1) I find it highly offensive and irresponsible that the discussion on/. for this case (both this story and the one before) has automatically presumed that the disabled community is being used as a witless proxy for larger battles.
2) Having read and digested the entire nuanced thread, particularly posts like this and that, I have come to the reasoned conclusion that disability access is being used as a proxy for larger battles. I also duly note the similarly with the Massachusetts fight over ODF, but disavow that this is a pattern. Even if Peter Korn of Sun thinks differently. <*sighs deeply*/>
I would like to quote a well connected individual who this all into perspective for me a week ago:
It is curious that the original inquiry sources a New York Times company product. The NYT Co. and the Sulzberger family that controls it have been highly skeptical in the advancement of independence for people with disabilities. The latest criticism and skepticality from them regards the cost and reliability of accessible voting machines. The NYT co. product below fails to explain that this is a simple contract dispute and does not involve access issues. Diebold believes it met the requirements of the RFP more than ES&S and therefore should be given the contract rather than ES&S.
The difference of course is that the Diebold system for access is completely electronic and would need to blend the results with the paper optical scan ballots while the AutoMark simply prints a completed paper ballot and no blending of results is necessary. The Diebold DRE is a lot less expensive than the Automark, which is their biggest selling point.
This is likely the last big contract outstanding and could add to the sale price of the election division when Diebold decides to sell it. The new CEO already has said in Fortune magazine that the election division is not a long term strategic fit for the company.
And I initially thought he was just being cynical!
Not that anyone at/. cares, but here is a link to Voluntary Voting System Guidelines which both the ES&S and Diebold products fail to completely satisfy.
Too bad for you all that (1) I never get mod points and (2) I came accross this discussion so late. But anyway, here is a very enlightened discussion on the actual accessibility issue:
http://teitac.org/mailarchives/mail_thread.php?thr ead=820
The Voluntary Voting System Guidelines have a great deal to do with accessibility to people with disabilities. I am not convinced Diebold does a better job with this than their competitors, but I would appreciate having this very point discussed. Thanks!
FROM: Karen Evans
Administrator, Office of E-Government and Information Technology
SUBJECT: Managing Security Risk By Using Common Security Configurations
Common security configurations provide a baseline level of security, reduce risk from security threats and vulnerabilities, and save time and resources. This allows agencies to improve system performance, decrease operating costs, and ensure public confidence in the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of government information. This memorandum requires your agency to develop plans for using the Microsoft Windows XP and Vista security configurations with an implementation date of no later than February 1, 2008. [1]
As you know, section 3544(b)(2)(D)(iii) of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) requires agencies to develop minimally acceptable system configuration requirements and ensure compliance with them. Your agency is already required to:
* document in your annual FISMA report the frequency by which you implement system configuration requirements; [2] and
* use published configurations or be prepared to justify why you are not doing so.
As a model for this effort, the Air Force uses common security configurations for Microsoft Windows XP. These configurations were developed in collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), the National Security Agency (NSA), and Microsoft. These same organizations recently established common security configurations for Microsoft Vista. With these common security configurations now in place, we have a unique opportunity when using Microsoft Windows XP and acquiring Vista.
Requirements of Agency Plans
Agency plans for Microsoft Windows XP and Vista should be submitted to OMB by May 1, 2007 to fisma@omb.eop.gov and should describe the following items:
* Testing configurations in a non-production environment to identify adverse effects on system functionality;
* Implementing and automating enforcement for using these configurations;
* Restricting administration of these configurations to only authorized professionals;
* Ensuring new acquisitions by June 30, 2007, to include these configurations and require information technology providers to certify their products operate effectively using these configurations;
* Applying Microsoft patches available from DHS when addressing new Windows XP or Vista vulnerabilities;
* Providing NIST documentation of any deviations from these configurations and rationale for doing so; and [3]
* Ensuring these configurations are incorporated into agency capital planning and investment control processes.
Additional Resources Available to Agencies
By April 20, 2007, OMB in conjunction with DHS and other appropriate agencies will establish a means for information technology providers to obtain software images based on these configurations for test and development purposes. Additionally, the Chief Information Officer's Council will assist and facilitate sharing the common security configurations across the Federal government.
NIST has established a program to develop and maintain common security configurations for many operating systems and applications, and
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503 DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT March 22, 2007
M-07-11 / MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
FROM: Clay Johnson / Deputy Director for Management
SUBJECT: Implementation of Commonly Accepted Security Configurations for Windows Operating Systems
To improve information security and reduce overall IT operating costs, agencies who have Windows XP TM deployed and plan to upgrade to the VistaTM operating system, are directed to adopt the security configurations developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The recent release of the VistaTM operating system provides a unique opportunity for agencies to deploy secure configurations for the first time when an operating system is released. Therefore, it is critical for all Federal agencies to put in place the proper governance structure with appropriate policies to ensure a very small number of secure configurations are allowed to be used.
DoD has worked with NIST and DHS to reach a consensus agreement on secure configurations of the VistaTM operating system, and to deploy standard secure desk tops for Windows XPTM. Information is more secure, overall network performance is improved, and overall operating costs are lower.
Agencies with these operating systems and/or plans to upgrade to these operating systems must adopt these standard security configurations by February 1, 2008. Agencies are requested to submit their draft implementation plans by May 1, 2007 at fisma@omb.eop.gov. With your endorsement we will work with your CIOs on this effort to improve our security for government information. If you have questions about this requirement, please contact Karen Evans, Administrator, E-Government and Information Technology at (202)395-1181 or at fisma@omb.eop.gov.
There were some people who made a stink about mold lines. I was responsible for at least half a dozen of these, I never noticed such a thing, but maybe I was lucky. Even the worse on-line photos I saw at time seemed quite modest to me. But I guess if one pays top dollar for the thing, one wants it to be perfect.
Mine all ran great, one broke a USB port, but that might have been rough handling. The CIO had an idea that the Cubes would make nice "luggables" but that never worked out.
The Cube did have one design flaw I hardly ever see mentioned: no standard audio jack. The USB powered speakers slowed the processor and used up a valueable port.
I am not surprised that the Mini has done very well. Like I said, the only real flaw with the Cube was the price.
Um, pretty much the only thing wrong with the Cube was the pricing. The success of the Mini demonstrates that rather nicely! There have been real Apple lemons.
In other news, Microsoft's Zune is out and, as predicted, hardly anyone is taking it as a serious threat to Apple. But if it isn't a threat to Apple, then why do we keep writing about it? To a certain extent we do so because anything from Microsoft gets a lot of press, but some pundits are convinced there is another shoe to drop -- some deal or feature with which Microsoft will turn this sow's ear into a silk purse. I don't see this as likely for the first Zune version. Apple has established a 6-9 month iPod product cycle. If Microsoft hopes to continue the trend of doing the job right the third time around, then the clock is ticking toward that time, which will be 12-18 months from now. THIS Zune is a placeholder meant to start the clock ticking at best. Two Zunes from now is when the game really begins.
Now we have an explanation for all the Sci-Fi movies where the beam from some "ray gun" is visible (let alone moving at a perceptible speed)! I can enjoy the genre again as this technology provides a way for me to overcome cognitive dissonance!
Here and there Cringely predicted Apple branded LCD TVs. He got the other details right. The TVs don't fit with the photog theme, so if it happens, I think that it will be the next special event between now and Xmas.
Nice rebuttal to a bunch of FUD. This is just a "amen brother" post.
For home and independent use, where one has the luxury of being oriented to functionality rather than tied to specific products, there are few barriers to going Mac. Robust choices are available for word processing, web browsing, email, and a wide variety of other tasks.
There is a nice series of articles (Strategy Letters), the most directly applicable to going Mac is the one that discusses barriers to entry. In the past few years, Apple has neatly address all the psychological obstacles, including serious issues like cost and familiar hardware and software, and trivial details like multi-button mice. At the very same time Microsoft is asking its customers to invest heavily in new hardware and a new user interface, Boot Camp is making it easy to keep running the old stuff! Like it or not, sometime in the next few years, most people will find themselves in the market for new hardware and a new OS. Really, why wouldn't a reasonable person give OS X a try?
I am optimistic that Apple really will capture significant consumer market share, say 25%, over the next few years. The increased acceptance in the home could reasonably be expected to heightened awareness of the importance and value of cross-platform compatibility. Might this in turn be the tipping point to thawing the software monoculture? Like many here, I sincerely believe Microsoft's dominance is holding back the whole IT industry. Am I being naive to pin so much hope on Apple?
I think there is some usefulness to the heat pump analogy, so I will expand upon it. The problem is that Joe Consumer lacks the technical savvy to even know why his system doesn't perform as well as it did when it was new, let alone how to perform basic preventative maintenance, let alone make repairs. His basic expectations for what a heat pump should be capable of in the first place are also being constantly inflated. Is it news that every few years he throws the whole thing out, duct work and all, and restarts from scratch? Joe Consumer will not be able to buy the model he was used to. The dealer network he used last time, who Joe probably suspects of ripping him off, is insisting on a whole new set of controls and brand new hardware anyway. An upgrade isn't feasible nor cost effective, except for the most handy DIY-er (which Joe definitely is not). So Joe will be investing significant time, energy, and money in a new heat pump with an unfamiliar interface. Joe has recently heard of some "new" modern vendor, one who is unaffiliated with the cartel which has provided less than totally satisfactory experience. This company even provides a genuine way to go back to the old controls (Boot Camp) if the new stuff is not to Joe's liking, and provides good compatibility with Joe's current accessories. A little digging around, and Joe will discover that the manufacturer has actually been in business quite a while and has an excellent reputation for customer satisfaction.
Like it or not, Joe Consumer is in the market for a new computer, or will be in the next few years. Windows maleware guarantees it. Vista ensures that Joe will need to buy a whole new box and adapt to a significantly different UI. Joe would be a fool not to consider the maintenance-free version from a completely different company.
I am asserting that the Mac is cost competitive, less than 10% more expensive, on a hardware-only basis. But, as I wrote, you must be willing to acknowledge the value associated with "I could use that in the living room" or "Where did the computer go?" I would be pleased to run the numbers with you.
By switching to OSX one would have to sacrifice a *lot* of programs.
I agree, and that will be a deal breaker for many would-be switchers. But not most consumers.
Every single software available on Mac has an equivalent in the Windows domain.
I do not find that statement to be credible. One has to look to paid Windows apologist like Paul Thurrott to find reviews that favorably compare products like Roxio Media Creator to iLife. There are also pro apps that have no Windows equivalents.
Looking at it from the other perspective, an extremely small amount of Windows software is available for the Mac.
Relative to the specific number of titles, that is true. If you are talking about functional domains, not so much.
For entertainment forget gaming, which is a huge computer centric entertainment.
Gaming is a good example of what I mean by functional domain versus specific titles. I agree that computer centric entertainment is very important to Joe Consumer, but with a Mac he has many gaming choices. Not as much as with Windows, but more than enough. Besides, if Joe Consumer is making purchase decisions primarily because of games, he is in the console market anyway.
For work, forget using anything from IBM, forget using the SAP client (SAP GUI) if your work requires it. Forget a *lot* of other essential corporate applications.
I agree with you there! Just the feature differences between Entourage and Outlook are enough to prevent me from giving up my PC at work. MS Access is another hard stop. As is AutoCAD. Etc.
Regarding hardware, switching from say a Thinkpad to a MacBook would eliminate the outstanding trackpoint (best precision pointer device since Gateway stopped manufacturing their laptops with trackballs). Also forget being able to buy pretty much any hardware you fancy since very few of them have drivers for OSX. Even Linux is better at supporting hardware than OSX, so Apple has a long way to go.
I too would love to have the a TrackPoint on my PowerBook! But as with games, characterizing the situation as anything less than robust is disingenuous. Sure, there are notable exceptions, and there is more hardware available for Windows than OS X (I am not sure about Linux), but Macs have been using industry standard components for years.
Now, how would I convince a consumer to switch to something which is more expensive while lacking both the breadth and width of software and hardware options they currently enjoy?
Like it or not, sometime in the next few years, Joe Consumer will find himself in the market for new hardware and will be forced to an essentially new OS. At the very same time Microsoft is expecting its customers to invest heavily in new hardware and a new UI anyway, Apple is providing the means to keep using their old stuff (Boot Camp, Parallels). Macs are not significantly more expensive, and the breadth and width of software and hardware options are more than sufficient for the vast majority of consumers.
When they ask about upgrades, how would I explain to them that Apple charges rediculous premiums for *any* kind of hardware upgrade?
Then don't buy your upgrades from Apple! How hard is that? Not that I am agreeing w
but every single Mac is overpriced by at least 20-30% compared to similar pile of MSRP PC hardware.
This kind of unsupported assertion always makes me smile, since it was but a few short years ago that a 100%-200% markup was the usual claim!
For the consumer products, this math falls apart if you are willing to attribute any reasonably conservative (but none-zero) value to the nice form factor. For the the pro line, the math fails if you match all the hardware features.
And that is assigning a zero value to OS X over XP, and a zero value to the total lack of malware. For the consumer line, one really has to consider iLife. For anyone with kids (or pets) and a DV camcorder, iMovie and iDVD are worth the cost of entry all by themselves.
Has your friend who is blind tried the Shuffle? If you do not install iTunes, it just looks like a thumb drive to a PC. Perfectly accessible, except for the low battery indicator. Yes, many of us are hoping Apple keeps improving accessibility, and iPods and iTunes are high on the wish list. That said, I think this patent is just about the shoes and there is no good reason to be optimistic. I hope I am wrong about that. Anyway, isn't this old news?
It is the lack of attention to technical details I find appalling, not your poor English. The difference between voice recognition and speech synthesis is hardly minor! It is evidence of the/. declining user base that an off-topic joke gets modded to +5. One did not have to read TFA, the summary was enough, to learn the actual subject.
I am almost sorry I mentioned the your/you're thing, especially since I gave a pass on your being too lazy to bother with capitalizing sentences. I rarely play the grammar Nazi, but since I was commenting already... Oh, and it says a lot about your character that: (1) You immediately resort to profanity when criticized; (2) Are so unimaginative or impulsive that you use the same vulgarity twice in such an otherwise brief and vacuous reply; and (3) Post said rebuttal anonymously!
Vaguely humours, but not certainly NOT insightful
on
Talking iPods
·
· Score: 1
The article is about the iPod talking, not talking to your iPod. Really, you should be modded off-topic. And you meant to write you're not your. Mixing up voice recognition with speech synthesis is one of my pet peeves. The story is old news and my personal theory is that the speculation is overly optimistic. I think it is just about the shoes.
Apple have already implemented this technology! This so called news is two months old. Those snipping about patent abuse are way off target. I initially thought: Great, something for the Blind! That was naive. It is all about the shoes. Nothing to see here, please move along. Disappointing on several levels.
People who do not work in assistive technology often confuse voice recognition (the touch-less interface hinted at by the Taiwanese press) with speech synthesis (the current article associated with this thread). I read about this patent a month ago and was excited because I though Apple were finally making the iPod accessible to people who are blind. I now believe the patent is merely about these stupid shoes for sighted yuppies. Very disappointing.
There were true viruses that preyed on pre-OS X Macs. Nowhere near the (then) DOS problem, but significantly greater than zero. That was with much less connectivity and a smaller user base than now (although the floppy vector has gone away). The notion that Macs don't provide the critical mass to propagate a virus is simply not credible.
For others interested in this aspect of the issue, there is a good white paper available by Matt May on the Inaccessibility of CAPTCHA
Abstract:
A common method of limiting access to services made available over the Web is visual verification of a bitmapped image. This presents a major problem to users who are blind, have low vision, or have a learning disability such as dyslexia. This document examines a number of potential solutions that allow systems to test for human users while preserving access by users with disabilities.
Slashdot Mirror
1) I find it highly offensive and irresponsible that the discussion on /. for this case (both this story and the one before) has automatically presumed that the disabled community is being used as a witless proxy for larger battles.
2) Having read and digested the entire nuanced thread, particularly posts like this and that, I have come to the reasoned conclusion that disability access is being used as a proxy for larger battles. I also duly note the similarly with the Massachusetts fight over ODF, but disavow that this is a pattern. Even if Peter Korn of Sun thinks differently. <*sighs deeply* />
I would like to quote a well connected individual who this all into perspective for me a week ago:
And I initially thought he was just being cynical!
Not that anyone at /. cares, but here is a link to Voluntary Voting System Guidelines which both the ES&S and Diebold products fail to completely satisfy.
And here is a follow-up story: http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command =printArticleBasic&articleId=9014518
Too bad for you all that (1) I never get mod points and (2) I came accross this discussion so late. But anyway, here is a very enlightened discussion on the actual accessibility issue: http://teitac.org/mailarchives/mail_thread.php?thr ead=820
The Voluntary Voting System Guidelines have a great deal to do with accessibility to people with disabilities. I am not convinced Diebold does a better job with this than their competitors, but I would appreciate having this very point discussed. Thanks!
Here are links to a couple of more recent articles about this and, following that, the text from an email that went out earlier in the week.
OMB to require standard Windows desktop configuration
http://www.fcw.com/article97974-03-19-07
OMB sets security standards for Windows computers
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=36 410
----
March 20, 2007
MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICERS
FROM: Karen Evans
Administrator, Office of E-Government and Information Technology
SUBJECT: Managing Security Risk By Using Common Security Configurations
Common security configurations provide a baseline level of security, reduce risk from security threats and vulnerabilities, and save time and resources. This allows agencies to improve system performance, decrease operating costs, and ensure public confidence in the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of government information. This memorandum requires your agency to develop plans for using the Microsoft Windows XP and Vista security configurations with an implementation date of no later than February 1, 2008. [1]
As you know, section 3544(b)(2)(D)(iii) of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) requires agencies to develop minimally acceptable system configuration requirements and ensure compliance with them. Your agency is already required to:
* document in your annual FISMA report the frequency by which you implement system configuration requirements; [2] and
* use published configurations or be prepared to justify why you are not doing so.
As a model for this effort, the Air Force uses common security configurations for Microsoft Windows XP. These configurations were developed in collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), the National Security Agency (NSA), and Microsoft. These same organizations recently established common security configurations for Microsoft Vista. With these common security configurations now in place, we have a unique opportunity when using Microsoft Windows XP and acquiring Vista.
Requirements of Agency Plans
Agency plans for Microsoft Windows XP and Vista should be submitted to OMB by May 1, 2007 to fisma@omb.eop.gov and should describe the following items:
* Testing configurations in a non-production environment to identify adverse effects on system functionality;
* Implementing and automating enforcement for using these configurations;
* Restricting administration of these configurations to only authorized professionals;
* Ensuring new acquisitions by June 30, 2007, to include these configurations and require information technology providers to certify their products operate effectively using these configurations;
* Applying Microsoft patches available from DHS when addressing new Windows XP or Vista vulnerabilities;
* Providing NIST documentation of any deviations from these configurations and rationale for doing so; and [3]
* Ensuring these configurations are incorporated into agency capital planning and investment control processes.
Additional Resources Available to Agencies
By April 20, 2007, OMB in conjunction with DHS and other appropriate agencies will establish a means for information technology providers to obtain software images based on these configurations for test and development purposes. Additionally, the Chief Information Officer's Council will assist and facilitate sharing the common security configurations across the Federal government.
NIST has established a program to develop and maintain common security configurations for many operating systems and applications, and
The actual OMB memo (pdf, sorry) can be found at URL:7 -11.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m0
The text follows:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT
March 22, 2007
M-07-11 / MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
FROM: Clay Johnson / Deputy Director for Management
SUBJECT: Implementation of Commonly Accepted Security Configurations for Windows Operating Systems
To improve information security and reduce overall IT operating costs, agencies who have Windows XP TM deployed and plan to upgrade to the VistaTM operating system, are directed to adopt the security configurations developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The recent release of the VistaTM operating system provides a unique opportunity for agencies to deploy secure configurations for the first time when an operating system is released. Therefore, it is critical for all Federal agencies to put in place the proper governance structure with appropriate policies to ensure a very small number of secure configurations are allowed to be used.
DoD has worked with NIST and DHS to reach a consensus agreement on secure configurations of the VistaTM operating system, and to deploy standard secure desk tops for Windows XPTM. Information is more secure, overall network performance is improved, and overall operating costs are lower.
Agencies with these operating systems and/or plans to upgrade to these operating systems must adopt these standard security configurations by February 1, 2008. Agencies are requested to submit their draft implementation plans by May 1, 2007 at fisma@omb.eop.gov. With your endorsement we will work with your CIOs on this effort to improve our security for government information. If you have questions about this requirement, please contact Karen Evans, Administrator, E-Government and Information Technology at (202)395-1181 or at fisma@omb.eop.gov.
There were some people who made a stink about mold lines. I was responsible for at least half a dozen of these, I never noticed such a thing, but maybe I was lucky. Even the worse on-line photos I saw at time seemed quite modest to me. But I guess if one pays top dollar for the thing, one wants it to be perfect.
Mine all ran great, one broke a USB port, but that might have been rough handling. The CIO had an idea that the Cubes would make nice "luggables" but that never worked out.
The Cube did have one design flaw I hardly ever see mentioned: no standard audio jack. The USB powered speakers slowed the processor and used up a valueable port.
I am not surprised that the Mini has done very well. Like I said, the only real flaw with the Cube was the price.
Um, pretty much the only thing wrong with the Cube was the pricing. The success of the Mini demonstrates that rather nicely! There have been real Apple lemons.
Now we have an explanation for all the Sci-Fi movies where the beam from some "ray gun" is visible (let alone moving at a perceptible speed)! I can enjoy the genre again as this technology provides a way for me to overcome cognitive dissonance!
There is some interest in the iPhone with the blind.s ionaries.com/2007-January/thread.html
http://macvisionaries.com/pipermail/discuss_macvi
How does 508 require validity?
W3C WCAG 1.0 requires validity at the AA (middle) level.
W3C WCAG 2.0 requires "well formedness" but not validity. The WAI chickened out there.
Here and there Cringely predicted Apple branded LCD TVs. He got the other details right. The TVs don't fit with the photog theme, so if it happens, I think that it will be the next special event between now and Xmas.
For home and independent use, where one has the luxury of being oriented to functionality rather than tied to specific products, there are few barriers to going Mac. Robust choices are available for word processing, web browsing, email, and a wide variety of other tasks.
There is a nice series of articles (Strategy Letters), the most directly applicable to going Mac is the one that discusses barriers to entry. In the past few years, Apple has neatly address all the psychological obstacles, including serious issues like cost and familiar hardware and software, and trivial details like multi-button mice. At the very same time Microsoft is asking its customers to invest heavily in new hardware and a new user interface, Boot Camp is making it easy to keep running the old stuff! Like it or not, sometime in the next few years, most people will find themselves in the market for new hardware and a new OS. Really, why wouldn't a reasonable person give OS X a try?
I am optimistic that Apple really will capture significant consumer market share, say 25%, over the next few years. The increased acceptance in the home could reasonably be expected to heightened awareness of the importance and value of cross-platform compatibility. Might this in turn be the tipping point to thawing the software monoculture? Like many here, I sincerely believe Microsoft's dominance is holding back the whole IT industry. Am I being naive to pin so much hope on Apple?
Like it or not, Joe Consumer is in the market for a new computer, or will be in the next few years. Windows maleware guarantees it. Vista ensures that Joe will need to buy a whole new box and adapt to a significantly different UI. Joe would be a fool not to consider the maintenance-free version from a completely different company.
I am asserting that the Mac is cost competitive, less than 10% more expensive, on a hardware-only basis. But, as I wrote, you must be willing to acknowledge the value associated with "I could use that in the living room" or "Where did the computer go?" I would be pleased to run the numbers with you.
I agree, and that will be a deal breaker for many would-be switchers. But not most consumers.
I do not find that statement to be credible. One has to look to paid Windows apologist like Paul Thurrott to find reviews that favorably compare products like Roxio Media Creator to iLife. There are also pro apps that have no Windows equivalents.
Relative to the specific number of titles, that is true. If you are talking about functional domains, not so much.
Gaming is a good example of what I mean by functional domain versus specific titles. I agree that computer centric entertainment is very important to Joe Consumer, but with a Mac he has many gaming choices. Not as much as with Windows, but more than enough. Besides, if Joe Consumer is making purchase decisions primarily because of games, he is in the console market anyway.
I agree with you there! Just the feature differences between Entourage and Outlook are enough to prevent me from giving up my PC at work. MS Access is another hard stop. As is AutoCAD. Etc.
I too would love to have the a TrackPoint on my PowerBook! But as with games, characterizing the situation as anything less than robust is disingenuous. Sure, there are notable exceptions, and there is more hardware available for Windows than OS X (I am not sure about Linux), but Macs have been using industry standard components for years.
Like it or not, sometime in the next few years, Joe Consumer will find himself in the market for new hardware and will be forced to an essentially new OS. At the very same time Microsoft is expecting its customers to invest heavily in new hardware and a new UI anyway, Apple is providing the means to keep using their old stuff (Boot Camp, Parallels). Macs are not significantly more expensive, and the breadth and width of software and hardware options are more than sufficient for the vast majority of consumers.
Then don't buy your upgrades from Apple! How hard is that? Not that I am agreeing w
This kind of unsupported assertion always makes me smile, since it was but a few short years ago that a 100%-200% markup was the usual claim!
For the consumer products, this math falls apart if you are willing to attribute any reasonably conservative (but none-zero) value to the nice form factor. For the the pro line, the math fails if you match all the hardware features.
And that is assigning a zero value to OS X over XP, and a zero value to the total lack of malware. For the consumer line, one really has to consider iLife. For anyone with kids (or pets) and a DV camcorder, iMovie and iDVD are worth the cost of entry all by themselves.
Has your friend who is blind tried the Shuffle? If you do not install iTunes, it just looks like a thumb drive to a PC. Perfectly accessible, except for the low battery indicator. Yes, many of us are hoping Apple keeps improving accessibility, and iPods and iTunes are high on the wish list. That said, I think this patent is just about the shoes and there is no good reason to be optimistic. I hope I am wrong about that. Anyway, isn't this old news?
I am almost sorry I mentioned the your/you're thing, especially since I gave a pass on your being too lazy to bother with capitalizing sentences. I rarely play the grammar Nazi, but since I was commenting already... Oh, and it says a lot about your character that: (1) You immediately resort to profanity when criticized; (2) Are so unimaginative or impulsive that you use the same vulgarity twice in such an otherwise brief and vacuous reply; and (3) Post said rebuttal anonymously!
The article is about the iPod talking, not talking to your iPod. Really, you should be modded off-topic. And you meant to write you're not your. Mixing up voice recognition with speech synthesis is one of my pet peeves. The story is old news and my personal theory is that the speculation is overly optimistic. I think it is just about the shoes.
Apple have already implemented this technology! This so called news is two months old. Those snipping about patent abuse are way off target. I initially thought: Great, something for the Blind! That was naive. It is all about the shoes. Nothing to see here, please move along. Disappointing on several levels.
People who do not work in assistive technology often confuse voice recognition (the touch-less interface hinted at by the Taiwanese press) with speech synthesis (the current article associated with this thread). I read about this patent a month ago and was excited because I though Apple were finally making the iPod accessible to people who are blind. I now believe the patent is merely about these stupid shoes for sighted yuppies. Very disappointing.
There were true viruses that preyed on pre-OS X Macs. Nowhere near the (then) DOS problem, but significantly greater than zero. That was with much less connectivity and a smaller user base than now (although the floppy vector has gone away). The notion that Macs don't provide the critical mass to propagate a virus is simply not credible.