or later: M4A AAC * M4P AAC (Protected) * M4B AAC (iTunes Music Store Spoken Word files) * The following require iPod software 2.2 or later or iPod mini 1.1 or later: Apple Lossless Encoder * Requires iTunes 4 or iTunes 4 for Windows. AAC files also require the most recent update to the iPod software.
"It is a black box. It even enforces DRM practices on non-DRM music."
Its a Black box... and of course also a white one... and no it does not enforce DRMpractices on non-DRM music.
"Apple chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only apple products to access the iTunes music store - No iPod, no iTunes."
Motorola chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only motorola LCD displays in their phones. No Motorola LCD display, no motorola phone.
Whirlpool chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only Whirlpool dish soap dispensers in their dish washers. No Whirlpool dishsoap dispenser, no Whirlpool dish washer.
Sony chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only sony buttons on their stereos. No Sony buttons, no Sony radio.
See how ridiculous your argument is? Apple creates the entire product the same way that these other companies do. Because Apple also happens to compete in a market that is largely comprised of multiple vendors each contributing a small part in a piecemeal approach to any given technological solution does not mean they are required to do so under any law as you're implying... be it legal or ethical.
"It is a monopoly now - because Apple currently has a majority of the mp3 player market share, and a 100% monopoly on music encoded in an Apple DRM format."
Keep in mind... its not illegal to be a monopoly. Its illegal to use your monopoly illegally. Apple is not doing anything that excludes competitors to enter into the market. Microsoft's spotty history is rife with this sort of behavior throughout its history. They didn't achieve their monopoly legally... and they certainly haven't maintained it legally. Apple on the other hand achieved their monopoly in the market through hard work and innovation. They are maintaining it by doing the same repeatedly.... over and over again.
"They are also actively discouraging 3rd parties from interfacing with their hardware and software (real player)."
And there's nothing illegal or unethical about that.
"Thus, they are using their monopoly advantage to exclude competition in the market of players that can play AAC/DRM formatted music."
No, any company can use the AAC codec and can attach DRM to the fo
>"If Apple doesn't do the engineering for accessories or the manufacturing - I see NO reason they should receive the profits?!?"
Then these companies should not use Apple's brand in any way... "made for iPod" (THAT is what this is about... not Apple simply taking money for nothing.)
Apple is not asking companies to get permission to make products for the iPod... they are asking that companies pay Apple a fee to use Apple's iPod brand on their products. A very reasonable proposition.
That has to be the most idiotic statement ever said on these forums. How can a company employ monopolistic practices if they don't have a monopoly to exploit. [roll eyes], [shake head]
>"When Apple tried to "prove" that the G5 was "better" than the Intel, it purposely didn't use the Intel tools, but used the GNU tools instead."
Yes, that was to level the playing field... not to show which one was faster... because Apple could have used their own compiler and got faster results too... but the goal was to see which was faster... and then the G5 was indeed faster.
>"Their desire to use the Intel tools now demonstrates that they didn't use the Intel tools in their G5/Intel benchmarks because they knew Intel tools outperform GNU for Intel."
You're right but then, they never said otherwise. You, like so many others equated the use of GNU rather than Intels compiler as a means of skewing the results when it was about creating a level playing field.
Actually, Apples margins are high... nit because they charge more but because they give you less options to buy less.
What that means is, you are paying more because you are getting more. Not because it costs more. If we factor this into the eqution, then Apple's computer prices are very much in tune with the rest of the PC industry if you equip a PC with the same compontents in hardware, software and operating system the Mac will come out the same... often times less.
And... Apple's hardware is more aestheticly pleasing and is of a better build quality than the average PC.
Its misleading when people say that Apple has a higher markup then the average PC.
"creationism that is currently in vogue among groups of conservative Christians in the U.S."
Ya, its in vogue... its just a trendy thing that just recently happened... and oh ya, its a belief that only happens here in the U.S.
Sigh...
The mouse still clicks (assuming its still like Apple's current mice and the whole mouse behaves as a button. The difference would be that the click would apply to the right if your figure is there when you push down on the mous and vise versa. Simply resting your hands on the buttons wouldn't cause it to click.
I know the common mode of thinking on sites like this is that Linux has since surpassed teh Macintosh, but that's not realistic. Apple deals in consumer circles and creative circles. Their install basecertinly is not as big as Windows but its not as small as what people perceive after mis appropriating marketshare data for actual install base. I understand why geeks would think otherwise though... they deal with server rooms where Linux is commonly found. These guys only see a Mac or two in the art department and maybe may also know of a friend or two that have one. Outside of the average geek's community circle however is a much large group of Mac users that have been using this platform for ages.
At worst, Apple is equal in install-base to Linux and at best they are slightly ahead.
Macs typically cost less then comperably equipped PCs. There is a perception that PCs cost less... but that's only because they give you less. The Mac can't be is easily configured to match the specs of most PCs at the initial buying stage so the PC must match the Mac. When that happens, the Mac is typically the less expensive of the two.
Yes, you may be paying for things you may not have opted for if give the choice of increased configurability at the initial buying stage... but that doesn't negate the Apple price advantage when comparing computers equally.
Keep in mind the opportunity to bundle comes by owning the entire platform.
In teh same way that you can't ask Sony to unbundle button knobs from their radios, you can't ask Apple to unbundle products which make up their platform... because their selling a whole solution... and not adopting the piecemeal approach like Microsoft does with its OS on PCs.
"We've all heard of Apple's Newton, the portable handheld device under John Sculley's rule at Apple that debuted to big media attention and much fanfare but never managed to take a strong footing in the marketplace -- only to be "Steve'd" when Mr. RDF killed the project after taking control of Apple. That's the extent of knowledge most of us have with regard to Apple's first handheld device.
Thomas Hormby submitted the following editorial to osOpinion/osViews, which gives us more in-depth knowledge about the Netwon project during its original development -- such as the fact that it could be said that the Netwon originated from a concept device Sculley called Knowledge Navigator." --
Apple in the late eighties had become stagnant. The Macintosh had become Apple's cash cow like the Apple II that had preceded it. To protect the Mac, Apple was hesitant to start or pursue any project that might compromise the company's revenues. Several people in the corporation were weary of this approach, and began to look at the future of computing. One of those people was Steve Sakoman.
Steve Sakoman worked at Hewlett Packard before he came to Apple, where he helped develop the first HP notebook. When he joined Apple he was happy that he 'was not going to make DOS clones for the rest of my life.' Steve had joined Apple to work on the MacPhone, a collaboration between Apple and AT&T.
After the project was canceled, he saw that Apple was not willing to take the same risks it had with the original Macintosh or even the Macintosh II. He went to Apple's director of new products, Jean Louis Gass'e, and threatened to quit unless he was allowed to create the 'future Macintosh', a computer that would be as influential on the computer industry as the original Macintosh was. Gass'e sympathized with him, and gave him permission to begin an independent research group
While Sakoman was at Hewlett Packard, he saw several 'hand entry computers that did not use keyboards. He was intrigued with the idea of scrapping the keyboard. The fact that most computers used a QWERTY keyboard was a mere fluke, he thought. Steve thought that a more natural method of input would take hold, like handwriting or speech.
Sakoman set to work immediately, getting his brand new research group off the ground. He recruited developers from around the company, including some original Macintosh developers. Like the original Macintosh and their off-site office, Texaco Tower, the new team moved to a converted warehouse on Bubb Road. Steve named the team 'Newton'. He did so because Sir'Isaac Newton was featured prominently in Apple's original logo and because he had prompted so many changes in the way people viewed the world.
At the time of the Macintosh II introduction, John Sculley had a video produced featuring his Knowledge Navigator device. He envisioned a tablet style device that would fold out to reveal a large color LCD display. The software would interpret the users commands via a humanoid assistant. The device could recognize voice commands, and interpret handwriting commands. Prescient of the internet, Sculley would have the device be able to communicate fluently with similar devices and servers around the world.
The Knowledge Navigator never went any further than the video, but John Sculley hoped that the technologies he had envisioned in the device would find life in other Apple projects. He thought that the Newton would be able fulfill his vision, and became one of its most vocal proponents.
The research group first found out what they wanted in a computer, and created a prototype design. Without any marketing staff, the team came up with a very advanced, very expensive device. The new machine was to be based on two AT&T Hobbit processors (a design that was very easy to program for) and would be about the size as an A4 sheet of paper, and feature a large, LCD, grayscale display. The true star of the new computer would be its software. The engineers wanted full handwriting recognition that
Slashdot Mirror
Apple's always been about minimalist form-follows-function design
I had to do a double take when I read that. Apple has repeatedly sold products that excelled at both for AND function.
"It's only in the last 20 or 30 years or so here in the U.S. that "fundamentalist" Christains (they're not really fundamentalists in the original meaning of that word, but that's another topic) have been targeting science that did not agree with their religion."
Oh Pahleaze, your comment totally negates the fact that over the past 20-30 years the left wingers have been doing everything in their power to target Christianity or anything resembling a moral Christan influence to rid it from society. If you ask me, The fundamentalist Christains haven't even begun to counter the efforts brought against them as of yet.
While I'm sure the software has its flaws... shoot its a 1.0 release. What 1.0 software doesn't have some flaws.... but am I the only one that read his review and thought that he entered the review process trying to find points ANY POINTS he could harp on?
"Perhaps you could argue that they are leveraging their MP3 downloads market into the MP3 player market?"
Only if you assume that they're seperate products. Apple is creating a music download solution. Only when you look at it through Microsoft's/PC industry's piecemeal business model can it be considered harmful to the consumer.
"By the way, is there any need to write a one paragraph reply to every sentence from the OP?"
Yes, because the poster made several comments that were either grossly mis-informed or downright wrong. The post was geared to cause confusion and detract from Apple's strengths.
"It looks like your trolling."
It might only appear that way if you agreed with the parent comment... which was a troll in itself.
"You are smoking crack."
No crack.... you're just confused.
"The iPod and iTunes are as anti-competitive as it gets."
Not at all... watch as I destroy your whole argument.
"The hardware is completely closed and no third party software can run on it."
That's not anticompetitive... Apple creates the whole product. You might as well go after radio manufacturers (for example) for not allowing other companies to automatically be suppliers for their knobs and buttons. If you create the entire product (hardware and software) you can include as much or as little as you want with it. If Windows could be used to the exclusion of PC hardware... then they would be allowed to bundle as much as they want without concern of leveraging their illegal monopoly.
"There are also a limited number of codec's that work with the iPod."
Actually, the iPod is pretty much on par with all other music players with regard to the number of codecs it can play.
"The only thing that you can do is play AAC, MP3 and DRM'd apple music on it."
Wrong. The iPod can play songs encoded with these CODECS:
MP3 (from 32 Kbps to 320 Kbps)
MP3 Variable Bit Rate (VBR)
AIFF *
WAV (with no compression)
The following require iPod software 1.3 or later:
M4A AAC *
M4P AAC (Protected) *
M4B AAC (iTunes Music Store Spoken Word files) *
The following require iPod software 2.2 or later or iPod mini 1.1 or later:
Apple Lossless Encoder
* Requires iTunes 4 or iTunes 4 for Windows. AAC files also require the most recent update to the iPod software.
"It is a black box. It even enforces DRM practices on non-DRM music."
Its a Black box... and of course also a white one... and no it does not enforce DRMpractices on non-DRM music.
"Apple chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only apple products to access the iTunes music store - No iPod, no iTunes."
Motorola chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only motorola LCD displays in their phones. No Motorola LCD display, no motorola phone.
Whirlpool chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only Whirlpool dish soap dispensers in their dish washers. No Whirlpool dishsoap dispenser, no Whirlpool dish washer.
Sony chooses to enforce their monopoly on the market by forcing consumers to use only sony buttons on their stereos. No Sony buttons, no Sony radio.
See how ridiculous your argument is? Apple creates the entire product the same way that these other companies do. Because Apple also happens to compete in a market that is largely comprised of multiple vendors each contributing a small part in a piecemeal approach to any given technological solution does not mean they are required to do so under any law as you're implying... be it legal or ethical.
"It is a monopoly now - because Apple currently has a majority of the mp3 player market share, and a 100% monopoly on music encoded in an Apple DRM format."
Keep in mind... its not illegal to be a monopoly. Its illegal to use your monopoly illegally. Apple is not doing anything that excludes competitors to enter into the market. Microsoft's spotty history is rife with this sort of behavior throughout its history. They didn't achieve their monopoly legally... and they certainly haven't maintained it legally. Apple on the other hand achieved their monopoly in the market through hard work and innovation. They are maintaining it by doing the same repeatedly.... over and over again.
"They are also actively discouraging 3rd parties from interfacing with their hardware and software (real player)."
And there's nothing illegal or unethical about that.
"Thus, they are using their monopoly advantage to exclude competition in the market of players that can play AAC/DRM formatted music."
No, any company can use the AAC codec and can attach DRM to the fo
"which I think is a load of crock. "
It's either a load of crap or a crock of shit. You can't mix the two.
What is a load of crock?
>"If Apple doesn't do the engineering for accessories or the manufacturing - I see NO reason they should receive the profits?!?"
Then these companies should not use Apple's brand in any way... "made for iPod" (THAT is what this is about... not Apple simply taking money for nothing.)
Apple is not asking companies to get permission to make products for the iPod... they are asking that companies pay Apple a fee to use Apple's iPod brand on their products. A very reasonable proposition.
That would be bad... but then, thats not what Apple is doing.
Apple is saying... pay us money if you want to use our brand.
The record companies want something for nothing.
Apple simply wants people to pay a fee to use their name. Whether that fee is a reasonable ammount is whats in question... not the fee itself.
That has to be the most idiotic statement ever said on these forums. How can a company employ monopolistic practices if they don't have a monopoly to exploit. [roll eyes], [shake head]
You're one of those anti-apple bitter souls who that post was directed to.
A 300 mhz ipaq is plenty fast enough to play h.264.
You and so many others are equating h.264 with high-def h.264. BIG difference.
Whether they're cool or not is irrelivant.
People buy them because they have the best mixture of features, quality, weight and size.
To imply that everybody has one simply because they're popular negates the reasons why they achieved that status in the first place.
>"When Apple tried to "prove" that the G5 was "better" than the Intel, it purposely didn't use the Intel tools, but used the GNU tools instead."
Yes, that was to level the playing field... not to show which one was faster... because Apple could have used their own compiler and got faster results too... but the goal was to see which was faster... and then the G5 was indeed faster.
>"Their desire to use the Intel tools now demonstrates that they didn't use the Intel tools in their G5/Intel benchmarks because they knew Intel tools outperform GNU for Intel."
You're right but then, they never said otherwise. You, like so many others equated the use of GNU rather than Intels compiler as a means of skewing the results when it was about creating a level playing field.
Actually, Apples margins are high... nit because they charge more but because they give you less options to buy less.
What that means is, you are paying more because you are getting more. Not because it costs more. If we factor this into the eqution, then Apple's computer prices are very much in tune with the rest of the PC industry if you equip a PC with the same compontents in hardware, software and operating system the Mac will come out the same... often times less.
And... Apple's hardware is more aestheticly pleasing and is of a better build quality than the average PC.
Its misleading when people say that Apple has a higher markup then the average PC.
"creationism that is currently in vogue among groups of conservative Christians in the U.S." Ya, its in vogue... its just a trendy thing that just recently happened... and oh ya, its a belief that only happens here in the U.S. Sigh...
The mouse still clicks (assuming its still like Apple's current mice and the whole mouse behaves as a button. The difference would be that the click would apply to the right if your figure is there when you push down on the mous and vise versa. Simply resting your hands on the buttons wouldn't cause it to click.
If OS X overtakes Linux?
I know the common mode of thinking on sites like this is that Linux has since surpassed teh Macintosh, but that's not realistic. Apple deals in consumer circles and creative circles. Their install basecertinly is not as big as Windows but its not as small as what people perceive after mis appropriating marketshare data for actual install base. I understand why geeks would think otherwise though... they deal with server rooms where Linux is commonly found. These guys only see a Mac or two in the art department and maybe may also know of a friend or two that have one. Outside of the average geek's community circle however is a much large group of Mac users that have been using this platform for ages.
At worst, Apple is equal in install-base to Linux and at best they are slightly ahead.
Why would you think it would run on expensive hardware?
Then make sure to tack on $300 to match the software that comes standard on the Mac mini.
What about -$200?
Macs typically cost less then comperably equipped PCs. There is a perception that PCs cost less... but that's only because they give you less. The Mac can't be is easily configured to match the specs of most PCs at the initial buying stage so the PC must match the Mac. When that happens, the Mac is typically the less expensive of the two.
Yes, you may be paying for things you may not have opted for if give the choice of increased configurability at the initial buying stage... but that doesn't negate the Apple price advantage when comparing computers equally.
Keep in mind the opportunity to bundle comes by owning the entire platform.
In teh same way that you can't ask Sony to unbundle button knobs from their radios, you can't ask Apple to unbundle products which make up their platform... because their selling a whole solution... and not adopting the piecemeal approach like Microsoft does with its OS on PCs.
"We've all heard of Apple's Newton, the portable handheld device under John Sculley's rule at Apple that debuted to big media attention and much fanfare but never managed to take a strong footing in the marketplace -- only to be "Steve'd" when Mr. RDF killed the project after taking control of Apple. That's the extent of knowledge most of us have with regard to Apple's first handheld device.
Thomas Hormby submitted the following editorial to osOpinion/osViews, which gives us more in-depth knowledge about the Netwon project during its original development -- such as the fact that it could be said that the Netwon originated from a concept device Sculley called Knowledge Navigator."
--
Apple in the late eighties had become stagnant. The Macintosh had become Apple's cash cow like the Apple II that had preceded it. To protect the Mac, Apple was hesitant to start or pursue any project that might compromise the company's revenues. Several people in the corporation were weary of this approach, and began to look at the future of computing. One of those people was Steve Sakoman.
Steve Sakoman worked at Hewlett Packard before he came to Apple, where he helped develop the first HP notebook. When he joined Apple he was happy that he 'was not going to make DOS clones for the rest of my life.' Steve had joined Apple to work on the MacPhone, a collaboration between Apple and AT&T.
After the project was canceled, he saw that Apple was not willing to take the same risks it had with the original Macintosh or even the Macintosh II. He went to Apple's director of new products, Jean Louis Gass'e, and threatened to quit unless he was allowed to create the 'future Macintosh', a computer that would be as influential on the computer industry as the original Macintosh was. Gass'e sympathized with him, and gave him permission to begin an independent research group
While Sakoman was at Hewlett Packard, he saw several 'hand entry computers that did not use keyboards. He was intrigued with the idea of scrapping the keyboard. The fact that most computers used a QWERTY keyboard was a mere fluke, he thought. Steve thought that a more natural method of input would take hold, like handwriting or speech.
Sakoman set to work immediately, getting his brand new research group off the ground. He recruited developers from around the company, including some original Macintosh developers. Like the original Macintosh and their off-site office, Texaco Tower, the new team moved to a converted warehouse on Bubb Road. Steve named the team 'Newton'. He did so because Sir'Isaac Newton was featured prominently in Apple's original logo and because he had prompted so many changes in the way people viewed the world.
At the time of the Macintosh II introduction, John Sculley had a video produced featuring his Knowledge Navigator device. He envisioned a tablet style device that would fold out to reveal a large color LCD display. The software would interpret the users commands via a humanoid assistant. The device could recognize voice commands, and interpret handwriting commands. Prescient of the internet, Sculley would have the device be able to communicate fluently with similar devices and servers around the world.
The Knowledge Navigator never went any further than the video, but John Sculley hoped that the technologies he had envisioned in the device would find life in other Apple projects. He thought that the Newton would be able fulfill his vision, and became one of its most vocal proponents.
The research group first found out what they wanted in a computer, and created a prototype design. Without any marketing staff, the team came up with a very advanced, very expensive device. The new machine was to be based on two AT&T Hobbit processors (a design that was very easy to program for) and would be about the size as an A4 sheet of paper, and feature a large, LCD, grayscale display. The true star of the new computer would be its software. The engineers wanted full handwriting recognition that
> "So what if a woman needs stem cells to repair her spine."
Use non embryonic stem cells
"How can a woman "concieve" all alone?"
who says she has to?
"If it is still life, then why can't gay women get married under the church?"
Gay women can indeed get married in the church... to a man.