Even in Canada and the UK, which conservatives love to hold up as shameful examples of The Evils Of Socialism, you'll find millions of satisfied customers who wouldn't dream of going back to a private system.
Please explain. I, for example, have health insurance through my place of employment. If I quit this job, are you saying I'd still somehow have health insurance? How does that work?
COBRA Insurance allows some to continue their insurance between jobs.
In other words, it doesn't matter to you that millions of people are unable to afford routine preventive health care
Ask all those people who eat at McDonald's a lot if they care about prevention.
It doesn't matter to you that medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States, and for millions of Americans, getting sick or injured at the wrong time can destroy their savings and ruin them for the rest of their lives.
Allow a free market in health care and insurance and costs will go down, competition does mazing things.
It doesn't matter to you that millions of people are unable to move to better jobs, even when those jobs are available, because they're dependent on their current employers for health insurance.
When people can afford to get insurance on their own there's no need to stay with the current employer.
You seem to be under the impression that the US has the best health care in the world.
We, the US, does have the best health care. For those who can afford it. However even those who don't have insurance can still get health care.
Quality of care does not "always" decrease from socialization... in fact, it appears that the exact opposite occurs in most cases.
A man who gets cancer in France, and France is recognized as having one of the best social medicine systems in the world, has a worse 5 year survival chance than one in the US according to a special report on CNN by Dr Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent. Also he mentioned briefly why health care is as expensive as it is in the US. There is no free market in health insurance. During WWII the government passed wage control laws. Employers weren't allowed to pay employees more. However the government allowed employers to offer health insurance, and gave them tax breaks for doing so, so they could encourage people to work for them. Those employer provided health insurance incentives are still there. If government got rid of the incentives and allowed employers to pay employees more without raising the taxes they paid then there would be a free market in health insurance. Just as outsourcing does to salaries and wages, the competition would drive health care costs down.
On the other hand, the strong have not only survived, but have *flourished*. I take all of my Apple problems to MacMedia, a local shop, even though there are two Apple stores in the Phoenix metro region.
One Apple reseller I know closed some years ago but another one, 10 to 15 minutes walk for me, seems to be doing well. I don't recall if the first one had any but this one regularly has a number of classes. It's basically a full service store, besides selling software and peripherals and servicing and repairing hardware it even sells old Macs. And there are 4 Apple stores around here. I've been to 3 of them, each within 20 minutes drive. My own Mac I bought online, as a member of the Apple Developer Connection I got a discount on it but purchases need to be ordered online or by phone.
There was talk about building a new Amiga based on it, but that seems to have gone the way of most Amiga revivals.
Amigas were my favorite computers, it's a shame Commodore did a piss poor job of marketing them. I was hoping Gateway would revive the Amiga when it bought out the Amiga from Escom in 1997.
Just to be in character, you mean "should have said".
"should've said". Many people make that mistake, then again they sound the same.
The annoying thing is that I have to admit MS have occasionally made some decent products in the last decade
The only decent thing I can credit Microsoft with is Windows NT4, and I admit I loved it.
now I'm amused and delighted that they've managed to screw up Vista, but I'm also really pissed about it because it means that if the Apple/Linux crowd don't capitalise on this mistake
When it is running Vista, there's no reason to upgrade of course.
if you're running Vista more than likely you got a new PC or you upgraded an old PC to be Vista capable.
Photoshop
Adobe recommends that if you're running Photoshop on Vista that you get CS3. And it cost $650 while Photoshop CS3 Extended cost $1000.
Upgrades to stuff like Photoshop would surely be cheaper than a decent new PC?
First, to install an upgrade for Photoshop, Photoshop already has to be installed, I believe, and as I state above Adobe recommends CS3 for Vista, so it may be foolish to install CS2 on a Vista PC. Next, a decent PC should cost less than $1000, even to run Photoshop CS3 on. The following are headless: An HP that beats Photoshop's minimum requirements is less than $900, though this one's on sale. A Dell that exceeds CS3's minimum configuration is less than $820.
However even photographers are likely to get software other than Photoshop, perhaps a design suite and an office suite. Add all the software cost up and they can easily exceed the hardware cost.
Apple is buying itself a bargaining chip (pun) for negotiating with Intel on their pc line. They were able to tell Mot/IBM to f off using Intel. Now they will be able to repeat the same thing to Intel if Intel does not do their bidding. In fact they are in a stronger position since they will be in the CPU business themselves.
There are at least two problems with this argument. One is that Apple didn't need to acquire another company to put pressure on Intel. If Apple wants to pressure Intel all they need to do is tell Intel they're in discussions with AMD. Second, it wouldn't be a good idea to risk having the US Department of Defense veto the buyout.
But it already supports at least two platforms (the iPhone being the third), and has for two years. Apple has a long history of defying those who say it can't do something.
Where's my mid range Mac, one I can expand and upgrade? There isn't one.
Some predicted that it's retail operations would fail within two years. They couldn't have been more wrong.
Those Apple stores drove off some of their biggest supporters, independent stores that specialized in Apple hardware and software.
I think it does, but not where you are thinking. This could be a good fit for Airport, Apple TV, or other devices that may be in Apple's roadmap we don't know about. There might also be something in PA's roadmap that will make perfect sense when they release it in a few years. Another idea that I think makes sense: Apple is just after the people. PA doesn't have any Fabs, so it isn't completely unreasonable to end their product line. The people have a lot of experience with ARM, which Apple is currently using for mobile products.
I think that this is a bad reason for Apple to risk a Department of Defense veto of the deal.
The semiconductor industry is really only interested in creating the best "general-purpose" semiconductor. If a hardware company like Apple has specific or divergent needs, their choices are to pay through the nose to "partner" with a chipmaker to accommodate their requirements (if they can find one willing), or to buy a chipmaker outright and do whatever they want.
However PA Semi isn't a chip maker, it's a chip designer. Apple could still find itself in the position it was in with IBM and Freescale with no one to manufacture what it needs.
Indeed I have checked their prices. I'm actually typing on my one and I have an iBook in the living room. Comparing comparable models, their prices are indeed similar or even better than other manufacturers' offerings.
However, my "premium prices" comment was more about the fact that Apple sells higher end machines with the accompanying higher end prices. They really don't go slumming on the low price machines where gross margins are generally crap. Even when they try to strip down the hardware to reach a lower price (looking at you, Mac Mini and iPod shuffle), the demand generally isn't great.
OK. I sometimes get upset when people intimate if not come right and say Macs cost more than PCs. There are two problems with Apple's lines. One is when comparing costs you first have to start with a Mac then configure a PC close to the Mac as though Apple does offer some configurations it's not much. The second one is that the only expandable and upgradeable Mac they sell are the Mac Pro. They don't offer any medium range Macs that fit that description. But as some have said, because Apple doesn't offer as many configurations and lines their development costs are lower, personally I'd take the added costs for an expanded market share.
It would be cheaper to buy the hardware than it is to buy the designer.
It's cheaper to buy the designer than be unable to ship product because your supplier can't keep up. Which is exactly the sort of problem Apple's had in the past.
And Apple will still have that problem. PA Semi is a designer firm, they don't manufacture the parts they design, ie they do not operate a Fab plant.
And for selling servers and store to others.
I said this looked good for scratching Apple's itch. I didn't say they wouldn't try selling it to others with the same itch.
But they already sell servers. Though I do see I said they sell "store", I should of said "storage".
If backwards compatibility and such really is the reason that Windows is such a mess, then why not make a clean break?
Because software can cost a hell of a lot more than hardware. As it is now, people can buy computers but keep the software they are using now. I can buy a new PC with Vista installed, but why would I, for less than Photoshop CS3 costs.
Have you compared Apple prices in the last few years? Apple prices have been comparable to PC prices for years.
The last thing they want to sell is a low margin $400 laptop. As a shareholder, I'd be pretty pissed if they were to waste time/money/effort on the low end market.
And as a stockholder I'd be pissed if they didn't try to expand their markets.
Apple has demonstrated twice now how well they can adapt their OS for any architecture. Would be nice if Microsoft took up the challenge..
Ah but Microsoft has developed software, apps and OSes, for different architectures. Right under the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on I have a PC with the DEC Alpha CPU running Windows NT 4.0. Windows NT also ran on Mips, PowerPC, SPARC, Intel i860, and Intel i960.
Why would they buy a chip design company to make a few systems for their back end store?
The iTMS is the largest music retailer in the US. It's also starting to push video in quantity. Perhaps they anticipate becoming the largest video retailer as well.
It would be cheaper to buy the hardware than it is to buy the designer. Financially the only reason I could see for Apple buying them is because they plan to sell a product using whatever they design.
But mostly my bet is it's for servers and storage to start.
Servers and storage that would likely be specialized for pushing a lot of data efficiently. Sounds great for the iTMS.
And for selling servers and store to others. Apple already makes and sells servers, the Xserve. They also sell RAID array, but made by third parties.
Emulating x86 on PPC is a lot easier than emulating PPC on x86. I'd imagine a dynamic recompilation engine on a Power 6 could give Core 2 a run for its money. Of course, it would suck down twenty times the power and would cause a brownout for the entire city when you turned it on, but....:-D
Considering Apple switched to Intel CPUs because neither Freescalenor IBM released a PPC that was low power and didn't get hot enough to cook eggs on I seriously doubt Apple would switch back, and the acquisition of PA Semi doesn't change that.
Slashdot Mirror
Even in Canada and the UK, which conservatives love to hold up as shameful examples of The Evils Of Socialism, you'll find millions of satisfied customers who wouldn't dream of going back to a private system.
"Canada's Expectant Moms Heading to U.S. to Deliver". While some Americans, US citizens, go to Canada to buy drugs Canadians come to the US for surgery.
The solutions are simple. Allow more choice and allow people huge tax deductions for their choices.
Any real-world examples of a system like this actually working?
There are no real-world examples of a free market in health care.
FalconPlease explain. I, for example, have health insurance through my place of employment. If I quit this job, are you saying I'd still somehow have health insurance? How does that work?
COBRA Insurance allows some to continue their insurance between jobs.
FalconIn other words, it doesn't matter to you that millions of people are unable to afford routine preventive health care
Ask all those people who eat at McDonald's a lot if they care about prevention.
It doesn't matter to you that medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States, and for millions of Americans, getting sick or injured at the wrong time can destroy their savings and ruin them for the rest of their lives.
Allow a free market in health care and insurance and costs will go down, competition does mazing things.
It doesn't matter to you that millions of people are unable to move to better jobs, even when those jobs are available, because they're dependent on their current employers for health insurance.
When people can afford to get insurance on their own there's no need to stay with the current employer.
FalconYou seem to be under the impression that the US has the best health care in the world.
We, the US, does have the best health care. For those who can afford it. However even those who don't have insurance can still get health care.
Quality of care does not "always" decrease from socialization... in fact, it appears that the exact opposite occurs in most cases.
A man who gets cancer in France, and France is recognized as having one of the best social medicine systems in the world, has a worse 5 year survival chance than one in the US according to a special report on CNN by Dr Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent. Also he mentioned briefly why health care is as expensive as it is in the US. There is no free market in health insurance. During WWII the government passed wage control laws. Employers weren't allowed to pay employees more. However the government allowed employers to offer health insurance, and gave them tax breaks for doing so, so they could encourage people to work for them. Those employer provided health insurance incentives are still there. If government got rid of the incentives and allowed employers to pay employees more without raising the taxes they paid then there would be a free market in health insurance. Just as outsourcing does to salaries and wages, the competition would drive health care costs down.
FalconWe should start with banning crap like naturopaths. yes insurance companies actually pay these quacks.
Why ban naturopathy? Because you want only allopathic doctors? Everything else is quackery?
FalconTrue enough. Makes me really wonder what they're up to, though.... :-)
The only thing I could think of is Apple wants to enter a new market.
FalconOn the other hand, the strong have not only survived, but have *flourished*. I take all of my Apple problems to MacMedia, a local shop, even though there are two Apple stores in the Phoenix metro region.
One Apple reseller I know closed some years ago but another one, 10 to 15 minutes walk for me, seems to be doing well. I don't recall if the first one had any but this one regularly has a number of classes. It's basically a full service store, besides selling software and peripherals and servicing and repairing hardware it even sells old Macs. And there are 4 Apple stores around here. I've been to 3 of them, each within 20 minutes drive. My own Mac I bought online, as a member of the Apple Developer Connection I got a discount on it but purchases need to be ordered online or by phone.
FalconThere was talk about building a new Amiga based on it, but that seems to have gone the way of most Amiga revivals.
Amigas were my favorite computers, it's a shame Commodore did a piss poor job of marketing them. I was hoping Gateway would revive the Amiga when it bought out the Amiga from Escom in 1997.
Just to be in character, you mean "should have said".
"should've said". Many people make that mistake, then again they sound the same.
FalconThe annoying thing is that I have to admit MS have occasionally made some decent products in the last decade
The only decent thing I can credit Microsoft with is Windows NT4, and I admit I loved it.
now I'm amused and delighted that they've managed to screw up Vista, but I'm also really pissed about it because it means that if the Apple/Linux crowd don't capitalise on this mistake
The Mac's market share is growing quite a bit. Morgan Stanley expects 40% of college students plan to buy Macs". From "Fortune" "Analyst: Apple's U.S. consumer market share now 21 percent". While the industry's sales growth was 15% Apple's growth was 37%, more than twice the industry's growth.
FalconWhen it is running Vista, there's no reason to upgrade of course.
if you're running Vista more than likely you got a new PC or you upgraded an old PC to be Vista capable.
Photoshop
Adobe recommends that if you're running Photoshop on Vista that you get CS3. And it cost $650 while Photoshop CS3 Extended cost $1000.
Upgrades to stuff like Photoshop would surely be cheaper than a decent new PC?
First, to install an upgrade for Photoshop, Photoshop already has to be installed, I believe, and as I state above Adobe recommends CS3 for Vista, so it may be foolish to install CS2 on a Vista PC. Next, a decent PC should cost less than $1000, even to run Photoshop CS3 on. The following are headless: An HP that beats Photoshop's minimum requirements is less than $900, though this one's on sale. A Dell that exceeds CS3's minimum configuration is less than $820.
However even photographers are likely to get software other than Photoshop, perhaps a design suite and an office suite. Add all the software cost up and they can easily exceed the hardware cost.
P.A. Semi doesn't have a significant revenue stream
It does however have Department of Defense contracts.
FalconApple is buying itself a bargaining chip (pun) for negotiating with Intel on their pc line. They were able to tell Mot/IBM to f off using Intel. Now they will be able to repeat the same thing to Intel if Intel does not do their bidding. In fact they are in a stronger position since they will be in the CPU business themselves.
There are at least two problems with this argument. One is that Apple didn't need to acquire another company to put pressure on Intel. If Apple wants to pressure Intel all they need to do is tell Intel they're in discussions with AMD. Second, it wouldn't be a good idea to risk having the US Department of Defense veto the buyout.
FalconBut it already supports at least two platforms (the iPhone being the third), and has for two years. Apple has a long history of defying those who say it can't do something.
Where's my mid range Mac, one I can expand and upgrade? There isn't one.
Some predicted that it's retail operations would fail within two years. They couldn't have been more wrong.
Those Apple stores drove off some of their biggest supporters, independent stores that specialized in Apple hardware and software.
FalconI think it does, but not where you are thinking. This could be a good fit for Airport, Apple TV, or other devices that may be in Apple's roadmap we don't know about. There might also be something in PA's roadmap that will make perfect sense when they release it in a few years. Another idea that I think makes sense: Apple is just after the people. PA doesn't have any Fabs, so it isn't completely unreasonable to end their product line. The people have a lot of experience with ARM, which Apple is currently using for mobile products.
I think that this is a bad reason for Apple to risk a Department of Defense veto of the deal.
FalconThe semiconductor industry is really only interested in creating the best "general-purpose" semiconductor. If a hardware company like Apple has specific or divergent needs, their choices are to pay through the nose to "partner" with a chipmaker to accommodate their requirements (if they can find one willing), or to buy a chipmaker outright and do whatever they want.
However PA Semi isn't a chip maker, it's a chip designer. Apple could still find itself in the position it was in with IBM and Freescale with no one to manufacture what it needs.
FalconIndeed I have checked their prices. I'm actually typing on my one and I have an iBook in the living room. Comparing comparable models, their prices are indeed similar or even better than other manufacturers' offerings.
However, my "premium prices" comment was more about the fact that Apple sells higher end machines with the accompanying higher end prices. They really don't go slumming on the low price machines where gross margins are generally crap. Even when they try to strip down the hardware to reach a lower price (looking at you, Mac Mini and iPod shuffle), the demand generally isn't great.
OK. I sometimes get upset when people intimate if not come right and say Macs cost more than PCs. There are two problems with Apple's lines. One is when comparing costs you first have to start with a Mac then configure a PC close to the Mac as though Apple does offer some configurations it's not much. The second one is that the only expandable and upgradeable Mac they sell are the Mac Pro. They don't offer any medium range Macs that fit that description. But as some have said, because Apple doesn't offer as many configurations and lines their development costs are lower, personally I'd take the added costs for an expanded market share.
FalconIt would be cheaper to buy the hardware than it is to buy the designer.
It's cheaper to buy the designer than be unable to ship product because your supplier can't keep up. Which is exactly the sort of problem Apple's had in the past.
And Apple will still have that problem. PA Semi is a designer firm, they don't manufacture the parts they design, ie they do not operate a Fab plant.
And for selling servers and store to others.
I said this looked good for scratching Apple's itch. I didn't say they wouldn't try selling it to others with the same itch.
But they already sell servers. Though I do see I said they sell "store", I should of said "storage".
FalconIf backwards compatibility and such really is the reason that Windows is such a mess, then why not make a clean break?
Because software can cost a hell of a lot more than hardware. As it is now, people can buy computers but keep the software they are using now. I can buy a new PC with Vista installed, but why would I, for less than Photoshop CS3 costs.
Falconif you buy a Mac application today you get a universal binary that still supports PPC Macintoshes like the one I own.
Many Mac programs come with universal binaries but not all do. At least the last tyme I checked, last summer.
FalconHave you compared Apple prices in the last few years? Apple prices have been comparable to PC prices for years.
The last thing they want to sell is a low margin $400 laptop. As a shareholder, I'd be pretty pissed if they were to waste time/money/effort on the low end market.
And as a stockholder I'd be pissed if they didn't try to expand their markets.
FalconI heard some great things about the Alpha here on /.
For the short tyme I used used mine it was wicked fast using software I could stall on it. However there wasn't much software I was able to install.
FalconApple has demonstrated twice now how well they can adapt their OS for any architecture. Would be nice if Microsoft took up the challenge..
Ah but Microsoft has developed software, apps and OSes, for different architectures. Right under the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on I have a PC with the DEC Alpha CPU running Windows NT 4.0. Windows NT also ran on Mips, PowerPC, SPARC, Intel i860, and Intel i960.
FalconWhy would they buy a chip design company to make a few systems for their back end store?
The iTMS is the largest music retailer in the US. It's also starting to push video in quantity. Perhaps they anticipate becoming the largest video retailer as well.
It would be cheaper to buy the hardware than it is to buy the designer. Financially the only reason I could see for Apple buying them is because they plan to sell a product using whatever they design.
But mostly my bet is it's for servers and storage to start.
Servers and storage that would likely be specialized for pushing a lot of data efficiently. Sounds great for the iTMS.
And for selling servers and store to others. Apple already makes and sells servers, the Xserve. They also sell RAID array, but made by third parties.
FalconApple could still keep using PPC chips for their server range...
Apple has been using Intel Xeons on it's Xserve for a while now. Xserves can be configured with two 3.0GHz Quad-core (8 core) Xeons.
FalconEmulating x86 on PPC is a lot easier than emulating PPC on x86. I'd imagine a dynamic recompilation engine on a Power 6 could give Core 2 a run for its money. Of course, it would suck down twenty times the power and would cause a brownout for the entire city when you turned it on, but.... :-D
Considering Apple switched to Intel CPUs because neither Freescalenor IBM released a PPC that was low power and didn't get hot enough to cook eggs on I seriously doubt Apple would switch back, and the acquisition of PA Semi doesn't change that.
Falcon