Stuart Cheshire is the architect of Zeroconf/Rendezvous. He was working for Apple when he drummed up interest for easier to use IP networking at IETF.
proof #1 "In 1998, between finishing my PhD and starting work full-time at Apple..."
http://www.stuartcheshire.org/#Personal
-- proof #2 "Peter Ford from Microsoft helped me co-chair those meetings, and we gathered enough interest to warrant the formation of an official IETF Working Group, under the new name "Zero Configuration Networking", in September 1999."
Its only when a company abuses their monopoly to leverage their way into new markets and stifle competition where monopoly status becomes a problem... and is also illegal.
If their hardware were inferior or more expensive you might have a point... but their hardware is typically better nad is cost competitive with all the other major PC oems that woould bundle the same hardware and software components.
Apple does however give you less opportunity to buy less and therefore pay less. That dopes not make them more expensive but it does make their system less configurable at the initial purchase time. If you can get over that detail, everything else with their solution is wonderful IMHO
Why is Apple not included more as one of the major traditional computer and technology companies supporting open source? Apple has contributed a great deal to the open source community and hasn't really received its alotted amount of mind share as a result.
Apple has given a lot more to the open source movement that IBM or Sun.
>What would Apple be without the "elegant" design of the hardware?
They would be in the same boat that they are now... a competitively priced computer that has more functionality than the competition.. but without an attractive case.
>To me it would be an overpriced computer system...
I'm curious hy you would say that considering the fact that a Mac is typically the same price (sometimes less) than a comperably equipped PC. PCs allow you to buy less and therefore pay less, but that does not make them less expensive... but rather, more configurable.
>You really have to think hard.... is ease of use worth sacrificing features
No. Thankfully, buying a Mac doesn't require that you sacrifice features.
>(is full screen view in the free Quicktime player YET?
No, and yet there are many players that can play full screen mode. It's not as if Macs can only play one file format with one player.
>and... 2 mouse buttons anyone???)
Curious, why don't you offer the same conclusion for PC manufacturers? They can use a one button mnouse two... much in the same way that a Mac can use multi-button mice.
>and software availability (Linux & Windows--- Max Payne & Photoshop on the same computer.. imagine that).
Same goes for a Macintosh.
>Why pay $500-$1000 more for a computer and get less...
I don't know. Thankfully, you don't get less when you buy a Mac. You will pay more because you get more. A PC equipped with the same specs will cost you the same ammount. You can buy less and therefore pay less when buying a PC, but that does not make it less expensive... but rather, more configurable.
>Maybe once the Mac easy and simple world merges with the PC do everything cheaply world then I will be sold...
It is nad has been for quite some time. It appears to me that you simply have been stuck in the same rut for so long that you don't even see yourself considering a Mac.
>but right now Apple MACs are just pretty boxes to me.
It really is too bad you dont see it for 99% of all the other advantages it has.
"Absolutely. Apple sees a chance to reinvent itself and get away from the relatively unsuccessful endeavor of becoming a significant PC player"
Their endeavor is not to be large but instead... profitable. if they can be large and profitable that would be great too, but PC manufacturers HAVE to be large to be profitable because there is no way for any of them to compete on features because each PC manufacturer can copy the others (thats what happens in a comoddity business). As a result, that means they can ONLY compete on price.
Apple is just as inexpensive as any PC manufacturer, but they require you to buy more... so therefore you will pay more. Of the computer that you are buying more, is elements that diferentiates Apple from PC competition.
and in the process jump on an opportunity to establish itself as a heavyweight in consumer electronics."
They are able to jump into the consumer electronics BIZ because this is an area that is not been pre-educated by Microsoft that offering a better solution from a single company is somehow bad.
In essence, Apple is showing that a single company can in fact produce a superior solution... thus reinforcing their computer matra that they've been saying all along.
"Good call, if you ask me, even though it could, someday, bode poorly for my PowerBook."
You or your powerbook have nothing to fear. Apple will continue to be a computer company for as long as it can remain profitable doing so. Considering the fact that they are one of the last remaining computer companies that is profitable from selling computer hardware (the other being Dell) I'd say that it will be as long as the industry is interested in buying computers.... and it wont expire prematurely.
Wuh? How do you get fanboyism out of that... you need to get over yourself.
"If Apple's quite obvious new focus and record-setting stock price don't tell you that a new strategic direction is emerging 1 Infinite Loop, you're seeing only what you want to see, which isn't much."
Sure it is helping their stock but that doesn't mean that Apple is transitioning away from being a computer company in ANY way shape or form. Again, stop with the FUD.
Though not saying you (like every other person you mistakenly interchanges the term market share for the word install base) are assuming that the company's install base is declining... something that there is no proof of.
Declidining "market share" could simply mean that Windows market share increased while Apple's stayed the same... (end result is still declining *market share* for mac users) or that Mac users are simply getting more life out of their computers (end result is still declining *market share* for mac users)... or that PC users are suddenly getting less life and are having to upgrade more frequently (end result is still declining *market share* for mac users).
What I'm getting at is that market share is NOT an indicator of the increase or decrease in a platform's install base.
Apple's install base is probably in the 7%-12% range... though you would never know it because the major research companies are only shoing *market share* statistics. This information is of no use to anyone EXCEPT stock holders in the company the stats they refer to as it is an indicator of profit and loss.
If market share indicates profit and loss... its important that we understand that Apple is one of only two profitable computer companies these days and that their computers are priced exactly in tune with the rest of the industry (not over priced as is so commonly suggested).
On a PC... you can buy less and therefore pay less but that doesn't make it cheaper... but rather... more configurable.
I've done these comparisons several times... and in every instance, at WORST the Mac comes out even. Rarely does it come out more expensive. With regard to laptops... Apple's laptops alwaays come out less expensive.
Apple sales ARE up... It's just Powermacs that are down now.
Don't be confused about market-share. Too many people misappropriate market share for install-base. Apple can triple its install base and still decrease its market share if the rest of the industry quadruples its sales.
I had something go wrong with my iPod. I called Apple and the next day, a specially designed (for the iPod) FedEx box arrived at my door with instructions for mailing back. In two days, I had a brand new (not refurbished) iPod.
1) It didn't cost me a cent. 2) I didn't lose any *customization
(*what the heck was that supposed to mean anyways?)
If we're going to follow this analogy, we might as well get it right.
In the rare occurance that the battery go, then Apple will replace the whole truck in less than 3 days for the price ($59.00) of an iPod extended warrenty.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with the former poster...
Your post was a troll.
You can run iTunes on Windows too you know...
Stuart Cheshire is the architect of Zeroconf/Rendezvous. He was working for Apple when he drummed up interest for easier to use IP networking at IETF.
a rt icleview/30/1/3/
proof #1
"In 1998, between finishing my PhD and starting work full-time at Apple..."
http://www.stuartcheshire.org/#Personal
--
proof #2
"Peter Ford from Microsoft helped me co-chair those meetings, and we gathered enough interest to warrant the formation of an official IETF Working Group, under the new name "Zero Configuration Networking", in September 1999."
http://www.theideabasket.com/index.php/article/
Now stop spreading FUD!
Now you're just picking nits.
The processor in the latest Mac systems is better than that of x86. That is what was implied... and I know you know that.
Theres nothing wrong with a monopoly.
Its only when a company abuses their monopoly to leverage their way into new markets and stifle competition where monopoly status becomes a problem... and is also illegal.
Remind me what their marketshare is worldwide? I bet it's less than 1%.
Here are two editorials that respond to that flaimbait. I suggest you (and others that adopt this way of thinking) read them.
The New FUD: Apple Market Share
Gartner Research - Server Install-base vs. market share
And why is Apple not a major player?
I was referring to the processor and operating system specificly. You're right about everything else... for the most part its the same internals.
If their hardware were inferior or more expensive you might have a point... but their hardware is typically better nad is cost competitive with all the other major PC oems that woould bundle the same hardware and software components.
Apple does however give you less opportunity to buy less and therefore pay less. That dopes not make them more expensive but it does make their system less configurable at the initial purchase time. If you can get over that detail, everything else with their solution is wonderful IMHO
Rendezvous, code existing in Safari, QuickTime streaming server just to name a few
Why is Apple not included more as one of the major traditional computer and technology companies supporting open source? Apple has contributed a great deal to the open source community and hasn't really received its alotted amount of mind share as a result.
Apple has given a lot more to the open source movement that IBM or Sun.
>What would Apple be without the "elegant" design of the hardware?
They would be in the same boat that they are now... a competitively priced computer that has more functionality than the competition.. but without an attractive case.
>To me it would be an overpriced computer system...
I'm curious hy you would say that considering the fact that a Mac is typically the same price (sometimes less) than a comperably equipped PC. PCs allow you to buy less and therefore pay less, but that does not make them less expensive... but rather, more configurable.
>You really have to think hard.... is ease of use worth sacrificing features
No. Thankfully, buying a Mac doesn't require that you sacrifice features.
>(is full screen view in the free Quicktime player YET?
No, and yet there are many players that can play full screen mode. It's not as if Macs can only play one file format with one player.
>and... 2 mouse buttons anyone???)
Curious, why don't you offer the same conclusion for PC manufacturers? They can use a one button mnouse two... much in the same way that a Mac can use multi-button mice.
>and software availability (Linux & Windows--- Max Payne & Photoshop on the same computer.. imagine that).
Same goes for a Macintosh.
>Why pay $500-$1000 more for a computer and get less...
I don't know. Thankfully, you don't get less when you buy a Mac. You will pay more because you get more. A PC equipped with the same specs will cost you the same ammount. You can buy less and therefore pay less when buying a PC, but that does not make it less expensive... but rather, more configurable.
>Maybe once the Mac easy and simple world merges with the PC do everything cheaply world then I will be sold...
It is nad has been for quite some time. It appears to me that you simply have been stuck in the same rut for so long that you don't even see yourself considering a Mac.
>but right now Apple MACs are just pretty boxes to me.
It really is too bad you dont see it for 99% of all the other advantages it has.
>I hope this doesn't sound too anti-Apple
No. I think you're just ignorant.
"Absolutely. Apple sees a chance to reinvent itself and get away from the relatively unsuccessful endeavor of becoming a significant PC player"
Their endeavor is not to be large but instead... profitable. if they can be large and profitable that would be great too, but PC manufacturers HAVE to be large to be profitable because there is no way for any of them to compete on features because each PC manufacturer can copy the others (thats what happens in a comoddity business). As a result, that means they can ONLY compete on price.
Apple is just as inexpensive as any PC manufacturer, but they require you to buy more... so therefore you will pay more. Of the computer that you are buying more, is elements that diferentiates Apple from PC competition.
and in the process jump on an opportunity to establish itself as a heavyweight in consumer electronics."
They are able to jump into the consumer electronics BIZ because this is an area that is not been pre-educated by Microsoft that offering a better solution from a single company is somehow bad.
In essence, Apple is showing that a single company can in fact produce a superior solution... thus reinforcing their computer matra that they've been saying all along.
"Good call, if you ask me, even though it could, someday, bode poorly for my PowerBook."
You or your powerbook have nothing to fear. Apple will continue to be a computer company for as long as it can remain profitable doing so. Considering the fact that they are one of the last remaining computer companies that is profitable from selling computer hardware (the other being Dell) I'd say that it will be as long as the industry is interested in buying computers.... and it wont expire prematurely.
Stop with the fanboyism.
Wuh? How do you get fanboyism out of that... you need to get over yourself.
"If Apple's quite obvious new focus and record-setting stock price don't tell you that a new strategic direction is emerging 1 Infinite Loop, you're seeing only what you want to see, which isn't much."
Sure it is helping their stock but that doesn't mean that Apple is transitioning away from being a computer company in ANY way shape or form. Again, stop with the FUD.
Who does it prove that? Apple is just as much a computer company as they were before.
Just because they're sucessful in another area doesn't make them less of a computer company.... Stop with the FUD.
You should always Blame Canada
You have it backwards
No, Microsoft already pulled out of that investment because Apple made them a ton of money.
Though not saying you (like every other person you mistakenly interchanges the term market share for the word install base) are assuming that the company's install base is declining... something that there is no proof of. Declidining "market share" could simply mean that Windows market share increased while Apple's stayed the same... (end result is still declining *market share* for mac users) or that Mac users are simply getting more life out of their computers (end result is still declining *market share* for mac users)... or that PC users are suddenly getting less life and are having to upgrade more frequently (end result is still declining *market share* for mac users). What I'm getting at is that market share is NOT an indicator of the increase or decrease in a platform's install base. Apple's install base is probably in the 7%-12% range... though you would never know it because the major research companies are only shoing *market share* statistics. This information is of no use to anyone EXCEPT stock holders in the company the stats they refer to as it is an indicator of profit and loss. If market share indicates profit and loss... its important that we understand that Apple is one of only two profitable computer companies these days and that their computers are priced exactly in tune with the rest of the industry (not over priced as is so commonly suggested).
You obviously haven't experienced iPod playlists and iTunes integration. When you do, come back...
That's not entierly true...
On a PC... you can buy less and therefore pay less but that doesn't make it cheaper... but rather... more configurable.
I've done these comparisons several times... and in every instance, at WORST the Mac comes out even. Rarely does it come out more expensive. With regard to laptops... Apple's laptops alwaays come out less expensive.
Apple sales ARE up... It's just Powermacs that are down now.
Don't be confused about market-share. Too many people misappropriate market share for install-base. Apple can triple its install base and still decrease its market share if the rest of the industry quadruples its sales.
This article puts things into perspective
Don't forget... that trojan has since been deemed non-existant.
I had something go wrong with my iPod. I called Apple and the next day, a specially designed (for the iPod) FedEx box arrived at my door with instructions for mailing back. In two days, I had a brand new (not refurbished) iPod.
1) It didn't cost me a cent.
2) I didn't lose any *customization
(*what the heck was that supposed to mean anyways?)
If we're going to follow this analogy, we might as well get it right.
In the rare occurance that the battery go, then Apple will replace the whole truck in less than 3 days for the price ($59.00) of an iPod extended warrenty.