"Sadly all based on the ARM core. Ever getting the feeling that ARM is becoming the embedded x86?"
Well, at least ARM turned itself around after the disaster that was called 3DO. They did make the CPU of that machine, after all.
As for Freescale, I think the best thing that could happen to them is if IBM Semiconductor acquired them, unified most of the PPC development, and then IBM spun them off to the shareholders.
...uhm, when exactly was the last time Midway did anything cool?
I mean really. This is the same Midway that bought out Atari Games Corp., ruined it, and then fled the arcade industry altogether.
What exactly do they make that's cool on the Playstation2 or the Xbox? And what exactly do they have that's cool set for the Xbox360 or the PS3?
Seriously, if it weren't for Sumner (Mr. Viacom himself) Redstone buying something like 70% of the stock, I wish Infogrames, ahem, Atari, would simply acquire Midway so *Atari* proper could be reunified. Maybe that would inspire something great. As it stands, the Infogrames Atari only owns the rights to the 1972-June 1984 Atari arcade titles, which was the time that Warner Communications severed the company in two (actually, three if you count Ataritel as another entity), selling the home division to Jack Tramiel and keeping a small stake in the arcade division while selling most of its stock to Namco (which was a brief tenure). Time Warner's later 1996 sale of Atari Games to WMS Industries (Midway) was a disaster which only contributed to the decline of the arcade industry into almost nothing today here in America. (Although most of the blame goes to all the clones that Capcom's Street FighterII ushered in and chased away all the casual arcade gamers for the hardcore tools in the process) which also led to chasing out the originality (which was the hallmark of Atari Games) from the arcade game scene.
"I was part of the project team that maintained the x86 core of OS X and we in on a lot of the conference calls that Apple had discussing the impending switch. What acually happened was that senior management was extremely unhappy with IBM sharing the PowerPC technology with Apple's competitors Sony and Toshiba (via the Cell work, as well as other stuff that hasn't been announced yet). Apple disagreed with IBM as to what their technology licensing agreements said they could and could not do, so Apple basically laid it out on the line and told IBM to cease sharing the technology with Apple's competitors or they woud go somewhere else. I wasn't there when IBM said no, but Jobs was livid at the last meeting I was in on, and demanded to know how soon we could get our work out the door into some Intel based systems."
Riiiight. So when is Apple going to sue IBM/Microsoft/Toshiba/Sony/Nintendo for IP infringement under this scenario? Is Jobs waiting for the machines to hit the market before he unleashes the lawsuit clusterfrag? After all, Apple does own a chunk of the PowerPC IP. Surely they'd want a licensing agreement, especially from the PS3 sales.
"Apple doesn't have deep enough pockets to make this happen."
While I agree with most of your sentiment, if you flip your argument, Sony should have deep enough pockets to beat Apple in the MP3 player market. They have deep pockets, but they've done jack to dethrone Apple. Sony has deep enough pockets to make Sony Connect successful, but they haven't. Sony has deep enough pockets to make MemoryStick to become successful, but they haven't.
Substituting the name Microsoft into such an argument also is noteworthy. Microsoft has enough cash to make anything successful, but it hasn't worked. The Xbox would be dead if it were not for the Xbox Live system and Halo. Using your argument about developer relationships, Microsoft should be #1 in videogames considering their relationships with the game developers and the fact that the Xbox is easier to program than the Playstation2. But reality paints a different picture.
"End of story: Apple can't kill the PSP."
Apple doesn't have to kill the PSP because Nintendo will do the job just like it has done to every other handheld competitor. The PSP is awesome, but it is the 2005 version of the Atari Lynx, which judging from my user name, you should conclude that I am very fond of. Twenty + year olds are buying PSPs, not the kids nor are the parents buying them for the kids...just like with the Atari Lynx 16 years ago. The kids still get the Gameboys. All Apple has to do is add videogame functionality and better movie playback to a video iPod and it would split the demographic that the PSP appeals to. Even more so when the Video iPod is coupled with an Apple online movie store which would demolish the Sony UMD market for PSP movies.
The games would just have to be nice. Couple that with Apple's "cool" factor and its advertising campaign, and the Sony PSP would be toast. Having the absolute best technology in the handheld gaming area has never led to success. Otherwise, the Atari Lynx would've won out over the Gameboy. And the Gameboy did not have great third party support when it debuted. Its success was due to its low price, the leveraging of Super Mario Bros. on the machine, and the fact that Nintendo had a larger production run and better distribution than Atari with the Lynx. Third party title strength came later.
"This is a really interesting take on the switch that I hadn't considered before. This move to intel makes all the sense in the world if Apple is trying to cram an intel processor inside the iPod, and for pure volume discounts alone, this could really help apple's overall profit margin."
As another poster mentioned, the current iPods use chips assembled by Texas Instruments. It would be helpful if Intel could produce a combo USB/FireWire chip (if they don't already) so it would be yet another chip Apple could purchase from Intel to further qualify for the volume discounting.
I'd also like to speculate regarding the chances of getting past the (apparent) prohibition of using DSP audio chips in Macs due to the prior settlement(s) with Apple Records concerning audio in Macs. Back in the day, there was a really nice Motorola DSP (56001?) that was integrated into the NeXT machines and the Atari Falcon, but never in the Mac line.
"Just look at all other contenders in the high performance CPU market: there's nobody left except for Sun and Fujitsu/Siemens, and they announced last year that they will cooperate on SPARC. From a pure market standpoint, Apple had little choice."
Its too bad that HP couldn't throw some money into the kitty. Then again, they have a history of abandoning chip technology in favor of deals with Intel that sometimes are disasterous.
Maybe DARPA could do something with PowerPC that would be worthy of a defense contract to keep the R&D up.
"I have to post this anonymously... You'll see why below. The real reason Apple switched from IBM is because IBM just hasn't gotten their shit together with 90nm. I know this because I recently left a job at a large semi-conductor manufactorer that used IBM for our digital fab. IBM repeatedly promised, "we'll fix the problems in our process" for YEARS, and just couldn't get their act together. With run after run of silicon, IBM couldn't manufacture the parts correctly (or other other customers parts). Finally, my company became fed up, and bit the bullet to switch to another manufactorer. It was a 4 engineer year sunk cost (to update some the design), and the design worked out of the chute (and at pretty good yields). You heard it here first... IBM just doesn't have their shit together at 90nm."
People forget IBM also bungled up production of the Atari Jaguar back in 93/94. There were several production problems (because of IBM) and thus Atari had to transfer production to Flextronics. Today, Flextronics makes the Xbox for Microsoft.
"If bulk discounts where illegal, Wallmarts would be out of buisness and everyone would have to shop at 7-11."
Speaking of 7 Eleven, they won't sell a Slurpee cup (with the iTunes promotion on it) for the price of the cup alone. They'll charge you the full price for the Slurpee. Each 7 Eleven I've went to claims that Corporate tracks each cup in its inventory system.
"If such a move was made, does this make AMD's anti-trust case against Intel more convincing? Maybe now (because of the lawsuit), intel will not provide such deals to Apple. Is then, Apple in deep shit?"
No way. There's probably more dirt about AMD being frozen out of the original chip contract for the Xbox. Originally, AMD was planned to be offering an Athlon in the machine and then at the last moment, Intel got the contract. It is wise to remember that a lot of the custom chipset in the Xbox later became the basis for the NForce platform from Nvidia, and it was designed with the AMD Athlon - not the Intel PentiumIII - in mind.
AMD didn't get this contract with Apple because it would be IBM all over again in terms of manufacturing capacity. AMD cannot offer *Centrino,* WiMAX, XScale, or Wireless USB to Apple, whereas Intel can. PCIe is debateable since AMD was a founding member of the HyperTransport Board, but again, Intel probably could provide Apple with PCIe chips as well.
"IBM and Freescale also have some PPC chips that are used in embedded systems that could have also worked for the IPod."
Certainly. The Cell processor line could've been used in the iPod as well. However, Apple was probably concerned that Sony would eat up all the Cell chips that IBM was able to manufacture, whereas Intel doesn't suffer the same problem.
Intel is kinda like Dell in that aspect. They don't have truly amazing designs, but they excell at cranking out product consistently whereas Apple (and AMD too) creates amazing products but then get snagged with delays due to manufacturing issues.
Apple will also be interested in chips from Intel concerning WiMAX, which Intel does and AMD does not (to my knowledge).
"And why does Apple need to switch from plain-Jane ARM processors to Intel's greased-lightning XScale? What do they need that extra power for? Why, to bring back the Newton, of course!"
An iPod with PDA functionality. Like it or not, the *iPod* is the brand/trademark that matters, not the Newton. Only techies and longtime Apple fans (not the recent switchers) have any knowledge or care-in-the-world about the Newton, no matter how groundbreaking it was.
"Maybe he should come down with an STD if he fucks every skank in the neighborhood. Or maybe he can be have his cash taken away to support the kid he fathered."
I can already see the sequel:
GTA: Baby Momma Drama
Hey, can you have more than one woman at a time in the game? I don't have the PC version...:0
"Let me get this straight. You think that a significant reason why people haven't made the switch to Apple is due to the lack of an Apple branded 2 button plus scroll wheel mouse? Are you out of your mind?"
I am not at all out of my mind. Perhaps you should listen to the conversations Best Buy sales reps have with first time computer buyers at their store sometime. I've heard countless times (especially when I worked there a long time ago) sales reps make disparaging remarks about Apple Macs, and one of the standard comments is "An Apple Mac? What a joke. It only comes with a one button mouse! How lame." And thus the Joe Average first-time computer buyer buys an eMachines or a Compaq without ever thinking about a Mac again. It even happens now even at the Best Buy stores that are carrying the Mac Mini. Typically, there will be one single Mac Mini on display on an *end cap* looking like an orphan in the rest of the department. Try to get a sales rep to say one good thing about it. Then you can get back to me on how *insane* I am about this topic.
The Mac Mini was to increase the Mac's marketshare by attracting switchers and first time buyers. It isn't sold with the standard one button mouse. And I would bet money that the "attachment" rate of Mac Minis and Apple branded one button mice are pretty poor.
"Besides, even if Apple did offer such a mouse, it would cost atleast 2-3 times as much as Microsoft's and Logitech's offerings, do less, and be uncomfortable to use. But it would sure look cool."
It would look cool but there's no reason why a two button + scroll wheel mouse from Apple would cost twice the price of a standard mouse from the PC world bundled with the machine. Separately, it might cost twice the price if you are comparing a Bluetooth equipped mouse to a standard chord based mouse. However, I did not stress that Apple bundle the Bluetoothed enabled mouse with the Mac. The inference is a two button + scroll wheel mouse on a chord bundled standard with a Mac. And then sell the Bluetooth one separate for those interested. That would increase Apple's sales and keep those same buyers from venturing out and buying something instead from Logitech or Microsoft. Or Kensington.
"If I understand correctly, you're saying that if Apple came out with a two button mouse with scroll wheel (hereafter TBMWSW), this theoretical Apple TBMWSW would "steal away" market share from Logitech and Microsoft (the largest branded manufacturers of TBMWSWs, at least in the USA)."
Okay. Close enough. Here's the argument. If Apple shipped a TBMWSW standard, less Apple people would feel compelled to purchase a separate TBMWSW from another company and perhaps would buy something else by Apple instead. This would not only be good for shareholders but also Apple owners as well, because as long as Apple is extremely successful, then that means (assumption) more development dollars for OS X and Macs in general.
Similarly, if Apple made their Bluetooth mouse a TBMWSW, coupled with Apple's renounced style, Apple could convince non-Apple PC purchasers to buy their [Apple's] mouse instead of, say, a Logitech or Microsoft mouse. That means more money for Apple and also begins the so-called "Halo" process of slowly but surely converting said consumer into a dedicated Apple fan, just like what Apple is doing with the iPod, only more subtle. The initial Apple mouse purchase might not hurt Microsoft's mice sales, but it could start a spiral in the consumer's head about wanting to purchase an actual Apple Mac the next time around.
"You sure are partisan about your choices. It doesn't really make you any cooler, however."
Never claimed to be cooler, but the ladies seem to like it...:0
But yeah, I am opinionated with what I want. More consumers should be. Then there'd be better customer satisfaction and less temptation for governments to get involved. But that's a whole separate subject...
As you also addressed, screen scratching on candybar form factor phones is also another concern of mine and another reason why I prefer flip phones. I believe that is more than a legitimate concern.
"So how do people carry their flip phones? I went from a Nokia 3360 to a Moto V771 and it was always whacking into something when I had it on a belt clip, and always looked big and stupid when I carried it in a pocket. The hinge finally broke when I had it in my jeans and my daughter jumped on my lap, so I replaced it with a Nokia 3120. The Nokia is smaller, lighter and doesn't snag on random bits of furniture when I walk by. Maybe I just got a fat one, but I'm not likely to go back to a flip phone. Maybe one of these, though..."
I don't like "candybar" phones (even my Sony Ericsson T616) because for me, I don't get good reception with them compared to flips. I don't like having to carry it in a pouch to keep the screen from being scratched while in my pocket, or the other annoying thing, moment causing the keylock to become undone so the phone actually makes a call to someone on my phone list when I'm not even aware what is going on with it. That's especially bad if you are having a conversation with another friend about the very someone when the phone decides to call them. That's not kharma, that's just a bad phone design.:)
"Motorola has several new models that were announced about six weeks ago, all in the Razr line. With transflash memory slots within the phones."
True. But none of those RAZR models have been announced as supporting AAC+Fairplay...yet...:) Same goes with the Nokia segment you mentioned. Although it would be hopeful that Nokia could at least make their phones' hardware capable of AAC+Fairplay through a licensing agreement. Shouldn't be impossible or improbable since Nokia is working with Apple on porting Safari to their phones.
"Well as somone who supports the Razor on a daily basis(guess where I work, wirless providor that is."
"What exactly are you doing with that other hand while surfing the web?"
Funny, but I'm not left handed.:) Its (the left hand) usually on the chair's arm rest and I'm reclining, reading the news. But I'm sure others could/would do other activities...
"It's just better to let people get what they want on the free market--where users drive innovation--than to constantly invest huge resources making a product that tries to be everything to everyone."
I agree with you on that point. I wish the PC manufacturers would adopt Apple's position with the Mac Mini...don't bundle keyboards or mice with the standard machine. Let the end user pick their own device and not waste money on something they don't like yet are forced to (indirectly) buy.
However, with that said, if that were the case, Apple could pick up extra sales to PC buyers if their Bluetooth mouse were of the two button + scroll wheel variety. Which is the point I was getting at with the original post.
"What problems have you had? I've had Vonage for a few months now and haven't had anything go wrong at all. I can game online while the phone is in use and there is no effect on my ping."
Echoed calls, where I can hear my own voice repeated in the receiver portion of the phone. And when I call semi-rural areas, the party I'm calling has problems hearing me...the audio volume drops.
Seeing that I sometimes get the "echo" on my GSM phone (through AT&T Wireless/Cingular), I cannot begin to fathom double echoing, one from the VoIP, and one through the mobile on top of that.
But I do like Vonage...hate their commercials though.
"with a scroll wheel for my Mac (actualy make that Macs,) and it works just fine. The right mouse button works fine (pops up the same menus as pop-and-hold-for-two-seconds but instantly) and the wheel works fine too (scrolling through the XCode docs a lot easier.) I only use the Apple while the mouse batteries are recharging."
Exactly. But wouldn't you have prefered the option of Apple making what you purchased from a separate company? That's my point/concern, lost sales/giving money unnecessarily to a competitor.
"SBC sucks dead donkey d*cks. I was contracting at Ameritech when SBC took over. I was no fan of Ameritech management, but compared to SBC, they were sympathetic geniuses. As I told people, it's a bunch of Texans who depend on the common sense of Los Angeles and the technological expertise of Little Rock to see them through. (I am nothing if not an equal-opportunity offender.) I still remember that, upon SBC's takeover, there was soon a three-month wait for new phone service. SBC kept getting fined by the feds, and the CEO, Ed Whittaker, was quoted as blaming the customers for expecting their phones to work and be ready quickly. Yes, how dare we expect a company to honor their contract."
I agree with you completely. My mom works for SBC, as she worked for Pacific Bell and MaBell before that. The leftover employees (or legacy employees) from Pacific Bell hate SBC management. Corporate management is always referred to as "those cheap Texan bastards." Well, they do sometimes go out of their way to distinguish those "cheap Texan bastards" from other noted ones like Enron and El Paso who both defrauded the State of California out of billions of dollars, but that's a different subject.
But I guess in the end, I can only fault Pacific Bell's management for selling out. First, they didn't get behind ISDN until the net had already become popular and DSL was just around the corner. Then they spun off Airtouch in order to effectively be bought out by SBC easier (and with less complications from the FCC and FTC) and thus have to start all over again with Pacific Bell PCS which later got swaped with the SBC and BellSouth assets to create Cingular. Then Cingular buys AT&T Wireless, and effectively sacks a ton of AT&T Wireless employees because they weren't union employees and the layoffs from the duplication of resources fell on them.
Oh, I didn't mention how SBC tried to screw me out of DSL. I lived in an area that was not serviced by SBC DSL, so I had to go through Covad via Earthlink. But Covad still needed an SBC tech to come out and modify the line and grant approval. The SBC tech did nothing but badmouth Covad and explain how SBC was so much better yet they didn't offer service in the area anyway. Next, two weeks later, SBC "accidentally" cut my DSL line at the local switching station when they modified another customer's line to use two-way on their line.
Since then, I'm with Comcast for my broadband. Instead of having to deal with Earthlink+Covad+SBC, I now have one single source to vent my hate at. I find that a more constructive use of my hate resources.:)
"Wireless VoIP phone are the latest and hottest thing and in conjunction with wireless neighborhood mesh networks that are popping up everywhere 802.11g and very soon WiMAX(802.16) are becoming the wireless standards of the future. For both, internet and phone."
As a Vonage subscriber, I have to say that there are still problems with VoIP service. Its cheap though...:)
"Not to spread FUD, but I once read - I think right here on Slashdot - that Apple Corporate made the "informed" decision to stay with the one-button after consideration and review. If anyone knows anything about this I would be very interested to either have this denied as FUD or to have an explanation of just WHAT THE HELL THEY WERE THINKING?!?"
Its the decision of Steve Jobs. However, in the past few months, ThinkSecret, MacRumors, and AppleInsider have all reported that Apple has been working on some new design for a two button mouse that has yet to see the light of the market day.
"If the goal is to be different from the rest of the PC world, ship a three-button mouse."
I believe three-button mice have historically been popular with the UNIX crowd. Although in light of that, it would definitely be appropriate since OS X is based on UNIX, albeit through the FreeBSD route. I should also note that a two button + scroll wheel mouse is essentially a three button mouse.
Slashdot Mirror
"Sadly all based on the ARM core. Ever getting the feeling that ARM is becoming the embedded x86?"
Well, at least ARM turned itself around after the disaster that was called 3DO. They did make the CPU of that machine, after all.
As for Freescale, I think the best thing that could happen to them is if IBM Semiconductor acquired them, unified most of the PPC development, and then IBM spun them off to the shareholders.
I mean really. This is the same Midway that bought out Atari Games Corp., ruined it, and then fled the arcade industry altogether.
What exactly do they make that's cool on the Playstation2 or the Xbox? And what exactly do they have that's cool set for the Xbox360 or the PS3?
Seriously, if it weren't for Sumner (Mr. Viacom himself) Redstone buying something like 70% of the stock, I wish Infogrames, ahem, Atari, would simply acquire Midway so *Atari* proper could be reunified. Maybe that would inspire something great. As it stands, the Infogrames Atari only owns the rights to the 1972-June 1984 Atari arcade titles, which was the time that Warner Communications severed the company in two (actually, three if you count Ataritel as another entity), selling the home division to Jack Tramiel and keeping a small stake in the arcade division while selling most of its stock to Namco (which was a brief tenure). Time Warner's later 1996 sale of Atari Games to WMS Industries (Midway) was a disaster which only contributed to the decline of the arcade industry into almost nothing today here in America. (Although most of the blame goes to all the clones that Capcom's Street FighterII ushered in and chased away all the casual arcade gamers for the hardcore tools in the process) which also led to chasing out the originality (which was the hallmark of Atari Games) from the arcade game scene.
"I was part of the project team that maintained the x86 core of OS X and we in on a lot of the conference calls that Apple had discussing the impending switch. What acually happened was that senior management was extremely unhappy with IBM sharing the PowerPC technology with Apple's competitors Sony and Toshiba (via the Cell work, as well as other stuff that hasn't been announced yet). Apple disagreed with IBM as to what their technology licensing agreements said they could and could not do, so Apple basically laid it out on the line and told IBM to cease sharing the technology with Apple's competitors or they woud go somewhere else. I wasn't there when IBM said no, but Jobs was livid at the last meeting I was in on, and demanded to know how soon we could get our work out the door into some Intel based systems."
Riiiight. So when is Apple going to sue IBM/Microsoft/Toshiba/Sony/Nintendo for IP infringement under this scenario? Is Jobs waiting for the machines to hit the market before he unleashes the lawsuit clusterfrag? After all, Apple does own a chunk of the PowerPC IP. Surely they'd want a licensing agreement, especially from the PS3 sales.
"I suppose Einstein, with his hairdo, will make a fitting bride of Frankenstein... :)"
The real Albert Einstein or the Yahoo Serious Einstein?
My money's on the Yahoo Serious version.
"Apple doesn't have deep enough pockets to make this happen."
While I agree with most of your sentiment, if you flip your argument, Sony should have deep enough pockets to beat Apple in the MP3 player market. They have deep pockets, but they've done jack to dethrone Apple. Sony has deep enough pockets to make Sony Connect successful, but they haven't. Sony has deep enough pockets to make MemoryStick to become successful, but they haven't.
Substituting the name Microsoft into such an argument also is noteworthy. Microsoft has enough cash to make anything successful, but it hasn't worked. The Xbox would be dead if it were not for the Xbox Live system and Halo. Using your argument about developer relationships, Microsoft should be #1 in videogames considering their relationships with the game developers and the fact that the Xbox is easier to program than the Playstation2. But reality paints a different picture.
"End of story: Apple can't kill the PSP."
Apple doesn't have to kill the PSP because Nintendo will do the job just like it has done to every other handheld competitor. The PSP is awesome, but it is the 2005 version of the Atari Lynx, which judging from my user name, you should conclude that I am very fond of. Twenty + year olds are buying PSPs, not the kids nor are the parents buying them for the kids...just like with the Atari Lynx 16 years ago. The kids still get the Gameboys. All Apple has to do is add videogame functionality and better movie playback to a video iPod and it would split the demographic that the PSP appeals to. Even more so when the Video iPod is coupled with an Apple online movie store which would demolish the Sony UMD market for PSP movies.
The games would just have to be nice. Couple that with Apple's "cool" factor and its advertising campaign, and the Sony PSP would be toast. Having the absolute best technology in the handheld gaming area has never led to success. Otherwise, the Atari Lynx would've won out over the Gameboy. And the Gameboy did not have great third party support when it debuted. Its success was due to its low price, the leveraging of Super Mario Bros. on the machine, and the fact that Nintendo had a larger production run and better distribution than Atari with the Lynx. Third party title strength came later.
"This is a really interesting take on the switch that I hadn't considered before. This move to intel makes all the sense in the world if Apple is trying to cram an intel processor inside the iPod, and for pure volume discounts alone, this could really help apple's overall profit margin."
As another poster mentioned, the current iPods use chips assembled by Texas Instruments. It would be helpful if Intel could produce a combo USB/FireWire chip (if they don't already) so it would be yet another chip Apple could purchase from Intel to further qualify for the volume discounting.
I'd also like to speculate regarding the chances of getting past the (apparent) prohibition of using DSP audio chips in Macs due to the prior settlement(s) with Apple Records concerning audio in Macs. Back in the day, there was a really nice Motorola DSP (56001?) that was integrated into the NeXT machines and the Atari Falcon, but never in the Mac line.
"Just look at all other contenders in the high performance CPU market: there's nobody left except for Sun and Fujitsu/Siemens, and they announced last year that they will cooperate on SPARC. From a pure market standpoint, Apple had little choice."
Its too bad that HP couldn't throw some money into the kitty. Then again, they have a history of abandoning chip technology in favor of deals with Intel that sometimes are disasterous.
Maybe DARPA could do something with PowerPC that would be worthy of a defense contract to keep the R&D up.
"I have to post this anonymously... You'll see why below. The real reason Apple switched from IBM is because IBM just hasn't gotten their shit together with 90nm. I know this because I recently left a job at a large semi-conductor manufactorer that used IBM for our digital fab. IBM repeatedly promised, "we'll fix the problems in our process" for YEARS, and just couldn't get their act together. With run after run of silicon, IBM couldn't manufacture the parts correctly (or other other customers parts). Finally, my company became fed up, and bit the bullet to switch to another manufactorer. It was a 4 engineer year sunk cost (to update some the design), and the design worked out of the chute (and at pretty good yields). You heard it here first... IBM just doesn't have their shit together at 90nm."
People forget IBM also bungled up production of the Atari Jaguar back in 93/94. There were several production problems (because of IBM) and thus Atari had to transfer production to Flextronics. Today, Flextronics makes the Xbox for Microsoft.
"If bulk discounts where illegal, Wallmarts would be out of buisness and everyone would have to shop at 7-11."
Speaking of 7 Eleven, they won't sell a Slurpee cup (with the iTunes promotion on it) for the price of the cup alone. They'll charge you the full price for the Slurpee. Each 7 Eleven I've went to claims that Corporate tracks each cup in its inventory system.
"If such a move was made, does this make AMD's anti-trust case against Intel more convincing?
Maybe now (because of the lawsuit), intel will not provide such deals to Apple. Is then, Apple in deep shit?"
No way. There's probably more dirt about AMD being frozen out of the original chip contract for the Xbox. Originally, AMD was planned to be offering an Athlon in the machine and then at the last moment, Intel got the contract. It is wise to remember that a lot of the custom chipset in the Xbox later became the basis for the NForce platform from Nvidia, and it was designed with the AMD Athlon - not the Intel PentiumIII - in mind.
AMD didn't get this contract with Apple because it would be IBM all over again in terms of manufacturing capacity. AMD cannot offer *Centrino,* WiMAX, XScale, or Wireless USB to Apple, whereas Intel can. PCIe is debateable since AMD was a founding member of the HyperTransport Board, but again, Intel probably could provide Apple with PCIe chips as well.
"IBM and Freescale also have some PPC chips that are used in embedded systems that could have also worked for the IPod."
Certainly. The Cell processor line could've been used in the iPod as well. However, Apple was probably concerned that Sony would eat up all the Cell chips that IBM was able to manufacture, whereas Intel doesn't suffer the same problem.
Intel is kinda like Dell in that aspect. They don't have truly amazing designs, but they excell at cranking out product consistently whereas Apple (and AMD too) creates amazing products but then get snagged with delays due to manufacturing issues.
Apple will also be interested in chips from Intel concerning WiMAX, which Intel does and AMD does not (to my knowledge).
"And why does Apple need to switch from plain-Jane ARM processors to Intel's greased-lightning XScale? What do they need that extra power for? Why, to bring back the Newton, of course!"
An iPod with PDA functionality. Like it or not, the *iPod* is the brand/trademark that matters, not the Newton. Only techies and longtime Apple fans (not the recent switchers) have any knowledge or care-in-the-world about the Newton, no matter how groundbreaking it was.
The Tablet Mac is also another possibility too.
"Maybe he should come down with an STD if he fucks every skank in the neighborhood. Or maybe he can be have his cash taken away to support the kid he fathered."
:0
I can already see the sequel:
GTA: Baby Momma Drama
Hey, can you have more than one woman at a time in the game? I don't have the PC version...
"Let me get this straight. You think that a significant reason why people haven't made the switch to Apple is due to the lack of an Apple branded 2 button plus scroll wheel mouse? Are you out of your mind?"
I am not at all out of my mind. Perhaps you should listen to the conversations Best Buy sales reps have with first time computer buyers at their store sometime. I've heard countless times (especially when I worked there a long time ago) sales reps make disparaging remarks about Apple Macs, and one of the standard comments is "An Apple Mac? What a joke. It only comes with a one button mouse! How lame." And thus the Joe Average first-time computer buyer buys an eMachines or a Compaq without ever thinking about a Mac again. It even happens now even at the Best Buy stores that are carrying the Mac Mini. Typically, there will be one single Mac Mini on display on an *end cap* looking like an orphan in the rest of the department. Try to get a sales rep to say one good thing about it. Then you can get back to me on how *insane* I am about this topic.
The Mac Mini was to increase the Mac's marketshare by attracting switchers and first time buyers. It isn't sold with the standard one button mouse. And I would bet money that the "attachment" rate of Mac Minis and Apple branded one button mice are pretty poor.
"Besides, even if Apple did offer such a mouse, it would cost atleast 2-3 times as much as Microsoft's and Logitech's offerings, do less, and be uncomfortable to use. But it would sure look cool."
It would look cool but there's no reason why a two button + scroll wheel mouse from Apple would cost twice the price of a standard mouse from the PC world bundled with the machine. Separately, it might cost twice the price if you are comparing a Bluetooth equipped mouse to a standard chord based mouse. However, I did not stress that Apple bundle the Bluetoothed enabled mouse with the Mac. The inference is a two button + scroll wheel mouse on a chord bundled standard with a Mac. And then sell the Bluetooth one separate for those interested. That would increase Apple's sales and keep those same buyers from venturing out and buying something instead from Logitech or Microsoft. Or Kensington.
"If I understand correctly, you're saying that if Apple came out with a two button mouse with scroll wheel (hereafter TBMWSW), this theoretical Apple TBMWSW would "steal away" market share from Logitech and Microsoft (the largest branded manufacturers of TBMWSWs, at least in the USA)."
Okay. Close enough. Here's the argument. If Apple shipped a TBMWSW standard, less Apple people would feel compelled to purchase a separate TBMWSW from another company and perhaps would buy something else by Apple instead. This would not only be good for shareholders but also Apple owners as well, because as long as Apple is extremely successful, then that means (assumption) more development dollars for OS X and Macs in general.
Similarly, if Apple made their Bluetooth mouse a TBMWSW, coupled with Apple's renounced style, Apple could convince non-Apple PC purchasers to buy their [Apple's] mouse instead of, say, a Logitech or Microsoft mouse. That means more money for Apple and also begins the so-called "Halo" process of slowly but surely converting said consumer into a dedicated Apple fan, just like what Apple is doing with the iPod, only more subtle. The initial Apple mouse purchase might not hurt Microsoft's mice sales, but it could start a spiral in the consumer's head about wanting to purchase an actual Apple Mac the next time around.
"You sure are partisan about your choices. It doesn't really make you any cooler, however."
:0
Never claimed to be cooler, but the ladies seem to like it...
But yeah, I am opinionated with what I want. More consumers should be. Then there'd be better customer satisfaction and less temptation for governments to get involved. But that's a whole separate subject...
As you also addressed, screen scratching on candybar form factor phones is also another concern of mine and another reason why I prefer flip phones. I believe that is more than a legitimate concern.
"So how do people carry their flip phones? I went from a Nokia 3360 to a Moto V771 and it was always whacking into something when I had it on a belt clip, and always looked big and stupid when I carried it in a pocket. The hinge finally broke when I had it in my jeans and my daughter jumped on my lap, so I replaced it with a Nokia 3120. The Nokia is smaller, lighter and doesn't snag on random bits of furniture when I walk by. Maybe I just got a fat one, but I'm not likely to go back to a flip phone. Maybe one of these, though..."
:)
I don't like "candybar" phones (even my Sony Ericsson T616) because for me, I don't get good reception with them compared to flips. I don't like having to carry it in a pouch to keep the screen from being scratched while in my pocket, or the other annoying thing, moment causing the keylock to become undone so the phone actually makes a call to someone on my phone list when I'm not even aware what is going on with it. That's especially bad if you are having a conversation with another friend about the very someone when the phone decides to call them. That's not kharma, that's just a bad phone design.
"Motorola has several new models that were announced about six weeks ago, all in the Razr line. With transflash memory slots within the phones."
:) Same goes with the Nokia segment you mentioned. Although it would be hopeful that Nokia could at least make their phones' hardware capable of AAC+Fairplay through a licensing agreement. Shouldn't be impossible or improbable since Nokia is working with Apple on porting Safari to their phones.
:) (smirk)...
True. But none of those RAZR models have been announced as supporting AAC+Fairplay...yet...
"Well as somone who supports the Razor on a daily basis(guess where I work, wirless providor that is."
T-Mobile?
"What exactly are you doing with that other hand while surfing the web?"
:) Its (the left hand) usually on the chair's arm rest and I'm reclining, reading the news. But I'm sure others could/would do other activities...
Funny, but I'm not left handed.
"It's just better to let people get what they want on the free market--where users drive innovation--than to constantly invest huge resources making a product that tries to be everything to everyone."
I agree with you on that point. I wish the PC manufacturers would adopt Apple's position with the Mac Mini...don't bundle keyboards or mice with the standard machine. Let the end user pick their own device and not waste money on something they don't like yet are forced to (indirectly) buy.
However, with that said, if that were the case, Apple could pick up extra sales to PC buyers if their Bluetooth mouse were of the two button + scroll wheel variety. Which is the point I was getting at with the original post.
"What problems have you had? I've had Vonage for a few months now and haven't had anything go wrong at all. I can game online while the phone is in use and there is no effect on my ping."
Echoed calls, where I can hear my own voice repeated in the receiver portion of the phone. And when I call semi-rural areas, the party I'm calling has problems hearing me...the audio volume drops.
Seeing that I sometimes get the "echo" on my GSM phone (through AT&T Wireless/Cingular), I cannot begin to fathom double echoing, one from the VoIP, and one through the mobile on top of that.
But I do like Vonage...hate their commercials though.
"with a scroll wheel for my Mac (actualy make that Macs,) and it works just fine. The right mouse button works fine (pops up the same menus as pop-and-hold-for-two-seconds but instantly) and the wheel works fine too (scrolling through the XCode docs a lot easier.)
I only use the Apple while the mouse batteries are recharging."
Exactly. But wouldn't you have prefered the option of Apple making what you purchased from a separate company? That's my point/concern, lost sales/giving money unnecessarily to a competitor.
"SBC sucks dead donkey d*cks. I was contracting at Ameritech when SBC took over. I was no fan of Ameritech management, but compared to SBC, they were sympathetic geniuses. As I told people, it's a bunch of Texans who depend on the common sense of Los Angeles and the technological expertise of Little Rock to see them through. (I am nothing if not an equal-opportunity offender.)
:)
I still remember that, upon SBC's takeover, there was soon a three-month wait for new phone service. SBC kept getting fined by the feds, and the CEO, Ed Whittaker, was quoted as blaming the customers for expecting their phones to work and be ready quickly. Yes, how dare we expect a company to honor their contract."
I agree with you completely. My mom works for SBC, as she worked for Pacific Bell and MaBell before that. The leftover employees (or legacy employees) from Pacific Bell hate SBC management. Corporate management is always referred to as "those cheap Texan bastards." Well, they do sometimes go out of their way to distinguish those "cheap Texan bastards" from other noted ones like Enron and El Paso who both defrauded the State of California out of billions of dollars, but that's a different subject.
But I guess in the end, I can only fault Pacific Bell's management for selling out. First, they didn't get behind ISDN until the net had already become popular and DSL was just around the corner. Then they spun off Airtouch in order to effectively be bought out by SBC easier (and with less complications from the FCC and FTC) and thus have to start all over again with Pacific Bell PCS which later got swaped with the SBC and BellSouth assets to create Cingular. Then Cingular buys AT&T Wireless, and effectively sacks a ton of AT&T Wireless employees because they weren't union employees and the layoffs from the duplication of resources fell on them.
Oh, I didn't mention how SBC tried to screw me out of DSL. I lived in an area that was not serviced by SBC DSL, so I had to go through Covad via Earthlink. But Covad still needed an SBC tech to come out and modify the line and grant approval. The SBC tech did nothing but badmouth Covad and explain how SBC was so much better yet they didn't offer service in the area anyway. Next, two weeks later, SBC "accidentally" cut my DSL line at the local switching station when they modified another customer's line to use two-way on their line.
Since then, I'm with Comcast for my broadband. Instead of having to deal with Earthlink+Covad+SBC, I now have one single source to vent my hate at. I find that a more constructive use of my hate resources.
"Wireless VoIP phone are the latest and hottest thing and in conjunction with wireless neighborhood mesh networks that are popping up everywhere 802.11g and very soon WiMAX(802.16) are becoming the wireless standards of the future. For both, internet and phone."
:)
As a Vonage subscriber, I have to say that there are still problems with VoIP service. Its cheap though...
"Not to spread FUD, but I once read - I think right here on Slashdot - that Apple Corporate made the "informed" decision to stay with the one-button after consideration and review. If anyone knows anything about this I would be very interested to either have this denied as FUD or to have an explanation of just WHAT THE HELL THEY WERE THINKING?!?"
Its the decision of Steve Jobs. However, in the past few months, ThinkSecret, MacRumors, and AppleInsider have all reported that Apple has been working on some new design for a two button mouse that has yet to see the light of the market day.
"If the goal is to be different from the rest of the PC world, ship a three-button mouse."
I believe three-button mice have historically been popular with the UNIX crowd. Although in light of that, it would definitely be appropriate since OS X is based on UNIX, albeit through the FreeBSD route. I should also note that a two button + scroll wheel mouse is essentially a three button mouse.