I was talking about their revenues from selling things, which is what's important when you're talking about whether or not a company is able to sell things.
And the author of your linked article is as dumb as you are if he thinks Kodak's photofinishing business is threatened by Flickr, which does not offer any sort of photofinishing at all.
Umm, your grasp of mathematics leaves a lot to be desired. Apple wouldn't be paying for Dell's hardware, and they wouldn't need to charge them 30% of the cost to have a 30% profit margin. They'd just need to make back 30% over their cost to make the software.
We are discussing what happened in a court of law. What happened was NOT that Microsoft was "found guilty", any more than if RIAA successfully sues you it would be accurate to say that you were found guilty of theft.
Fortunately for them, new developments in UNIX shells don't come around as fast as Apple's GUI developments, so this might actually be a case where their cool new feature isn't 3 generations behind when it comes out, like most of the stuff in Longhorn will be. ("Sure that new feature in Tiger is great, but we thought of it first and it will be in Longhorn!")
Geek cred by having your lame hack show up on Slashdot?
It would have been impressive if they'd used any of the iMac or eMac series and had the display working. But putting a PC motherboard in a pretty standard case that just happens to have been made by Apple? Lame.
The OED disagrees with you, and gives usage as a verb going back as far as 1818.
architect, v. [f. the sb. ] To design (a building). Also transf. and fig. Hence 'architected ppl. a., designed by an architect; 'architecting vbl. sb. and ppl. a.
So is this feature you're inventing part of the OS, or not? If it is, it kind of has to come with the OS. If not, why not just let people buy VirtualPC of MacTel including a copy of Windows from Microsoft?
Slashdot Mirror
Right. They're so worried that they announced that Office for Mactel was already done about 10 seconds after Jobs made the original announcement.
You regularly visit space?
You're an idiot.
And the author of your linked article is as dumb as you are if he thinks Kodak's photofinishing business is threatened by Flickr, which does not offer any sort of photofinishing at all.
It must depend on your carrier. Verizon definitely does have a per call connect charge, unless you pay a monthly fee to get unlimited local calling.
They made 13 billion dollars last year. You're either an idiot or a troll.
They're just the first wankers to call it "open source" because they do so.
You want him to write his own web authoring system in PHP and store his files in a database instead of on disk?
Why would Xcode support Linux at all? Or does the L in LAMP stand for something else in your case?
No, you're talking about getting the same net profit that they're getting now, not their profit margin.
Umm, your grasp of mathematics leaves a lot to be desired. Apple wouldn't be paying for Dell's hardware, and they wouldn't need to charge them 30% of the cost to have a 30% profit margin. They'd just need to make back 30% over their cost to make the software.
He's either an idiot or a troll. Either way, I'd suggest just ignoring people who apparently can't read.
Maybe all C code you write. Some people can actually design their code properly.
We are discussing what happened in a court of law. What happened was NOT that Microsoft was "found guilty", any more than if RIAA successfully sues you it would be accurate to say that you were found guilty of theft.
Fortunately for them, new developments in UNIX shells don't come around as fast as Apple's GUI developments, so this might actually be a case where their cool new feature isn't 3 generations behind when it comes out, like most of the stuff in Longhorn will be. ("Sure that new feature in Tiger is great, but we thought of it first and it will be in Longhorn!")
How about announcing great new technology that actually works today?
Patent infringement is not a crime, so they were not, in fact, found "guilty".
It would have been impressive if they'd used any of the iMac or eMac series and had the display working. But putting a PC motherboard in a pretty standard case that just happens to have been made by Apple? Lame.
architect, v. [f. the sb. ] To design (a building). Also transf. and fig. Hence 'architected ppl. a., designed by an architect; 'architecting vbl. sb. and ppl. a.
So is this feature you're inventing part of the OS, or not? If it is, it kind of has to come with the OS. If not, why not just let people buy VirtualPC of MacTel including a copy of Windows from Microsoft?
I believe the codename is actually "huge lawsuit by Microsoft for copyright infringement."
You're talking about the same DOJ that dropped its case against Microsoft after it won, right? Just to be clear.
Well that's patently obvious.
Word may suck, but it doesn't suck any less on Windows than on OS X. Emulating Windows on a Mac to run Word would just be stupid.
Tell that to anyone making an MP3 player.