Re:Sure he left before launch, but he went to M$..
on
Birth of the iPod
·
· Score: 1
Just as Apple did in this very case. That's what the whole article was about. A guy comes up with an idea, works with a bunch of OEMs, then Apple comes along, buys out the effort, kills the OEM relationships, then ships the product as their own ingenuity. It's not as though the concept of the iPod was even new at the time of its introduction.
Re:Sure didn't take him long to fuck up.
on
Dell CEO Tells All
·
· Score: 1
Rollins has shared the office of CEO for many years and many have badmouthed the HP/Compaq merger for a long time now. I don't recall anywhere in the interview where he said that HP products suck. He basically said their business strategy hadn't changed and the merger didn't appear to make sense. If you read between the lines, Dell believes that Dell itself was the big winner in the merger since both HP and Comapq took it on the chin for a long time while Dell gobbled up ex-Compaq customers in mass. In any event, CEO's comment on business strategies since that is what they do.
Somehow I don't believe any of this. CMOS battery died within a week? Come on!
In any event, Dell's volumes certainly prove you wrong. Apparently a whole lot of people recommend Dell. I'd avoid asking your friends for advice, though.
On site service is frequently contracted out even for the largest companies. It's not a reflection on the quality of service, either.
I've owned quite a few (>6) Dell laptops over the last 5 years and have never had a quality issue with any of them. This is just lunatic rantings from someone who hates Dell. Dell ships machines in incredible volumes and they'd be out of business in a hurry if they were that bad.
Then what do you do when their piece of crap fails after the warranty expires? Dell's products aren't engineered to fail after the warranty expires any more than anyone else's are (regardless of the fanatical ravings here). Dell manages its costs better than anyone in the industry, and if you knew anything you'd know that support and warranty costs can be very significant. Dell can't succeed with products if the quality is as bad as described here and it would take a fool to believe otherwise.
The game is young. Dell did the same thing to Compaq and their server line and put them out. It doesn't happen overnight and Dell's competitors play by the same rules. Compaq sold their PC's below cost and even bundled them with servers in an attempt to crush Dell's profit center. You think it's unfair for Dell to do the same?
I would like it to be 0%. After all, it's the corporation's customers that actually pay those taxes. That's you and me, only apparently you don't know it.
What we should all really want to know is how much of what we earn ends up in the government's pocket. I doubt anyone in government wants that to happen.
People pay taxes. Corporations simply pass taxes on to their customers. Corporate taxes are just a means of hiding the true tax rate, and in the end it's individuals that end up footing the bill.
You may choose to buy from the highest cost supplier because you believe that they are doing the right thing by paying extra taxes, but instead I suggest you include a big fat tip to the IRS every year. Large companies extort favorable tax rates from local governments and doing so is generally considered good management.
What is your point exactly? That somehow everyone owes your their work released under the GPL because someone else released code under the GPL? How do you know they developed their work using GPL'ed software and what difference should that make? Who's the hypocrite here?
Some people aren't silver-spooners like RMS and have actually had to work for a wage in order to live. It's easy to take a radical position when you've never needed to earn a paycheck in your life.
I don't see where in your quote that the original author suggested that GPL code couldn't be used in commercial products. All he said was that he believed the PHP user base was happy with the terms of the PHP license even though the GNU community may not be. I think you need to calm down, Brian.
It only matters when you develop non-free software derived from GPL'ed software and distribute it.
The GPL doesn't require you to respect the wish that the software remain free, it requires that any new software also be released under the same terms. In that sense, the original code remains free but the new code must also be similarly "free". In that respect it "disrespects" the authors of the new software by preventing them from choosing the licensing terms they prefer.
You absolutely can. Integrating free code into a closed source project in no way lessens the freedom of the original code. It is the freedom of the new derivative in question and there is no way to say that code was ever intended to be free. Any code released under a BSD license is and always will be free and its freedom is "maintained" forever with any effort at all.
It is absolutely a true statement that "part of being free is having the right to develop non-free software". RMS doesn't want you to have that freedom. The freedom he wants is his own freedom to access your work in source form. Communism is the perfect analogy.
BSD code stays free forever as well plus, as a developer, you are more free to use it as you wish. Derivative products may not be free but it's foolish to claim that such a derivative somehow makes the original code no longer free. BSD code is in every way just as free as GPL code plus you have greater flexibility in how you use it. There is absolutely no justifiable argument for how GPL code could be "more free" that BSD code. Of course, GPL licensing is more likely to result in future freely licensed derivatives, but that is by no means assured and is irrelevant to the discussion of the "freeness" of the original code.
It does not "take away the freedom" because there wasn't any in the first place. The GPL would impose that such "freedom" be granted by the developer in that circumstance whereas the BSD license would not, and it's stupid to assume you have rights to source code of any software unless the developer decides to withhold it from you. The GPL forces its brand of freedom on all derived packages and is thus less free than BSD. Truly "free" software is available to all while GPL software is available to GPL developers only (end users are not impacted directly).
I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. It's clear that Apple portions its R&D spending much differently, but Dell is certainly known for trimming fat so it's unlikely that their R&D budget is purely wasted. I think it's safe to say that Dell spends a lot of its budget making sure its products work properly in the ways high volume customers desire. Compared to Apple, Dell contributes much more there and the industry benefits. In addition, Dell doesn't perceive its image and a (non-)innovator as an issue for its market, so the money it spends there is more behind the scenes (and selectively spent).
People who perceive that Dell does nothing in terms of R&D are naiive. A company that size cannot afford not to and the numbers presented here simply bear that out. That was my point. Apple has a much more limited product line and does not have to support the breadth of hardware and software that Dell does. They can afford less spending there in exchange for significant investments in OS and application development. All told, considering the investment in R&D is similar and the profitability is and order of magnitude different, it's easy to understand where I want my money invested.
Difference is, there's no truth to your version. The bulk of all parts inside a mac are the same as those in a PC, were developed for use in PC's, and are source from the same companies as PC's. Macs are gratuitously different in order to prop up a vertical model that's required for Apple to remain in business. Jobs knows from experience that Apple can't compete against clones (as that failed with macs) and he can't compete with just software (as that failed at Next). Instead he competes with vendor lockin and a boutique image.
It's true that macs are not BMW's, however, so at least you got that right. BMW's claim as a superior car is founded on more than just a menu bar across to top, a one button mouse, and fake brushed aluminum skins. They compete successfully in a mature, competitive market. Apple, on the other hand, was once the largest, most dominant PC maker but is now a bit player that uses tricks to stay in business. Nothing like BMW at all.
...and one of Dell's internal yardsticks is revenue per employee. Not surpisingly it blows away everyone in the industry in that measurement since it has an aversion to employing people who don't scale with volume (pure overhead employees like engineers).
In the end, would you like to earn $250M a year or $3000M a year for your %500M R&D investment? I thought so. Curious that Apple's and Dell's R&D investments are so comparable considering the typical/. opinion that Apple is the pinnacle of innovation and Dell does none whatsoever.
If two investors presented plans to earn $61 for you in a quarter, one requiring a $100 investment and the other requiring a $1000 investment, which would you choose? You think a company spending $500M in just R&D alone would be happy with so little profit? If it were your money you would expect better.
The reason Dell is so successful is that they measure their performance on ROIC (return on invested capital) just like you would do with your investment manager (if you had one). Dell certainly doesn't want Apple's business model with its huge capital investment requirements.
Klein and Huffy don't use similar parts. Neither do BMW and Hyundai. Nice try, though.
Dell designs many of its motherboards, too, and suggesting the iMac case is nice looking is a real stretch.
If you were claiming that Apple invests more in its products because of its software then I could agree with you, but it's ridiculous to claim that they do so with hardware because they spend money on fancy ID and marketing. Dell doesn't do that because it doesn't make sense to do so for their customers and their market volumes. Someone has to make the big money selling the high volume machines and Dell would rather do that than nurse a "classy" image for a few percent marketshare.
Claiming that a mac is a BMW while a Dell is a Hyundai is stupid. They get the same hard drives, the same CD-ROMS, memory and video. Apples are not inherently better at using the same parts as anyone else and I promise you Dell spends more money on parts qualification than Apple does. They can't afford not to.
Macs are not BMW's. They are different for the sake of being different yet they use largely the same parts and technologies as PC's. Macs are vertically integrated PC's with alternative processors and a boutique image. Nothing like BMW's at all. Some people own BMW's because they like, and know how to, drive and few would question that BMW knows how to make a car drive well. On the other hand, the opinion that macs "drive well" is basically only held by mac lovers themselves. I'm sure Steve is delighted that people would make this analogy though since it means his marketing is working.
Why do you fear this? Products in the market getting better is something to be afraid of? If the authors want to encourage commerical adoption of their work why are you afraid of it? OTOH, willful violation of a license is something that could be dealt with.
Whichever application installs itself as the eps file handler. Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop open it on my PC. Did you mean something other than "open"?
So, macs have builtin EPS editors? That's why they're the computer for creative professionals?
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I do think, though, that author wants you to believe that 48K is the data rate. He doesn't suggest otherwise and bases his conclusion (that the player will suck) on the lousy ATRAC format combined with 48K. I would certainly agree that 48K ATRAC would suck if were the only option. The author was also mistaken in claiming that you would have to transcode your library as that is done on the fly by the sync software.
I think the Sony will compete with the iPod on industrial design and win (in some minds) on size and possibly battery life but it remains to be seen whether the automatic transcoding and ATRAC internal format will perform well enough. It's not clear to me it will be better than the iPod or not but competition is always good for consumers.
Slashdot Mirror
Just as Apple did in this very case. That's what the whole article was about. A guy comes up with an idea, works with a bunch of OEMs, then Apple comes along, buys out the effort, kills the OEM relationships, then ships the product as their own ingenuity. It's not as though the concept of the iPod was even new at the time of its introduction.
Rollins has shared the office of CEO for many years and many have badmouthed the HP/Compaq merger for a long time now. I don't recall anywhere in the interview where he said that HP products suck. He basically said their business strategy hadn't changed and the merger didn't appear to make sense. If you read between the lines, Dell believes that Dell itself was the big winner in the merger since both HP and Comapq took it on the chin for a long time while Dell gobbled up ex-Compaq customers in mass. In any event, CEO's comment on business strategies since that is what they do.
Somehow I don't believe any of this. CMOS battery died within a week? Come on!
In any event, Dell's volumes certainly prove you wrong. Apparently a whole lot of people recommend Dell. I'd avoid asking your friends for advice, though.
On site service is frequently contracted out even for the largest companies. It's not a reflection on the quality of service, either.
I've owned quite a few (>6) Dell laptops over the last 5 years and have never had a quality issue with any of them. This is just lunatic rantings from someone who hates Dell. Dell ships machines in incredible volumes and they'd be out of business in a hurry if they were that bad.
Then what do you do when their piece of crap fails after the warranty expires? Dell's products aren't engineered to fail after the warranty expires any more than anyone else's are (regardless of the fanatical ravings here). Dell manages its costs better than anyone in the industry, and if you knew anything you'd know that support and warranty costs can be very significant. Dell can't succeed with products if the quality is as bad as described here and it would take a fool to believe otherwise.
The game is young. Dell did the same thing to Compaq and their server line and put them out. It doesn't happen overnight and Dell's competitors play by the same rules. Compaq sold their PC's below cost and even bundled them with servers in an attempt to crush Dell's profit center. You think it's unfair for Dell to do the same?
I would like it to be 0%. After all, it's the corporation's customers that actually pay those taxes. That's you and me, only apparently you don't know it.
What we should all really want to know is how much of what we earn ends up in the government's pocket. I doubt anyone in government wants that to happen.
People pay taxes. Corporations simply pass taxes on to their customers. Corporate taxes are just a means of hiding the true tax rate, and in the end it's individuals that end up footing the bill.
You may choose to buy from the highest cost supplier because you believe that they are doing the right thing by paying extra taxes, but instead I suggest you include a big fat tip to the IRS every year. Large companies extort favorable tax rates from local governments and doing so is generally considered good management.
Exactly. Just where in the GPL does it say that the original authors of GPL'ed code have any say-so in the naming of derived products?
What is your point exactly? That somehow everyone owes your their work released under the GPL because someone else released code under the GPL? How do you know they developed their work using GPL'ed software and what difference should that make? Who's the hypocrite here?
Some people aren't silver-spooners like RMS and have actually had to work for a wage in order to live. It's easy to take a radical position when you've never needed to earn a paycheck in your life.
I don't see where in your quote that the original author suggested that GPL code couldn't be used in commercial products. All he said was that he believed the PHP user base was happy with the terms of the PHP license even though the GNU community may not be. I think you need to calm down, Brian.
It only matters when you develop non-free software derived from GPL'ed software and distribute it.
The GPL doesn't require you to respect the wish that the software remain free, it requires that any new software also be released under the same terms. In that sense, the original code remains free but the new code must also be similarly "free". In that respect it "disrespects" the authors of the new software by preventing them from choosing the licensing terms they prefer.
You absolutely can. Integrating free code into a closed source project in no way lessens the freedom of the original code. It is the freedom of the new derivative in question and there is no way to say that code was ever intended to be free. Any code released under a BSD license is and always will be free and its freedom is "maintained" forever with any effort at all.
It is absolutely a true statement that "part of being free is having the right to develop non-free software". RMS doesn't want you to have that freedom. The freedom he wants is his own freedom to access your work in source form. Communism is the perfect analogy.
BSD code stays free forever as well plus, as a developer, you are more free to use it as you wish. Derivative products may not be free but it's foolish to claim that such a derivative somehow makes the original code no longer free. BSD code is in every way just as free as GPL code plus you have greater flexibility in how you use it. There is absolutely no justifiable argument for how GPL code could be "more free" that BSD code. Of course, GPL licensing is more likely to result in future freely licensed derivatives, but that is by no means assured and is irrelevant to the discussion of the "freeness" of the original code.
It does not "take away the freedom" because there wasn't any in the first place. The GPL would impose that such "freedom" be granted by the developer in that circumstance whereas the BSD license would not, and it's stupid to assume you have rights to source code of any software unless the developer decides to withhold it from you. The GPL forces its brand of freedom on all derived packages and is thus less free than BSD. Truly "free" software is available to all while GPL software is available to GPL developers only (end users are not impacted directly).
I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. It's clear that Apple portions its R&D spending much differently, but Dell is certainly known for trimming fat so it's unlikely that their R&D budget is purely wasted. I think it's safe to say that Dell spends a lot of its budget making sure its products work properly in the ways high volume customers desire. Compared to Apple, Dell contributes much more there and the industry benefits. In addition, Dell doesn't perceive its image and a (non-)innovator as an issue for its market, so the money it spends there is more behind the scenes (and selectively spent).
People who perceive that Dell does nothing in terms of R&D are naiive. A company that size cannot afford not to and the numbers presented here simply bear that out. That was my point. Apple has a much more limited product line and does not have to support the breadth of hardware and software that Dell does. They can afford less spending there in exchange for significant investments in OS and application development. All told, considering the investment in R&D is similar and the profitability is and order of magnitude different, it's easy to understand where I want my money invested.
Difference is, there's no truth to your version. The bulk of all parts inside a mac are the same as those in a PC, were developed for use in PC's, and are source from the same companies as PC's. Macs are gratuitously different in order to prop up a vertical model that's required for Apple to remain in business. Jobs knows from experience that Apple can't compete against clones (as that failed with macs) and he can't compete with just software (as that failed at Next). Instead he competes with vendor lockin and a boutique image.
It's true that macs are not BMW's, however, so at least you got that right. BMW's claim as a superior car is founded on more than just a menu bar across to top, a one button mouse, and fake brushed aluminum skins. They compete successfully in a mature, competitive market. Apple, on the other hand, was once the largest, most dominant PC maker but is now a bit player that uses tricks to stay in business. Nothing like BMW at all.
...and one of Dell's internal yardsticks is revenue per employee. Not surpisingly it blows away everyone in the industry in that measurement since it has an aversion to employing people who don't scale with volume (pure overhead employees like engineers).
/. opinion that Apple is the pinnacle of innovation and Dell does none whatsoever.
In the end, would you like to earn $250M a year or $3000M a year for your %500M R&D investment? I thought so. Curious that Apple's and Dell's R&D investments are so comparable considering the typical
If they are then they are fools.
If two investors presented plans to earn $61 for you in a quarter, one requiring a $100 investment and the other requiring a $1000 investment, which would you choose? You think a company spending $500M in just R&D alone would be happy with so little profit? If it were your money you would expect better.
The reason Dell is so successful is that they measure their performance on ROIC (return on invested capital) just like you would do with your investment manager (if you had one). Dell certainly doesn't want Apple's business model with its huge capital investment requirements.
Klein and Huffy don't use similar parts. Neither do BMW and Hyundai. Nice try, though.
Dell designs many of its motherboards, too, and suggesting the iMac case is nice looking is a real stretch.
If you were claiming that Apple invests more in its products because of its software then I could agree with you, but it's ridiculous to claim that they do so with hardware because they spend money on fancy ID and marketing. Dell doesn't do that because it doesn't make sense to do so for their customers and their market volumes. Someone has to make the big money selling the high volume machines and Dell would rather do that than nurse a "classy" image for a few percent marketshare.
Claiming that a mac is a BMW while a Dell is a Hyundai is stupid. They get the same hard drives, the same CD-ROMS, memory and video. Apples are not inherently better at using the same parts as anyone else and I promise you Dell spends more money on parts qualification than Apple does. They can't afford not to.
Macs are not BMW's. They are different for the sake of being different yet they use largely the same parts and technologies as PC's. Macs are vertically integrated PC's with alternative processors and a boutique image. Nothing like BMW's at all. Some people own BMW's because they like, and know how to, drive and few would question that BMW knows how to make a car drive well. On the other hand, the opinion that macs "drive well" is basically only held by mac lovers themselves. I'm sure Steve is delighted that people would make this analogy though since it means his marketing is working.
Why do you fear this? Products in the market getting better is something to be afraid of? If the authors want to encourage commerical adoption of their work why are you afraid of it? OTOH, willful violation of a license is something that could be dealt with.
No one said creative professionals were smart.
Whichever application installs itself as the eps file handler. Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop open it on my PC. Did you mean something other than "open"?
So, macs have builtin EPS editors? That's why they're the computer for creative professionals?
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I do think, though, that author wants you to believe that 48K is the data rate. He doesn't suggest otherwise and bases his conclusion (that the player will suck) on the lousy ATRAC format combined with 48K. I would certainly agree that 48K ATRAC would suck if were the only option. The author was also mistaken in claiming that you would have to transcode your library as that is done on the fly by the sync software.
I think the Sony will compete with the iPod on industrial design and win (in some minds) on size and possibly battery life but it remains to be seen whether the automatic transcoding and ATRAC internal format will perform well enough. It's not clear to me it will be better than the iPod or not but competition is always good for consumers.