I never contend that apple has to sell OSX for any old box, as that would be business mistake for them, but if they aren't going to sell OSX, then they need to offer more hardware choices.
Mac market share is stable at about the 6% mark. These are the people who like integrated monitors or the toy mini. Pro just won't matter for market share as it is ultra high end.
If Apple actually has the slightest interest in increasing market share beyond the current they have to offer what mainstream buyers want and are used to. A decent mid size tower at an affordable price.
I actually want to buy a Mac. I use Linux/Solar/Windows at work and would like a decent Unix workstation at home, but don't find Linux polished enough (my desktop at work runs Redhat).
What is stopping me is the lack of decent midrange hardware without integrated monitor. This gap has to be obvious to Apple execs, perhaps they are moving the company in the direction of devices and away from computer and don't care about computer market share.
I will buy a new computer in the next 6 months. No midrange tower or equivalent and it will be another PC and that will be my computer for the next 4 or 5 years.
Just recently I ran across this at statscan: Page 7-9 of pdf. There is an interesting table on "Religiosity", part of it compared religiosity to parental religion Look at the low religiosity category. If both parent have the same religion (more consistent message) only 32% have low religiosity, if both parents just have different religions (less consistent message) low religiosity jumps to %50. If neither parent is religious, it jumps to %85. This has always made sense, but this is pretty clear statistical evidence that it is more a learned trait.
Religion of parents (vs outcome Lo Med Hi religiosity ) Both parents same religion 32 34 33 Parents from different religions 50 28 22 Neither parent religious 85 6 10
I like to think I was just born very skeptical and would have been a non believer no matter what circumstance I was born into, but it may just be that neither of my parents was religious and I was left to form my own ideas without being indoctrinated. Naturally many people will buck the trend but I think the correlation is clear.
Religion is just the brains legacy OS many people got stuck with.
"Theist philosophers of religion propose arguments, and their non-theist colleagues, though they critically examine them, nonetheless believe that the whole enterprise has value."
First you have to convince someone that modern academic philosophers have value, for this statement to matter.
Religion is interesting in the abstract, but theists tend to believe because that is what their parents believed and they simply indoctrinated the children. If not fairly heavily indoctrinated, most people would not be that religious.
The EU countries that have been after Apple about interoperability will now have to take his argument seriously that DRM is not his desire as he will now sell DRM free tracks that are not locked at all. He can blame the locking on the record companies. If Push comes to shove he can go EMI only in countries that force interoperability.
I have to think negotiations for this were already underway with EMI when he wrote his open letter previously.
I may have to look into what they have to offer for the first time consider buying something from Itunes. Though I would prefer they were MP3 and thus more universal to eliminate the need to transcode, though starting with a higher quaility original will help.
I just think it is too early to judge. Putting the Video on the die could offer sufficient performance benefits that only ultra high end graphics cards make sense. That is a small portion of the market.
On HT edition two. I have a skeptical wait and see attitude. Though I will probably buy a new computer in 2007 so it doesn't matter to me for a long time as I will probably squeeze 5 years out my next machine. So 2007 and 2012 are the years that interest me.:-)
1: Integrated sells very well on the desktop almost every single machine in your big box shops has integrated graphics. I am sure it is outsells machines with separate graphics cards in the desktop. Gamers are not the market.
2: I am skeptical about hyperthreading, but it all depends on the implementation. I don't think this is something they are pursuing just for marketing. They must have found a way to eek out even better loading of all execution units by doing this. I can't imagine this being done if it actually performs worse than hyperthreading in P4. We have to wait and see.
I expect this happens a lot more with HD-DVD. I first thought Blu Ray was an inferior name, now I think it is better that it is names so different to normal DVD.
I don't have the numbers but likely someone here does.
I remember storing energy in batteries and retrieving it are around 90%. Likewise good electric propulsion motors are near 90%.
Considering that both electics and "Air" cars use electricity to put the energy into the vehicle. How does the conversion cycle compare Joules in, to motive power out?
I am willing to bet that electrics are ahead of compressing/decompressing through a heat pump efficiencies.
Energy as electricity seems to be a big part of future transportation, the question is what makes the best storage medium. Batteries, Hydrogen, Compressed Air? My bet is on batteries. I get a lot more excited about new battery technology than hydrogen/air developments.
Around here (Canada) you still can't find the 20GB model anywhere and the 60GB model is $700.
At that price your market is a small group of early adopters.
Other than that. The console is fine, lots of power for years to come, next generation outputs, Blu Ray. Lots of good stuff that makes it lasting in the market.
Sony marketing/PR is done by absolute morons but still that really doesn't matter. In the end it comes down to price.
The last console I bought was Coleco Vision, but I am thinking of getting one of these when they get cost reduced a bit.
Ball is a propagandist for "Natural Resources Stewardship Project", formerly for "Friends of Science". Both oxymoronically named groups, funded by carbon producing industry. They exist to lobby politicians and fund propaganda pieces. They don't exist to further extend knowledge.
Anyone threatening this lobbyist is playing into his hands and is thus an idiot. If there were real threats, they should be turned over to law enforcement and those behind them should be charged. We should go back to ignoring Ball.
Also skepticism is good. But most of these self identified "skeptics" are nothing more than propagandist who are clearly being disengenous much of the time, quoting the work of real scientist completely out of context in an attempt to fit the facts to the message they are paid to sell.
Case in point is the "Climate Swindle" program that is mentiond in the original article, that misrepresented Carl Wunschs views:
" In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making --- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected. "
Do emotions run high? Yes, because some of us are tired of being lied to by industry spin doctors. The issues here are important and we need real science to provide to most likely and realistic outcomes and best course of action. Paid lobbyist that are merely engaged in the process to inject a "Preach the controversy" message hard enough to ensure that no action gets taken are only a detriment.
BTW these guy attack the issue from any angle they can come up with. Recently Balls organization published a piece indicating that we are on a global gooling cycle in recent years (using 1998 as a base comparison). Do I need to point out the issues with that claim? This is not science it is propaganda that routinely misrepresents fact.
We shouldn't give this spin doctor any more attention and we shouldn't give him the label of skeptic which he certainly doesn't deserve. I imagine his favorite film is: "Thank you for smoking".
"The fluid promptly freezes because, as we all know, outerspace is really, really cold."
Well water would most likely be non liquid very fast in a vacuum of space. Not sure what the effect would look like.
If you put a beaker of water in bell jar on earth and pump out the air it will boil and quickly freeze solid. So cooling won't be merely black body radiation, but state change as well and that can be very fast indeed.
The difficulties are enormous. I think many people pointed out why the multi generation ship would be a huge problem.
It seems like this would take a united planetary effort. Considering we can't even unite to conserve resources and cut world poisoning emissions, but we are going to unite the planet to send some tiny portion of the population on a one way trip that none of will ever even hear about. I don't thinks so.
Short of knowledge that the Sun will soon explode, we will never get enough agreement to attempt such a feat.
The only thing that seems likely to colonize IMO is some kind of self replicating probe. Not a real pleasant thought.
Recently Our trade surplus numbers for 2006 came out. They were the lowest in about 7 years. Other news outlets reported the lowest surplus in years but mentioned that we had a bit of bump in December.
The G&M take: "Trade surplus swells unexpectedly." It only talked about December and put 100% positive spin on the story. No mention at all about the annual numbers or even a comparison to the previous December. Just mentioned a higher than expected December.
I didn't say it would be a wise move. But when do the studios make wise moves when it comes to DRM?
The DRM on BD/HD is insane. I would consider a BD drive for my computer when they get to ~$300 except for one thing. I have DVI connected LCD display. None of my equipment is HDCP. This means I would get no picture at all. This is the reaction to the absence of ICT and digital displays. Play nothing at all.
So as usual with the moron in the content industry, they only way I could play HD content on my current system is to seek out broken material online. Apparently BD/HD also disables your second screen during playback?? I have dual screens and I play video on one while using the other screen all the time. The point of this restriction is what??
DRM is completely anti consumer, but the insane restrictions on BD/HD take the cake.
"I do not see a terribly effective fix for this - your key has to exist somewhere, and even in a CPU register it is still in memory more often than not."
Ummm, how about no more new keys for software players. As long as there are software players it seems obvious that it will be possible to reverse engineer what they are doing to shake out the keys. But if the industry decides that SW players are too weak, they simply revoke keys for them and don't issue new ones. The end of software players and the end of the risk.
I provided a reasonable definition of hypocrisy(reference.com) that included espousing one thing and doing the opposite in practice. You disagreeing with that definition doesn't invalidate it. So let us just say it is my opinion that the hypocrisy definition includes saying one thing and doing the opposite. Your opinion apparently does not. So on that we differ. It is a matter of opinion and semantics. A pointless pedantic argument. Let us agree to disagree. I will not argue the hypocrisy point any more.
I will simply say Jobs' letter is nothing but empty rhetoric without action. He could allow some labels to sell DRM free music to get the ball rolling. That it might cause some trifling inconvenience is beside the point. Instead he forces DRM on all whether they want it or not. Doing this while claiming a DRM free would would be wonderful, is just empty, hollow rhetoric.
Change requires effort, not merely words. Jobs is clearly unwilling to make even the most trivial effort that is within his control. Espousing that in a utopian world where everyone renounced DRM, he would embrace DRM freedom is meaningless in the real world.
The real world will never be 100% in any camp, to support freedom from DRM in the real world, the very least that should be done is accommodation of those who wish to sell their tunes without DRM.
You are choosing to waste your own time. I am not doing it for you. Just why do you think your definition of hypocrisy is the only one that matters? Maybe as an etymology expert you should follow the link and correct the definition for them.
It is not just my claim, it is widespread across the net. Jobs' say one thing, do the opposite is a pointless empty rhetoric.
"I'm sorry, I've missed a step. The current iMacs have a connector for an external monitor. Do you mean that you need both monitors to be better than any iMac's built-in panel?"
It seems rather pointless to buy another monitor when I don't need one. I already paid for 2 monitors, I don't want to pay for a third.
Even if I had zero monitors I would not buy an all in one unit. It is a restricting, needless integration. Can I use the internal monitor too play Xbox on? If the computer fails can I still use the monitor? If the monitor fails can I still use the computer? Can I upgrade the computer and keep using the same monitor? Integrating the monitor is a stupid idea and I would not buy a computer with integrated monitor. Good for my grandma, but not for me.
Even if I lost my common sense and would consider an integrated monitor computer, iMacs still have underpowered wimpy graphics cards. iMacs cannot drive dual link DVI displays like the Dell 3007, ACD 30". I usually keep computers about 5 years, so I definitely want to keep my options open regarding dual link displays.
Apple make only one computer with the ability to house half decent graphics that will drive dual link DVI, and that is the Pro. Which is outrageously expensive.
Apple continues the trend of underpowered, overly expensive hardware. I had hoped the move to Intel would bring them economies of scale that would lead to improved bang/buch. It didn't happen. Instead Apple wastes money on expensive components that don't help performance, and skimps where it is needed like in the graphics department.
You can play semantic games to claim that saying one thing and doing the opposite is not hypocrisy. But since we will never know what is inside the mind of Jobs, I am only concerned about what is put into practice. He claims one thing does the opposite. To me that is hypocrisy. I don't care if you want to use another word. But when deeds reveal the opposite to what the words claim, I will trust the deeds over the meaningless words.
Decrying DRM in some alternate fantasy world where it doesn't exist is no great statement. It is completely nullified by forcing bands to include DRM even when the don't want it. That is where it would stand if it were not for the timing of this letter.
With the current situation in Norway, this appears to nothing more than attempt to deflect the heat from Apple, saying in effect it is them, not us.
Steve Jobs, saying he is against DRM (given current actions) is like George Bush saying he is a pacifist and against military invasion.
Unless he has some deed to back up his empty words, this is nothing but a self serving political statement aimed at shifting blame.
This just seems like long winded rationalization of possible motives for the hypocrisy. Even if I accept everything you rationalize, then the statement is still nothing more than meaningless hot air aimed at deflecting the problems with interoperability in the EU. Meaningless finger pointing.
Yeah Steve would embrace DRM freedom in a DRM free world, yippee. Since he unwilling to take even one step toward that world, who cares?
Re:I looked into switching, but HW held me back.
on
Windows Expert Jumps Ship
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I can't afford to take money and burn it. Dual Xeons and ECC memory this platform is at least twice as expensive as it needs to be. This exceeds my computer budget by over 100%. I could build something on the PC that meets my needs and has similar power on most tasks for a little over 1/3 this cost. Giving Apple a chance, doesn't include being a moron with my money. I won't lay down an extra $1500 just to have OSX. That premium is a little rich for my blood.
I looked into switching, but HW held me back.
on
Windows Expert Jumps Ship
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I am nearing the point of upgrading my Windows box (Athlon XP) to a new dual core. I really wanted to give Apple a shot. But the lack of Hardware really had me give up. I was willing to pay a small premium but still there was nothing.
First I have two monitors, so a built in monitor computer is out. Even if I needed a monitor, I would not be Crazy about tying them together permanently.
That leaves the Mini and the Pro. I wanted decent graphics (~7600GT) so the mini was shot down. That left the pro. Way too much money. That left: another new windows box.
There is just no reasonably priced Mac with even remotely mainstream graphics power.
It is not so much that Apple takes an excessive profit margin, it is that they choose components that have poor bang/buck. The mini is built out of laptop components that all cost more and have less power. Graphics power seems completely irrelevant to Apple as well. You move to the Pro and you are forced to buy overkill Dual Xeons with ECC memory.
I have no problem with Apple controlling their HW, but with that they need to offer broader HW choices.
"Apple isn't doing any such thing. I just bought a dozen DRM-free tracks this morning, from eMusic. What, that's not on the iTunes store, you say? That's not Apple, you say? What, you're complaining because Apple's not a monopoly?"
That is ludicrous. How does other people selling DRM free tunes let Apple off the hook for saying one thing and doing the opposite.
Jobs says: DRM is pointless. We want DRM free music, we are ready to embrace it whole heartedly. Label says: We would like to sell our music on iTunes without DRM. Apple response: Your music will only be sold with DRM on iTunes.
That behavior is not consistent with the stated position. To most, myself included, this is saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. Without at least an explanation it completely undermines the open letter.
If this a "it must be all or none" type thing when we know it will never be all, then it is complete bullshit maneuvering and Jobs is looking like a political word mincing weasel here.
Slashdot Mirror
I never contend that apple has to sell OSX for any old box, as that would be business mistake for them, but if they aren't going to sell OSX, then they need to offer more hardware choices.
Mac market share is stable at about the 6% mark. These are the people who like integrated monitors or the toy mini. Pro just won't matter for market share as it is ultra high end.
If Apple actually has the slightest interest in increasing market share beyond the current they have to offer what mainstream buyers want and are used to. A decent mid size tower at an affordable price.
I actually want to buy a Mac. I use Linux/Solar/Windows at work and would like a decent Unix workstation at home, but don't find Linux polished enough (my desktop at work runs Redhat).
What is stopping me is the lack of decent midrange hardware without integrated monitor. This gap has to be obvious to Apple execs, perhaps they are moving the company in the direction of devices and away from computer and don't care about computer market share.
I will buy a new computer in the next 6 months. No midrange tower or equivalent and it will be another PC and that will be my computer for the next 4 or 5 years.
Just recently I ran across this at statscan: Page 7-9 of pdf. There is an interesting table on "Religiosity", part of it compared religiosity to parental religion Look at the low religiosity category. If both parent have the same religion (more consistent message) only 32% have low religiosity, if both parents just have different religions (less consistent message) low religiosity jumps to %50. If neither parent is religious, it jumps to %85. This has always made sense, but this is pretty clear statistical evidence that it is more a learned trait.
? catno=11-008-XIE2006001
http://www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/downpub/listpub.cgi
Religion of parents (vs outcome Lo Med Hi religiosity )
Both parents same religion 32 34 33
Parents from different religions 50 28 22
Neither parent religious 85 6 10
I like to think I was just born very skeptical and would have been a non believer no matter what circumstance I was born into, but it may just be that neither of my parents was religious and I was left to form my own ideas without being indoctrinated. Naturally many people will buck the trend but I think the correlation is clear.
Religion is just the brains legacy OS many people got stuck with.
"Theist philosophers of religion propose arguments, and their non-theist colleagues, though they critically examine them, nonetheless believe that the whole enterprise has value."
First you have to convince someone that modern academic philosophers have value, for this statement to matter.
Religion is interesting in the abstract, but theists tend to believe because that is what their parents believed and they simply indoctrinated the children. If not fairly heavily indoctrinated, most people would not be that religious.
The EU countries that have been after Apple about interoperability will now have to take his argument seriously that DRM is not his desire as he will now sell DRM free tracks that are not locked at all. He can blame the locking on the record companies. If Push comes to shove he can go EMI only in countries that force interoperability.
I have to think negotiations for this were already underway with EMI when he wrote his open letter previously.
I may have to look into what they have to offer for the first time consider buying something from Itunes. Though I would prefer they were MP3 and thus more universal to eliminate the need to transcode, though starting with a higher quaility original will help.
A step in the right direction.
I just think it is too early to judge. Putting the Video on the die could offer sufficient performance benefits that only ultra high end graphics cards make sense. That is a small portion of the market.
:-)
On HT edition two. I have a skeptical wait and see attitude. Though I will probably buy a new computer in 2007 so it doesn't matter to me for a long time as I will probably squeeze 5 years out my next machine. So 2007 and 2012 are the years that interest me.
1: Integrated sells very well on the desktop almost every single machine in your big box shops has integrated graphics. I am sure it is outsells machines with separate graphics cards in the desktop. Gamers are not the market.
2: I am skeptical about hyperthreading, but it all depends on the implementation. I don't think this is something they are pursuing just for marketing. They must have found a way to eek out even better loading of all execution units by doing this. I can't imagine this being done if it actually performs worse than hyperthreading in P4. We have to wait and see.
I expect this happens a lot more with HD-DVD. I first thought Blu Ray was an inferior name, now I think it is better that it is names so different to normal DVD.
I don't have the numbers but likely someone here does.
I remember storing energy in batteries and retrieving it are around 90%. Likewise good electric propulsion motors are near 90%.
Considering that both electics and "Air" cars use electricity to put the energy into the vehicle. How does the conversion cycle compare Joules in, to motive power out?
I am willing to bet that electrics are ahead of compressing/decompressing through a heat pump efficiencies.
Energy as electricity seems to be a big part of future transportation, the question is what makes the best storage medium. Batteries, Hydrogen, Compressed Air? My bet is on batteries. I get a lot more excited about new battery technology than hydrogen/air developments.
"Why buy a minimally useful console now and have it collect dust/break down"
Because I would be buying it for at least 50% use as a Blu Ray player. And it is not like there are no games.
Around here (Canada) you still can't find the 20GB model anywhere and the 60GB model is $700.
At that price your market is a small group of early adopters.
Other than that. The console is fine, lots of power for years to come, next generation outputs, Blu Ray. Lots of good stuff that makes it lasting in the market.
Sony marketing/PR is done by absolute morons but still that really doesn't matter. In the end it comes down to price.
The last console I bought was Coleco Vision, but I am thinking of getting one of these when they get cost reduced a bit.
Ball is a propagandist for "Natural Resources Stewardship Project", formerly for "Friends of Science". Both oxymoronically named groups, funded by carbon producing industry. They exist to lobby politicians and fund propaganda pieces. They don't exist to further extend knowledge.
Anyone threatening this lobbyist is playing into his hands and is thus an idiot. If there were real threats, they should be turned over to law enforcement and those behind them should be charged. We should go back to ignoring Ball.
Also skepticism is good. But most of these self identified "skeptics" are nothing more than propagandist who are clearly being disengenous much of the time, quoting the work of real scientist completely out of context in an attempt to fit the facts to the message they are paid to sell.
Case in point is the "Climate Swindle" program that is mentiond in the original article, that misrepresented Carl Wunschs views:
"
In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making --- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.
"
Do emotions run high? Yes, because some of us are tired of being lied to by industry spin doctors. The issues here are important and we need real science to provide to most likely and realistic outcomes and best course of action. Paid lobbyist that are merely engaged in the process to inject a "Preach the controversy" message hard enough to ensure that no action gets taken are only a detriment.
BTW these guy attack the issue from any angle they can come up with. Recently Balls organization published a piece indicating that we are on a global gooling cycle in recent years (using 1998 as a base comparison). Do I need to point out the issues with that claim? This is not science it is propaganda that routinely misrepresents fact.
We shouldn't give this spin doctor any more attention and we shouldn't give him the label of skeptic which he certainly doesn't deserve. I imagine his favorite film is: "Thank you for smoking".
"The fluid promptly freezes because, as we all know, outerspace is really, really cold."
Well water would most likely be non liquid very fast in a vacuum of space. Not sure what the effect would look like.
If you put a beaker of water in bell jar on earth and pump out the air it will boil and quickly freeze solid. So cooling won't be merely black body radiation, but state change as well and that can be very fast indeed.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/1 8/1359214
The difficulties are enormous. I think many people pointed out why the multi generation ship would be a huge problem.
It seems like this would take a united planetary effort. Considering we can't even unite to conserve resources and cut world poisoning emissions, but we are going to unite the planet to send some tiny portion of the population on a one way trip that none of will ever even hear about. I don't thinks so.
Short of knowledge that the Sun will soon explode, we will never get enough agreement to attempt such a feat.
The only thing that seems likely to colonize IMO is some kind of self replicating probe. Not a real pleasant thought.
Recently Our trade surplus numbers for 2006 came out. They were the lowest in about 7 years. Other news outlets reported the lowest surplus in years but mentioned that we had a bit of bump in December.
The G&M take: "Trade surplus swells unexpectedly." It only talked about December and put 100% positive spin on the story. No mention at all about the annual numbers or even a comparison to the previous December. Just mentioned a higher than expected December.
Pathetic.
I didn't say it would be a wise move. But when do the studios make wise moves when it comes to DRM?
The DRM on BD/HD is insane. I would consider a BD drive for my computer when they get to ~$300 except for one thing. I have DVI connected LCD display. None of my equipment is HDCP. This means I would get no picture at all. This is the reaction to the absence of ICT and digital displays. Play nothing at all.
So as usual with the moron in the content industry, they only way I could play HD content on my current system is to seek out broken material online. Apparently BD/HD also disables your second screen during playback?? I have dual screens and I play video on one while using the other screen all the time. The point of this restriction is what??
DRM is completely anti consumer, but the insane restrictions on BD/HD take the cake.
"I do not see a terribly effective fix for this - your key has to exist somewhere, and even in a CPU register it is still in memory more often than not."
Ummm, how about no more new keys for software players. As long as there are software players it seems obvious that it will be possible to reverse engineer what they are doing to shake out the keys. But if the industry decides that SW players are too weak, they simply revoke keys for them and don't issue new ones. The end of software players and the end of the risk.
I hardly have to back up that actions count more than words. That should be self evident.
I provided a reasonable definition of hypocrisy(reference.com) that included espousing one thing and doing the opposite in practice. You disagreeing with that definition doesn't invalidate it. So let us just say it is my opinion that the hypocrisy definition includes saying one thing and doing the opposite. Your opinion apparently does not. So on that we differ. It is a matter of opinion and semantics. A pointless pedantic argument. Let us agree to disagree. I will not argue the hypocrisy point any more.
I will simply say Jobs' letter is nothing but empty rhetoric without action. He could allow some labels to sell DRM free music to get the ball rolling. That it might cause some trifling inconvenience is beside the point. Instead he forces DRM on all whether they want it or not. Doing this while claiming a DRM free would would be wonderful, is just empty, hollow rhetoric.
Change requires effort, not merely words. Jobs is clearly unwilling to make even the most trivial effort that is within his control. Espousing that in a utopian world where everyone renounced DRM, he would embrace DRM freedom is meaningless in the real world.
The real world will never be 100% in any camp, to support freedom from DRM in the real world, the very least that should be done is accommodation of those who wish to sell their tunes without DRM.
You are choosing to waste your own time. I am not doing it for you. Just why do you think your definition of hypocrisy is the only one that matters? Maybe as an etymology expert you should follow the link and correct the definition for them.
It is not just my claim, it is widespread across the net. Jobs' say one thing, do the opposite is a pointless empty rhetoric.
"I'm sorry, I've missed a step. The current iMacs have a connector for an external monitor. Do you mean that you need both monitors to be better than any iMac's built-in panel?"
It seems rather pointless to buy another monitor when I don't need one. I already paid for 2 monitors, I don't want to pay for a third.
Even if I had zero monitors I would not buy an all in one unit. It is a restricting, needless integration. Can I use the internal monitor too play Xbox on? If the computer fails can I still use the monitor? If the monitor fails can I still use the computer? Can I upgrade the computer and keep using the same monitor? Integrating the monitor is a stupid idea and I would not buy a computer with integrated monitor. Good for my grandma, but not for me.
Even if I lost my common sense and would consider an integrated monitor computer, iMacs still have underpowered wimpy graphics cards. iMacs cannot drive dual link DVI displays like the Dell 3007, ACD 30". I usually keep computers about 5 years, so I definitely want to keep my options open regarding dual link displays.
Apple make only one computer with the ability to house half decent graphics that will drive dual link DVI, and that is the Pro. Which is outrageously expensive.
Apple continues the trend of underpowered, overly expensive hardware. I had hoped the move to Intel would bring them economies of scale that would lead to improved bang/buch. It didn't happen. Instead Apple wastes money on expensive components that don't help performance, and skimps where it is needed like in the graphics department.
My only hope for OSX is to build a FrankenMac.
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Hypocrisy
Hypocrisy is the act of pretending or claiming to have beliefs, feelings, morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or PRACTICE.
You can play semantic games to claim that saying one thing and doing the opposite is not hypocrisy. But since we will never know what is inside the mind of Jobs, I am only concerned about what is put into practice. He claims one thing does the opposite. To me that is hypocrisy. I don't care if you want to use another word. But when deeds reveal the opposite to what the words claim, I will trust the deeds over the meaningless words.
Decrying DRM in some alternate fantasy world where it doesn't exist is no great statement. It is completely nullified by forcing bands to include DRM even when the don't want it. That is where it would stand if it were not for the timing of this letter.
With the current situation in Norway, this appears to nothing more than attempt to deflect the heat from Apple, saying in effect it is them, not us.
Steve Jobs, saying he is against DRM (given current actions) is like George Bush saying he is a pacifist and against military invasion.
Unless he has some deed to back up his empty words, this is nothing but a self serving political statement aimed at shifting blame.
This just seems like long winded rationalization of possible motives for the hypocrisy. Even if I accept everything you rationalize, then the statement is still nothing more than meaningless hot air aimed at deflecting the problems with interoperability in the EU. Meaningless finger pointing.
Yeah Steve would embrace DRM freedom in a DRM free world, yippee. Since he unwilling to take even one step toward that world, who cares?
I can't afford to take money and burn it. Dual Xeons and ECC memory this platform is at least twice as expensive as it needs to be. This exceeds my computer budget by over 100%. I could build something on the PC that meets my needs and has similar power on most tasks for a little over 1/3 this cost. Giving Apple a chance, doesn't include being a moron with my money. I won't lay down an extra $1500 just to have OSX. That premium is a little rich for my blood.
I am nearing the point of upgrading my Windows box (Athlon XP) to a new dual core. I really wanted to give Apple a shot. But the lack of Hardware really had me give up. I was willing to pay a small premium but still there was nothing.
First I have two monitors, so a built in monitor computer is out. Even if I needed a monitor, I would not be Crazy about tying them together permanently.
That leaves the Mini and the Pro. I wanted decent graphics (~7600GT) so the mini was shot down.
That left the pro. Way too much money. That left: another new windows box.
There is just no reasonably priced Mac with even remotely mainstream graphics power.
It is not so much that Apple takes an excessive profit margin, it is that they choose components that have poor bang/buck. The mini is built out of laptop components that all cost more and have less power. Graphics power seems completely irrelevant to Apple as well. You move to the Pro and you are forced to buy overkill Dual Xeons with ECC memory.
I have no problem with Apple controlling their HW, but with that they need to offer broader HW choices.
"Apple isn't doing any such thing. I just bought a dozen DRM-free tracks this morning, from eMusic. What, that's not on the iTunes store, you say? That's not Apple, you say? What, you're complaining because Apple's not a monopoly?"
That is ludicrous. How does other people selling DRM free tunes let Apple off the hook for saying one thing and doing the opposite.
Jobs says: DRM is pointless. We want DRM free music, we are ready to embrace it whole heartedly.
Label says: We would like to sell our music on iTunes without DRM.
Apple response: Your music will only be sold with DRM on iTunes.
That behavior is not consistent with the stated position. To most, myself included, this is saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. Without at least an explanation it completely undermines the open letter.
If this a "it must be all or none" type thing when we know it will never be all, then it is complete bullshit maneuvering and Jobs is looking like a political word mincing weasel here.