Exactly! Writing a book is simply re-arranging factual letters into known words, and common sentences. How is that considered ORIGINAL? Bahhh...
Find it hard to believe?
on
100 Million iPods
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As a publicly-traded company, it would be pretty hard to fudge these numbers and get away with it, but I guess anything is possible.
The guy that wrote the article sounds extremely bitter... did he design the Zune or something? Waaa waaa how many of those replaced old ipods or were stolen? WHO CARES? The press release is for ipods sold, not ipods currently in use. 100 million sold is amazing, no matter how you slice it.
We must be looking at different charts then, because I see a huge spike that nearly hits the top of the chart every 100,000 years. Indee, it looks like we might be behind schedule! You can barely even SEE human history on that chart's scale.
To be fair, I think he was talking about the giant spike in CO2 concentration at the far right of the graph, which nearly doubles the next highest spike in CO2 concentration 120,000 years ago when the last spike occurred...
The hours you spend setting up the device aren't necessarily "TV watching hours." People primarily get PVRs so they can spend LESS time in front of a TV, not more. For every hour of commercial TV, a PVR saves me 12-15 minutes of time. It also allows me to watch TV only when I'm not doing something else, usually allowing me to be more productive elsewhere.
So yeah, spending many hours configuring a PVR is wasted time, not just "TV time."
That being said, I'm looking to drop cable and go with a Mac Mini + eyeTV combo + iTunes TV store combo, just as soon as the new mac hardware comes out with the (rumored) H.264 decoder chip and the (rumored) BluRay/HD-DVD player in Leopard and hopefully more TV-conducive outputs.
This has the added advantage of (a) costing almost as much as a TiVo and (b) wasting almost as much time setting it up as MythTV.;-)
You're only examining up-front costs, you're not considering these HUGE costs for Windows networks:
- Lost productivity of users, due to them dealing with Windows issues, or security issues.
- Lost productivity of technical staff, due to them dealing with Windows issues, security issues, black tuesday patching cycles, etc.
- More security risks using Windows, not only due to the typical issues, but also due to the much, much higher number of zero-day exploits out for Windows, and the difficulty in running a Windows machine in a locked down mode while allowing users to remain productive.
Further, you are wrong on several points.
1. There ARE corporate/business plans offered by Apple. Start with http://www.apple.com/macatwork/ Apple is also busy increasing the size of their "enterprise" division for just such issues.
3. You may not have a problem with Windows security issues (though I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe), but most businesses that run Windows do. Even if its of the "we're constantly patching our machines" kind of trouble.
The only point I agree with you on is vendor lock-in, although there IS a benefit to vendor lock-in, in that the vendor (Apple) can more efficiently deal with hardware and software issues you have, precisely due to their tight control over everything. Aside from that point, I think Apple will eventually license Mac OS to other vendors, such as Dell. True, they are a hardware company now, but they also used to be a computer company, and THAT changed, didn't it? Software margins are high, ask Microsoft. Apple benefits from people using Mac OS now much more than they do from people buying Mac hardware, since once you start using Mac OS, you want MORE of the same -- itunes media, ipod, apple tv, iphone, the entire sphere. But I digress...
Yes, there is vendor lock-in now. At our business, this hasn't affected us yet.
But not the way you'd expect, top down from the IT department. Nope, it's happening from the ground up, as people start buying Macs on their own, bringing them into work (or working from home), and the IT guys are scrambling to integrate them. Then the IT guys start to like the hardware, they buy it for home use, they push it for work use. It creeps in. I've seen this happen at my own employer, as well as with some of my friends' employers.
Especially at small companies. The company I work at was 100% Windows just 2 years ago. Now we are 90% Mac (only holdouts being our servers, and the dev machines that work on the servers). The impetus was security -- get everyone using Macs since they're safer for browsing/email -- but in the end, people just liked them better, and they require less maintenance. I know, because I'm the guy maintaining them.
A friend today (new Mac convert) was groaning about getting help from his office IT guy for his MacBook, on a printing issue, because that IT worker was openly hostile to Macs. Only months ago, that IT worker was laughing when he heard my friend was considering a Mac, don't get it, it's not compatible with our stuff, you won't be able to do what you need to on there, etc. I just received an email, literally 10 minutes ago -- this same IT guy heard about his printing issue today and WANTS to help. Why? Because more of his other customers are moving to Macs, and now that he's had to use them, he actually PREFERS THEM! He's thinking about getting one for himself!
The vista people are looking at is increasingly filled with Macs... the Wow starts now for sure, but perhaps it wasn't what Microsoft was expecting... as in Wow, there are a lot of Macs in this office.
The iPhone has DIFFERENT features. It has a phone, whereas a new video iPod would not have a phone, but would likely have MUCH MORE disk space. Apple is king of pricing models that prevent cannibalization.
taxes on these products (even if the tax is a bad idea) have reduced consumption of these products
Can you prove this statement? I mean beyond a mere correlation, if even that?
My take is that if there's an externality then make the user pay for that externality rather than some short-sighted ban of human behavior and restriction of human freedom.
Make them pay WHO? And WHY should that entity be paid? And WHAT shall that entity do with the money it collects?
The money can then be redistributed via lower taxes elsewhere
So you pay a 'fine' and then you get that money back elsewhere? Or are you saying these lower taxes will only benefit the people that don't pay the 'fine' in the first place, in which case this is just income redistribution.
In comparison, a ban on light bulbs would need to be enforced. That requires an increase in the size of government anyway and results in a more intrusive government.
Mind you, I'm not saying a ban is a great idea, just better than "TAXATION!" But enforcing a ban on light bulb production/sale in a state is not difficult. How many companies produce light bulbs? How many of those companies would be willing to risk a major fine by selling these light bulbs to states where they are illegal?
And if you were a true libertarian, your answer would be "neither" taxes or a ban. Since you aren't
Wrong. I've stated in every part of this thread that I do NOT consider a ban to be a good idea, just as I don't consider the taxes to be a good idea. I am merely comparing the two, and if I had to choose one, I would choose the light bulb ban, provided it had sane limitations.
I'm not familiar with the video broadcasting aspect to this, but I also think with a consolidated service, that there is room for consolidation of the channels, and the ability to offer other services over that bandwidth. (I already enjoyed XM's NavTraffic and data services.)
I go through the Sirius and XM programming lists and shake my head at many of the channels, even before any consolidation between the two takes place. There is room for the good stuff.
Banning incandescent light bulbs might reduce overall energy usage
If the result of the ban is that the vast majority of people buy CFLs instead of incandescents in the future, then yes, it would have a huge, direct impact on overall energy usage. Incandescents are horribly inefficient, and the primary reason people keep buying them is because they are familiar with the light, and it's cheaper (up-front).
Banning incandescent light bulbs might reduce overall energy usage, but there are plenty of ways to waste electricity and you'd have to come up with new regulation for each one
We're not talking about some new invention. We're talking about a horribly inefficient device that has seen no real improvement in over 100 years. Something that is ripe to be replaced. (Again, I don't feel a federal government should abolish them, but if a state wants to do it, that's another thing entirely, and worth considering.) By many accounts, switching a majority of people over to CFLs will have a drastic impact on energy usage. (This is why Wal-Mart is making such a huge push into CFL.)
Taxing electricity, for example, is a direct way that solves the problem.
No, taxing something doesn't solve any problem, except the how-to-collect-more-spending-money problem. Has taxing cigarettes solved cigarette smoking? Has taxing gas decreased our dependence on gas? Has taxing booze slowed down drinking? All you're doing is creating an artificial barrier that INCREASES the size of government. What this ban proposes is forcing people to do something that will ultimately help (most) of them. I'm a libertarian, but choosing between a tax and making it very difficult to buy incandescent light bulbs, well that's a no-brainer. In California, anyone that wants an old light bulb will still be able to buy it over the internet.
Even if circumstances change, say tomorrow someone comes up with a new tool that sucks lots of electricity, you don't need to speedily pass some bill to fix this new source of consumption. The tax has already fixed it.
This is a lame argument. All new tools that come out today ALREADY strive to be low on power consumption, when possible. Energy is expensive. Being 'green' is a huge selling point, for many reasons. We're talking about not a new tool, but a 100+ year old tool. It's time for it to go.
You mentioned using an incandescent bulb in an egg incubator. This is a perfect example of WHY it needs to be hastily shown the exit -- you're using a LIGHT bulb for its HEAT. "Approximately 95% of the power consumed by an incandescent light bulb is emitted as heat, rather than as visible light." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_bulb#Efficiency _and_alternatives
Yes, but what you seem to have missed in all of that is that the law makes living in a large house with CFL's less penalized than living in a tiny apartment with incandescents, even though the latter uses far less energy.
How does the law make living in a large house with CFLs less penalized, or a small apartment with incandescents more penalized? In either case, when you go out to buy a light bulb to replace one that burnt out, you need to buy a CFL.
BTW, I don't believe the government should dictate what kind of light bulb you can buy, because the market can do that more efficiently and without as many negative side effects. I'm just trying to understand your point, as it makes no sense to me now. It seems that you want to actually be more restrictive in that you want to force people to pay more unless they conform to an overall restriction in energy, and this specific bill wants to simply cut down on energy usage in a way that should have limited impact on most people. (Again, not that I think this is the BEST idea.)
To me it sounds like the problem is in the way the channels are described, that's all. The Sirius channels that reply the same popular songs over and over should be described as "Top XXX" or "Popular" channels, whereas the channels that give a broader mix of a genre be described that way instead. There is room on the dial for both, as long as people understand the difference. Right?
I've subscribed to both services and completely DISAGREE with your take on it.
I started out on XM, and switched to Sirius because I like listening to Howard Stern. However, the sound quality of the music channels on Sirius sucks compared to XM. I went from one to the other, using the same speakers and sound system, and Sirius sucks on sound quality. My guess would be due to their compression technology differences.
In addition, my Sirius radio was an add-on, whereas my XM was integrated beautifully with my car system. (The sound in both cases is coming into the system the same way, so no that doesn't account for the difference in sound quality.) The integration of XM meant I could easily see what was playing right on the built-in car interface.
The only reason I stayed with Sirius is because they both have CNN and the other news channels I like, but only Sirius had Stern. I can't wait to switch back to my XM radio once the merger is completed (perhaps wishful thinking).
I imagine the vast majority of people interested in satellite radio will actually be HAPPY that they no longer have to choose between two very similar services. Personally, I rarely listened to the music channels, but from what I did listen to, they sound very similar in programming. Perhaps we're listening to different genres.
how much of the gains in productivity reported by the federal reserve are due to precisely this; businesses wringing extra, unpaid, work out of their employees.
Oh I dunno, probably the inverse of whatever gains in productivity are lost by reading slashdot, digg, and being able to pay bills, talk to friends, and handle emergency issues all from your desk at work?
It's a 2-way street people, don't forget to look the other way. You're liable to get run over.
And if you're willing to pay $500 for the phone, chances are you'll be willing to pay full price on the plan.
Yeah, and the only flaw in your logic is that most people WON'T be willing to pay $500 for a phone. Thus you either lower the price of the phone (subsidized by cell company), or the cell company keeps the margin on the phone that they'd have normally given up, and discounts the service for a certain time period.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's stored locally, I can always get at it and do what I want with it
Assuming you always use the same computer, and you always remember to bring that computer with you.
These are two things that many of us find are not true, much of the time.
Exactly! Writing a book is simply re-arranging factual letters into known words, and common sentences.
How is that considered ORIGINAL? Bahhh...
As a publicly-traded company, it would be pretty hard to fudge these numbers and get away with it, but I guess anything is possible.
The guy that wrote the article sounds extremely bitter... did he design the Zune or something? Waaa waaa how many of those replaced old ipods or were stolen? WHO CARES? The press release is for ipods sold, not ipods currently in use. 100 million sold is amazing, no matter how you slice it.
We must be looking at different charts then, because I see a huge spike that nearly hits the top of the chart every 100,000 years. Indee, it looks like we might be behind schedule! You can barely even SEE human history on that chart's scale.
To be fair, I think he was talking about the giant spike in CO2 concentration at the far right of the graph, which nearly doubles the next highest spike in CO2 concentration 120,000 years ago when the last spike occurred...
This is already available, a product called Chronicle Road:
http://chronicleroad.com/
Do you recognize that there are millions of people using computers for something in between "watching funny videos" and "serious numbercrunching"?
Check out Amazon EC2 and tell me again who is and isn't going to be using virtualization?
It seems that the choice to use Hillary was fairly inconsequential to the message.
Exactly, just like the choice to target IBM in the original ad was inconsequential.
Oh, wait.
The hours you spend setting up the device aren't necessarily "TV watching hours." People primarily get PVRs so they can spend LESS time in front of a TV, not more. For every hour of commercial TV, a PVR saves me 12-15 minutes of time. It also allows me to watch TV only when I'm not doing something else, usually allowing me to be more productive elsewhere.
;-)
So yeah, spending many hours configuring a PVR is wasted time, not just "TV time."
That being said, I'm looking to drop cable and go with a Mac Mini + eyeTV combo + iTunes TV store combo, just as soon as the new mac hardware comes out with the (rumored) H.264 decoder chip and the (rumored) BluRay/HD-DVD player in Leopard and hopefully more TV-conducive outputs.
This has the added advantage of (a) costing almost as much as a TiVo and (b) wasting almost as much time setting it up as MythTV.
You're only examining up-front costs, you're not considering these HUGE costs for Windows networks:
- Lost productivity of users, due to them dealing with Windows issues, or security issues.
- Lost productivity of technical staff, due to them dealing with Windows issues, security issues, black tuesday patching cycles, etc.
- More security risks using Windows, not only due to the typical issues, but also due to the much, much higher number of zero-day exploits out for Windows, and the difficulty in running a Windows machine in a locked down mode while allowing users to remain productive.
Further, you are wrong on several points.
1. There ARE corporate/business plans offered by Apple. Start with http://www.apple.com/macatwork/ Apple is also busy increasing the size of their "enterprise" division for just such issues.
2. There is managed control over OS X, you just are not familiar with OS X Server. Start with http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/
3. You may not have a problem with Windows security issues (though I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe), but most businesses that run Windows do. Even if its of the "we're constantly patching our machines" kind of trouble.
The only point I agree with you on is vendor lock-in, although there IS a benefit to vendor lock-in, in that the vendor (Apple) can more efficiently deal with hardware and software issues you have, precisely due to their tight control over everything. Aside from that point, I think Apple will eventually license Mac OS to other vendors, such as Dell. True, they are a hardware company now, but they also used to be a computer company, and THAT changed, didn't it? Software margins are high, ask Microsoft. Apple benefits from people using Mac OS now much more than they do from people buying Mac hardware, since once you start using Mac OS, you want MORE of the same -- itunes media, ipod, apple tv, iphone, the entire sphere. But I digress...
Yes, there is vendor lock-in now. At our business, this hasn't affected us yet.
Maybe its just me, but why the hell would you support your employees home machines.
So that they can do work off-hours if they want to or if you really need them to?
If an employee says, I'd like to be able to stay caught up on task X over the weekend, I'm going to want to find a way to make it happen.
...burn your kids Wii...
Interestingly, no matter how you interpret this sentence, your kid will not be looking at porn anymore!
But not the way you'd expect, top down from the IT department. Nope, it's happening from the ground up, as people start buying Macs on their own, bringing them into work (or working from home), and the IT guys are scrambling to integrate them. Then the IT guys start to like the hardware, they buy it for home use, they push it for work use. It creeps in. I've seen this happen at my own employer, as well as with some of my friends' employers.
Especially at small companies. The company I work at was 100% Windows just 2 years ago. Now we are 90% Mac (only holdouts being our servers, and the dev machines that work on the servers). The impetus was security -- get everyone using Macs since they're safer for browsing/email -- but in the end, people just liked them better, and they require less maintenance. I know, because I'm the guy maintaining them.
A friend today (new Mac convert) was groaning about getting help from his office IT guy for his MacBook, on a printing issue, because that IT worker was openly hostile to Macs. Only months ago, that IT worker was laughing when he heard my friend was considering a Mac, don't get it, it's not compatible with our stuff, you won't be able to do what you need to on there, etc. I just received an email, literally 10 minutes ago -- this same IT guy heard about his printing issue today and WANTS to help. Why? Because more of his other customers are moving to Macs, and now that he's had to use them, he actually PREFERS THEM! He's thinking about getting one for himself!
The vista people are looking at is increasingly filled with Macs... the Wow starts now for sure, but perhaps it wasn't what Microsoft was expecting... as in Wow, there are a lot of Macs in this office.
And a *multi-touch* screen and the UI to make that work in a really cool way.
The iPhone has DIFFERENT features. It has a phone, whereas a new video iPod would not have a phone, but would likely have MUCH MORE disk space. Apple is king of pricing models that prevent cannibalization.
taxes on these products (even if the tax is a bad idea) have reduced consumption of these products
Can you prove this statement? I mean beyond a mere correlation, if even that?
My take is that if there's an externality then make the user pay for that externality rather than some short-sighted ban of human behavior and restriction of human freedom.
Make them pay WHO? And WHY should that entity be paid? And WHAT shall that entity do with the money it collects?
The money can then be redistributed via lower taxes elsewhere
So you pay a 'fine' and then you get that money back elsewhere? Or are you saying these lower taxes will only benefit the people that don't pay the 'fine' in the first place, in which case this is just income redistribution.
In comparison, a ban on light bulbs would need to be enforced. That requires an increase in the size of government anyway and results in a more intrusive government.
Mind you, I'm not saying a ban is a great idea, just better than "TAXATION!" But enforcing a ban on light bulb production/sale in a state is not difficult. How many companies produce light bulbs? How many of those companies would be willing to risk a major fine by selling these light bulbs to states where they are illegal?
And if you were a true libertarian, your answer would be "neither" taxes or a ban. Since you aren't
Wrong. I've stated in every part of this thread that I do NOT consider a ban to be a good idea, just as I don't consider the taxes to be a good idea. I am merely comparing the two, and if I had to choose one, I would choose the light bulb ban, provided it had sane limitations.
I'm not familiar with the video broadcasting aspect to this, but I also think with a consolidated service, that there is room for consolidation of the channels, and the ability to offer other services over that bandwidth. (I already enjoyed XM's NavTraffic and data services.)
I go through the Sirius and XM programming lists and shake my head at many of the channels, even before any consolidation between the two takes place. There is room for the good stuff.
Banning incandescent light bulbs might reduce overall energy usage
y _and_alternatives
If the result of the ban is that the vast majority of people buy CFLs instead of incandescents in the future, then yes, it would have a huge, direct impact on overall energy usage. Incandescents are horribly inefficient, and the primary reason people keep buying them is because they are familiar with the light, and it's cheaper (up-front).
Banning incandescent light bulbs might reduce overall energy usage, but there are plenty of ways to waste electricity and you'd have to come up with new regulation for each one
We're not talking about some new invention. We're talking about a horribly inefficient device that has seen no real improvement in over 100 years. Something that is ripe to be replaced. (Again, I don't feel a federal government should abolish them, but if a state wants to do it, that's another thing entirely, and worth considering.) By many accounts, switching a majority of people over to CFLs will have a drastic impact on energy usage. (This is why Wal-Mart is making such a huge push into CFL.)
Taxing electricity, for example, is a direct way that solves the problem.
No, taxing something doesn't solve any problem, except the how-to-collect-more-spending-money problem. Has taxing cigarettes solved cigarette smoking? Has taxing gas decreased our dependence on gas? Has taxing booze slowed down drinking? All you're doing is creating an artificial barrier that INCREASES the size of government. What this ban proposes is forcing people to do something that will ultimately help (most) of them. I'm a libertarian, but choosing between a tax and making it very difficult to buy incandescent light bulbs, well that's a no-brainer. In California, anyone that wants an old light bulb will still be able to buy it over the internet.
Even if circumstances change, say tomorrow someone comes up with a new tool that sucks lots of electricity, you don't need to speedily pass some bill to fix this new source of consumption. The tax has already fixed it.
This is a lame argument. All new tools that come out today ALREADY strive to be low on power consumption, when possible. Energy is expensive. Being 'green' is a huge selling point, for many reasons. We're talking about not a new tool, but a 100+ year old tool. It's time for it to go.
You mentioned using an incandescent bulb in an egg incubator. This is a perfect example of WHY it needs to be hastily shown the exit -- you're using a LIGHT bulb for its HEAT. "Approximately 95% of the power consumed by an incandescent light bulb is emitted as heat, rather than as visible light." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_bulb#Efficienc
Yes, but what you seem to have missed in all of that is that the law makes living in a large house with CFL's less penalized than living in a tiny apartment with incandescents, even though the latter uses far less energy.
How does the law make living in a large house with CFLs less penalized, or a small apartment with incandescents more penalized? In either case, when you go out to buy a light bulb to replace one that burnt out, you need to buy a CFL.
BTW, I don't believe the government should dictate what kind of light bulb you can buy, because the market can do that more efficiently and without as many negative side effects. I'm just trying to understand your point, as it makes no sense to me now. It seems that you want to actually be more restrictive in that you want to force people to pay more unless they conform to an overall restriction in energy, and this specific bill wants to simply cut down on energy usage in a way that should have limited impact on most people. (Again, not that I think this is the BEST idea.)
To me it sounds like the problem is in the way the channels are described, that's all. The Sirius channels that reply the same popular songs over and over should be described as "Top XXX" or "Popular" channels, whereas the channels that give a broader mix of a genre be described that way instead. There is room on the dial for both, as long as people understand the difference. Right?
I've subscribed to both services and completely DISAGREE with your take on it.
I started out on XM, and switched to Sirius because I like listening to Howard Stern. However, the sound quality of the music channels on Sirius sucks compared to XM. I went from one to the other, using the same speakers and sound system, and Sirius sucks on sound quality. My guess would be due to their compression technology differences.
In addition, my Sirius radio was an add-on, whereas my XM was integrated beautifully with my car system. (The sound in both cases is coming into the system the same way, so no that doesn't account for the difference in sound quality.) The integration of XM meant I could easily see what was playing right on the built-in car interface.
The only reason I stayed with Sirius is because they both have CNN and the other news channels I like, but only Sirius had Stern. I can't wait to switch back to my XM radio once the merger is completed (perhaps wishful thinking).
I imagine the vast majority of people interested in satellite radio will actually be HAPPY that they no longer have to choose between two very similar services. Personally, I rarely listened to the music channels, but from what I did listen to, they sound very similar in programming. Perhaps we're listening to different genres.
how much of the gains in productivity reported by the federal reserve are due to precisely this; businesses wringing extra, unpaid, work out of their employees.
Oh I dunno, probably the inverse of whatever gains in productivity are lost by reading slashdot, digg, and being able to pay bills, talk to friends, and handle emergency issues all from your desk at work?
It's a 2-way street people, don't forget to look the other way. You're liable to get run over.
If you're using Macs, it's funny.
Now if only Budweiser could figure out why their beer turns into a solid!
Right, if only there was a place on a woman where we could stick a dollar coin.
And if you're willing to pay $500 for the phone, chances are you'll be willing to pay full price on the plan.
Yeah, and the only flaw in your logic is that most people WON'T be willing to pay $500 for a phone. Thus you either lower the price of the phone (subsidized by cell company), or the cell company keeps the margin on the phone that they'd have normally given up, and discounts the service for a certain time period.