OS X has a 15% worldwide install base of 18 million users and a market dominance in the creative professional market. "Niche player" is too marginalizing and inaccurate a description. In fact, the majority of Windows marketshare is going to those big enterprise Windows volume licenses of 5,000 at a time for cubicle workers and secretaries. For an operating system that Microsoft is liberally "borrowing" from in Vista, it's odd for you to discount its impact.
You also ignore history--OS X derives from older systems like OpenStep which were cross-platform and even ran on NT. It still didn't help NeXTStep. Microsoft has OEMs far too tied up in Windows license contracts.
So it is your opinion they would make more money by selling software
No, it is not. There's no way they would make more money selling software.
but won't do it because they are a hardware company and they would rather just stick to what they know.
You drew two conclusions that I didn't state anywhere at all in my post. I said Apple wouldn't make money doing it because they're a hardware company, and there's no value to the shareholders; as in, hardware is where they're making all their high-margin profits and switching business models would kill that.
A niche application with a limited audience that happens to be the most-used front-end to Pro Tools in recording studios. I wasn't suggesting that OS X will use a USB dongle; the TPM chip is the dongle. Apple's engineers will simply integrate the GUI and other services even further into the chip.
Oh, geez. It's true that people buy Macs for the whole package, but Mac OS X is the user experience driving the whole package, and I'd argue that it's the most "special" aspect of the Mac experience. Otherwise, people wouldn't be porting its kernel to run it on their flimsy PCs.
After you calm down and stop hyperventilating, maybe you'll realize that Apple is a hardware company that sells software to increase the value of its hardware to the consumer. iLife? Final Cut? Duh.
Playing cards or video games, Nintendo still sells game hardware. The reason that people always explain that Apple is a hardware company is because it's a fundamental strategy difference from a software company like Microsoft. Apple makes its money on its hardware, and the software is used to increase the value of the hardware to the consumer. A company like Microsoft relies solely on software which is cheaper than hardware (Vista notwithstanding...just kidding), so they have to support as much hardware as they possibly can to make up the difference. Microsoft's hardware ventures--the XBox and the XBox 360--have never generated profit, and neither will the Zune on launch.
So it wouldn't just be a magical change in focus for Apple to become a software company. It would require an entirely new business model with entirely new software products that support entirely new platforms. It would kill the company, and nobody would want it to happen anyway because Macs are fantastic pieces of hardware that run a very stable operating system.
Wow, so much FUD. "overpriced" even though the Mac Pro is $1,000 less than the equivalent Dell and the new MacBook Pros are also less than the equivalent Dells. You even end with the old "iPod users just want to look cool" canard.
There are many ways Apple can (and probably will) tie OS X to Mac hardware. They've got people who can do it (to date, there has never been a crack for Logic 7 Pro and its USB dongle).
Stuff like this is going to make Apple bring out the big guns when it comes to TPM integration in OS X Leopard. Pro apps like Logic 7 Pro have never been cracked, so Apple's got people who know how to do copyright protection. I suspect once Leopard is out, we'll never hear about "OSx86" again.
Well, I've never had to reinstall OS X, so I guess yeah, it does seem to only apply to Microsoft. They almost shipped an RTM release with that bug. That doesn't bother you a bit?
Before everyone gets their flame on remember how many times they got verbally hammered for not testing their software first and shipping later.
But Microsoft isn't giving itself enough time to thoroughly test this because they're rushing out Vista by the end of the year. They just found a major system-corrupting bug after they've already pushed out an RC1 and RC2 and weeks away from RTM. That's a little alarming. The criticism in this case stems from the fact that they're not giving Vista enough time to simmer so that they can catch issues like this (the logical reaction is to wonder what other flaws might be discovered in Vista after release). It's an issue of not testing enough.
Google's role of indexing the web is based on the assumption that the content it indexes through its algorithms is an accurate representation of the web. Google's engine attempts to determine content relevancy to provide accurate results for a search term, and when bloggers use search engine optimization, they are exploiting the algorithms to promote their site result above others illegitimately. It's against the spirit of the system and should be discouraged, because if you encourage these folks to do it, you encourage any spammer to corrupt the system's accuracy. That ruins it for everybody and destroys the value of the system, because it renders all search results suspect.
No, they are a core group of activists changing the indexed Google results for the web, not the web itself. They are manipulating algorithms that are designed to maintain neutrality as much as possible.
1. Using your popular site to promote a story is ok, even if you get your friends to do the same; attempting to trick Google's algorithms into giving your site more respect than it is due is not.
This is exactly what search engine optimization is--tricking Google into pushing your result to the top over others that are legitimately linked on the web. I don't know about you, but I don't want a search engine corrupted by special interests.
2. Publicizing an article full of facts, and opinions based on those facts is ok; making stuff up to influence an election is not.
There's nothing wrong with publicizing an article by creating a web page. Simply because a group of people think their particular article is so noteworthy that it deserves to be viewed above all others despite Google's relevancy algorithms placing it low on the list doesn't mean they have the right to game the system. To support the tactics of this group is to support spammers who game Google; it is the same mindset of entitlement ("My results belong above everyone else's, just because I say so!").
To all those AMD fanboi's that cried "Why not AMD"? when Apple choose Intel, this is why.
Also, the fact that the Core 2 crushes AMD's chips while consuming less power, which was probably the most important factor. The Powerbooks were dying for a processor upgrade.
Google isn't going to stop this if they're smart, because their job is to index the web, and the so-called google-bombers aren't gaming the system, they're changing the web.
Are you serious?
The job of a web search engine is to reflect the web by determining relevancy of content. What these folks are doing isn't "changing the web." They're gaming the system by lending influence to specific search results that doesn't accurately reflect the normal relevant results presented by Google's neutral algorithms. The behavior of a small group of extremists does not accurately reflect the web any more than one black person committing a crime represents all black people; in other words, the way they're changing the web is self-serving only to them and not the web and does not accurately reflect the web.
The guy specifically calls it "search engine optimization." Now, Slashdot is often posting stories about sleazy spammers and their SEO tactics, and this itself is essentially spamming. Regardless of which political affiliation you are (this is Slashdot, so I know which direction it leans), you should be getting your message out by rationally explaining it to the folks; not by using spamming and misdirection. Tactics like this only hurt politics. Next time someone mentions the "Republican propaganda machine," I'll just point them to this article as proof that they are selectively ignoring the sleazy tactics of members of their own party.
If these guys wanted to bring attention to certain information about opposing candidates, they should do what every rational person should do which is take out a print advertisement or a TV spot and get the message to the voters. This kind of stuff reminds me of people ripping down opposing candidate posters and putting up their own. Your red car analogy doesn't fly, unless you did something like go through the neighborhood and paint everybody's car red just to point out that one guy's car was red, rather than just hanging up flyers to let people know that the friggin' car is red.
...which Democrats also pretend. Both sides claim to be singled out by the press, by the government, by wackos, etc.
I am so FRUSTRATED by people on either side claiming matter-of-factly that the OTHER guys are the immoral, illegal ones while ignoring the crimes of their own (there has been plenty by Democrats this year). You guys are essentially two battling religious factions, each with your holy books and saviors. Who's to say one holy book is any more right than the other?
Yeah, thanks for that mental image. Somehow, I doubt criticizing RMS is going to make him go away, and arguing that someone shouldn't be criticized 'lest we risk offending them and making them go away is a bogus argument. Everyone is fair game.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft untied IE7 from Windows. You got your wish.
OS X has a 15% worldwide install base of 18 million users and a market dominance in the creative professional market. "Niche player" is too marginalizing and inaccurate a description. In fact, the majority of Windows marketshare is going to those big enterprise Windows volume licenses of 5,000 at a time for cubicle workers and secretaries. For an operating system that Microsoft is liberally "borrowing" from in Vista, it's odd for you to discount its impact.
You also ignore history--OS X derives from older systems like OpenStep which were cross-platform and even ran on NT. It still didn't help NeXTStep. Microsoft has OEMs far too tied up in Windows license contracts.
No, it is not. There's no way they would make more money selling software.
You drew two conclusions that I didn't state anywhere at all in my post. I said Apple wouldn't make money doing it because they're a hardware company, and there's no value to the shareholders; as in, hardware is where they're making all their high-margin profits and switching business models would kill that.
Apple wouldn't make more money giving away their intellectual property. In fact, there's no fathomable way they ever could make money doing that.
No, it hasn't.
A niche application with a limited audience that happens to be the most-used front-end to Pro Tools in recording studios. I wasn't suggesting that OS X will use a USB dongle; the TPM chip is the dongle. Apple's engineers will simply integrate the GUI and other services even further into the chip.
Oh, geez. It's true that people buy Macs for the whole package, but Mac OS X is the user experience driving the whole package, and I'd argue that it's the most "special" aspect of the Mac experience. Otherwise, people wouldn't be porting its kernel to run it on their flimsy PCs.
After you calm down and stop hyperventilating, maybe you'll realize that Apple is a hardware company that sells software to increase the value of its hardware to the consumer. iLife? Final Cut? Duh.
Playing cards or video games, Nintendo still sells game hardware. The reason that people always explain that Apple is a hardware company is because it's a fundamental strategy difference from a software company like Microsoft. Apple makes its money on its hardware, and the software is used to increase the value of the hardware to the consumer. A company like Microsoft relies solely on software which is cheaper than hardware (Vista notwithstanding...just kidding), so they have to support as much hardware as they possibly can to make up the difference. Microsoft's hardware ventures--the XBox and the XBox 360--have never generated profit, and neither will the Zune on launch.
So it wouldn't just be a magical change in focus for Apple to become a software company. It would require an entirely new business model with entirely new software products that support entirely new platforms. It would kill the company, and nobody would want it to happen anyway because Macs are fantastic pieces of hardware that run a very stable operating system.
...and the reason it won't increase overall profit and value to stockholders is because Apple is a hardware company.
Wow, so much FUD. "overpriced" even though the Mac Pro is $1,000 less than the equivalent Dell and the new MacBook Pros are also less than the equivalent Dells. You even end with the old "iPod users just want to look cool" canard.
There are many ways Apple can (and probably will) tie OS X to Mac hardware. They've got people who can do it (to date, there has never been a crack for Logic 7 Pro and its USB dongle).
Stuff like this is going to make Apple bring out the big guns when it comes to TPM integration in OS X Leopard. Pro apps like Logic 7 Pro have never been cracked, so Apple's got people who know how to do copyright protection. I suspect once Leopard is out, we'll never hear about "OSx86" again.
Just because you think piracy is "free advertising" doesn't mean Apple should magically give up all its intellectual property and copyrights.
Why? It's a reasonable question. We've had two release candidates, and they still found a system corruption bug right before RTM. Doesn't bode well.
Well, I've never had to reinstall OS X, so I guess yeah, it does seem to only apply to Microsoft. They almost shipped an RTM release with that bug. That doesn't bother you a bit?
NOT if you do enough TESTING!
But Microsoft isn't giving itself enough time to thoroughly test this because they're rushing out Vista by the end of the year. They just found a major system-corrupting bug after they've already pushed out an RC1 and RC2 and weeks away from RTM. That's a little alarming. The criticism in this case stems from the fact that they're not giving Vista enough time to simmer so that they can catch issues like this (the logical reaction is to wonder what other flaws might be discovered in Vista after release). It's an issue of not testing enough.
Google's role of indexing the web is based on the assumption that the content it indexes through its algorithms is an accurate representation of the web. Google's engine attempts to determine content relevancy to provide accurate results for a search term, and when bloggers use search engine optimization, they are exploiting the algorithms to promote their site result above others illegitimately. It's against the spirit of the system and should be discouraged, because if you encourage these folks to do it, you encourage any spammer to corrupt the system's accuracy. That ruins it for everybody and destroys the value of the system, because it renders all search results suspect.
No, they are a core group of activists changing the indexed Google results for the web, not the web itself. They are manipulating algorithms that are designed to maintain neutrality as much as possible.
This is exactly what search engine optimization is--tricking Google into pushing your result to the top over others that are legitimately linked on the web. I don't know about you, but I don't want a search engine corrupted by special interests.
There's nothing wrong with publicizing an article by creating a web page. Simply because a group of people think their particular article is so noteworthy that it deserves to be viewed above all others despite Google's relevancy algorithms placing it low on the list doesn't mean they have the right to game the system. To support the tactics of this group is to support spammers who game Google; it is the same mindset of entitlement ("My results belong above everyone else's, just because I say so!").
Also, the fact that the Core 2 crushes AMD's chips while consuming less power, which was probably the most important factor. The Powerbooks were dying for a processor upgrade.
Are you serious?
The job of a web search engine is to reflect the web by determining relevancy of content. What these folks are doing isn't "changing the web." They're gaming the system by lending influence to specific search results that doesn't accurately reflect the normal relevant results presented by Google's neutral algorithms. The behavior of a small group of extremists does not accurately reflect the web any more than one black person committing a crime represents all black people; in other words, the way they're changing the web is self-serving only to them and not the web and does not accurately reflect the web.
The guy specifically calls it "search engine optimization." Now, Slashdot is often posting stories about sleazy spammers and their SEO tactics, and this itself is essentially spamming. Regardless of which political affiliation you are (this is Slashdot, so I know which direction it leans), you should be getting your message out by rationally explaining it to the folks; not by using spamming and misdirection. Tactics like this only hurt politics. Next time someone mentions the "Republican propaganda machine," I'll just point them to this article as proof that they are selectively ignoring the sleazy tactics of members of their own party.
If these guys wanted to bring attention to certain information about opposing candidates, they should do what every rational person should do which is take out a print advertisement or a TV spot and get the message to the voters. This kind of stuff reminds me of people ripping down opposing candidate posters and putting up their own. Your red car analogy doesn't fly, unless you did something like go through the neighborhood and paint everybody's car red just to point out that one guy's car was red, rather than just hanging up flyers to let people know that the friggin' car is red.
...which Democrats also pretend. Both sides claim to be singled out by the press, by the government, by wackos, etc.
I am so FRUSTRATED by people on either side claiming matter-of-factly that the OTHER guys are the immoral, illegal ones while ignoring the crimes of their own (there has been plenty by Democrats this year). You guys are essentially two battling religious factions, each with your holy books and saviors. Who's to say one holy book is any more right than the other?
Yeah, thanks for that mental image. Somehow, I doubt criticizing RMS is going to make him go away, and arguing that someone shouldn't be criticized 'lest we risk offending them and making them go away is a bogus argument. Everyone is fair game.
Such open-minded commentary that doesn't rely on absolutes to dismiss opinion it doesn't like! Mod it up!
Ye olde Slashdot canard: Anything you disagree with is "FUD."