With Canvas/SVG, you have to maintain a separate map of where everything is
Nope - SVG is fully scriptable, you can manipulate indivicual graphic elements directly, attach mouse event handlers etc. via DOM. As with all "HTML5" technology there are some browser quirks to faff around with, though.
Thats why Canvas isnt a replacement for SVG (or Flash).
ActionScript is practically JavaScript? Good god, that's like saying VB is practically C.
If I've got my version numbers right....
ActionScript 1 was an implementation of ECMAScript - i.e. the language was virtually identical to Javascript.
ActionScript 2 diverged from Javascript in that it included some elements that were being discussed for the next version of ECMAScript but never materialised (e.g. class-based OOP).
ActionScript 3 diverged a bit more (e.g. package-management stuff).
...AFAIK most of this was just "syntactic sugar" so, e.g. you can declare a class Java-style rather than creating a function and appending methods to its prototype JS-style. So cross-compiling ActionScript to Javascript should be mainly a job of translating shortcuts added in AS2&3 back into "longhand"
Of course, that's just the language - the Flash API is nothing like HTML DOM, but SVG seems a fairly good substitute for Flash's vector graphics. Pity that, unlike Apple, Android disabled SVG in their web browser (people forget that when they're ragging on iOS for not having Flash...):-(
Nope, sorry, disagree. The IBM PC was open in every reasonable sense of the word:
Except for the sense that if you tried to make and sell your own IBM compatible PC you had to copy the BIOS, and if you did that you'd find IBM's famously sweet and cuddly lawyers knocking on your door (whether or not listings were available). The first manufacturers of IBM clones had to use elaborate clean room techniques to produce a legal "clone" BIOS.
It only takes one, crucial proprietary component to trump a whole load of open-nes.
you didn't need permission from IBM to develop for it or distribute apps for it, and IBM didn't try to claim royalties on your apps for it; IBM fully published all specs, including circuit diagrams [snip] Likewise, you didn't need permission to make plug-in cards for the original ISA bus of the original PC.
Pretty much true of all microcomputers at the time (I think it was people coming from IBM's former mainframe stomping ground that found that notable). There were tons of third-party expansion cards for Apple II, and many CP/M computers used the S100 bus standard. The stumbling block for cloners was always the need to copy some ROM or other.
Sorry, this point is just wrong. The IBM PC had a BIOS, and you were allowed to use it; you were supposed to use it, you were supposed to do nothing but use it.
Eh? I'm not arguing that nobody was allowed to write software for IBM PCs or that the BIOS, I'm saying that nobody was able to make 100% IBM compatible PCs until elaborate "clean room" development was used to get around IBM's copyright on the BIOS.
(Looking back to the "Is Apple Evil" theme: there's no restriction on writing or distributing Mac software or even iOS webapps, just installable iOS apps)
But what if Apple had tried licensing out their OS in 1988, when Windows was still a joke? People were paying serious money for Macs in those days
You answered your own question - and its exactly the same argument as today. The only thing licensing would have been guaranteed to do was to reduce the amount of money they could charge for a Mac by eating in to their existing customer base. You won't compete with PCs on price alone (unless you're suggesting they ported MacOS to entry level 1988-era PC hardware - not a small job and I don't think the result would have just worked) and DOS was already pretty ingrained in corporate culture - they weren't worried about windows being a joke because they never used Windows. There were other systems around in 1988 that made DOS/Windows look a joke (Amiga? Atari ST? ARM-based systems from Acorn in the UK?) that couldn't get a look-in in business. Perhaps you never knew the frustration of trying to persuade a suit not to buy PC. Heck, even Windows' main competitor was DOS (when did MS finally drop DOS compatibility?).
and prevented Windows from taking over the industry.
Windows never took over the industry - it inherited it from DOS, and had to wait a long, long time for the old bastard to die.
But I'm going to predict that Android is going to take the lion's share of the phone and tablet markets in the long run.
I wouldn't bet against that, especially on phones. On the other hand, I equally predict that Apple will make more money selling iDevices than Google will make from licensing Android. Of course, Android has the nice side effect of funneling punters into Google's cloud services empire. Could Apple (say) have licensed iOS, but still kept its hands on the iTunes and App Stores?
OTOH, I think its only in the past year that the Android ecosystem has started coming out with serious competitors to the iPhone - and there's still noth
Unfortunately, by the time I've told my phone to make the drive mountable, the stereo has decided that it doesn't recognize the USB device. Yeah, I'm using the makers integrated stereo - I had a much nicer Bluetooth/iPod/MP3-friendly head unit in my previous car:-(.
I don't like using my car's USB connection, because I use that to charge my phone, especially on long trips.
If you just want to charge, get a USB to cigar lighter adapter (mine's a no-name, not Belkin, but it does the job).
This makes particular sense in my car (BMW pseudoMini) because the USB socket is a complete bugger to get at, but the upshot is that if you get one of the smaller USB pendrives it is almost invisible.
Seriously, do the makers of car stereos need a tap with the User Interface Design cluebat or what? Next job for Apple?
They decided to tie their hardware and software together, forcing the end user to buy their hardware - at a drastically increased initial investment cost - in order to get their software.
Apple lost their initial lead because the Apple 3 was a complete lemon, not because of their business model!
Microsoft came along and blew that concept out of the water,
Not exactly. MS's big break was getting DOS adopted over CPM/86 for the IBM PC. IBM were slow getting into PCs but they already had a huge locked-in customer base in corporate business systems - customers with nice suits who didn't want to buy computers with psychedelic logos from hippies.
What everybody seems to conveniently forget is that The IBM PC was a closed, proprietary system - yes, the word "open" was bandied around at the time, but it didn't mean then what it means today (I think it basically meant that if you paid IBM lots of money they'd let you build plug-in cards). Yes, it ran MS-DOS and other MS-DOS systems were available, but software compatibility was restricted to command-line programs with character I/O. Any sort of remotely modern user interface, color, animation etc. required access to the IBM BIOS which was very much strictly (c) (r) IBM and only available on a kosher IBM PC.
Then some bright spark found a legal way to reverse-engineer the IBM BIOS and, several lawsuits later, cheap IBM compatible clones appeared. Wouldn't happen today, of course, since you can't clean-room your way around software patents. Of course, the only reason people wanted those clones was that IBM's huge captive corporate market had already turned the proprietary IBM PC, warts and all, into the "industry standard" system with a huge software/hardware base.
Of course, that was the beginning of the end for IBM (for any smaller fry it would have been the end of the end) so a few years later they sold off their last profitable PC line to Lenovo, renounced evil and became the fluffy, lovable champions of Open Source they are today.
Microsoft, of course, still got paid for every copy of MS DOS sold and lived happily ever after. However, this wasn't just because they were a software company who stayed out of the hardware business - they were a software company who managed to license their software to a near-monopoly holder just as the corporate PC market went exponential. Nice work if you can get it - but I don't think its available.
The other thing worth noting is that, at least through the late 80s and early 90s, Apple was using more advanced hardware than the PC world (proper 32-bit 68000 vs. the 086/186/286, then switching to PPC when 68k got old, built-in LAN and network printing) - which was pretty important when their main market was DTP and pro graphics. System 7 on a 80286 would not have been a big seller, I suggest (certainly not on the PC architecture with the 640K limit). You might also bear in mind that while the first Mac portable was a bit of a turkey (although, ISTR, it did introduce the world to active matrix screens) the first Powerbook pretty much defined the modern laptop (with the back-set keyboard and pointing device in front) and one of Apple's important selling points ever since has been that they made damn nice laptops. OK, now they are using essentially the same platform as MS, but if you don't think they've still got the edge in product design (albeit with a more cosmetic than technical bent than in the past) then you should have gone to Specsavers.
The other little historical wrinkle to remember is that Apple have already tried licensing their OS - round about the time they nearly went titsup and had to be rescued by Jobs. Did the licensees make "economy" Macs to vastly expand the customer base? Of course not - they made high-end workstations that just undercut Apple's models and punted them to existing Apple customers (Trying to remember if I ever saw a StarMac advertised outside of a Mac specialist magazine...)
How come I can't plug my MP3 player into my car? (Hint: If iPods were Mass Storage Devices and they used a regular USB cable like mine/most others do, this would work.)
I'd be more impressed by this argument if I could plug my Android phone into my car (you have to unmount the SD card to make it externally mountable - this seems to be stopping my car from recognizing it, but even if it did, the GPS wouldn't be much use with the SD card dismounted).
OTOH, if I cross my car manufacturer's palm with silver I can get a fully working iPod connection kit, or if I cross Amazon's palm with far less silver I can get a USB charge+3.5mm audio cable... or I could just plug in a 3.5mm audio lead. Or buy one of the numerous aftermarket car stereos with iPod support - or one with proper bluetooth audio (which worked fine between my iPod touch and my last car).
Or (my actual solution) get a cheap 16GB pendrive and leave that permanently plugged into the car with my MP3 collection which I can do because, although I have an iPod, there is nothing whatsoever compelling me to buy music from iTunes so my entire collection comes from ripped CDs, Play.com or Amazon.
Now if I could only find a way of syncing my playlists to a flash drive that didn't involve messing around with scripts and rsync...
You dont get to be a big, multinational company without at least a long-haired white cat and a pihrana pool when the prime requirement of the law is to make as much profit as humanly possible.
In fact, doesn't Sarbarnes-Oxley require you to build a large underground refuge under the nearest dormant volcano to house your accounts?
While I'd love to take credit for the term "fondleslab" that one comes from the fine journalists of The Register, who have long been selflessly working to bring the subtle and beautiful art of British Tabloid Headline Writing to the world of technology news.
I hadn't realised that this particular mot juste was new to Slashdot.
True, but don't let the "HD" label fool you. Yes, it is 720p resolution for video, and comparable video on the iPod Touch 4G is quite respectable and decent. But resolution will also be 720p for stills as well
Which is fine for video calling, barcodes and getting an image when you don't have anything else. Plus, lower resolution often translates to better low light performance and lower noise. For taking proper photos, use a proper camera with a lens bigger than a baby's thumbnail. Even a phone is better ergonomically than a 10" fondleslab.
Deckard leads a crack team of Blade Runners (most of whom get killed in the second reel) to a colony world where they have to fight a whole nest of replicants!
I really dig my iPad, and have no reason to get this new one.
Of course not - your old iPad is barely a year old: you'd be pretty pissed of if it was obsolete. This update just keeps it ahead of the competition, particularly the XOOM, that will be arriving real soon now (honestly, any time... nearly there...) The big upgrade push will come with the iPad 3.
Personally, I had no problems with the last iOS update, and Snow Leopard was actually smaller/faster.
USB port:
There is a USB port, it's the 30 pin connector. Yes it's not a standard connector but otherwise works just like a USB port. Actually it works like a USB port on steroids because it also allows you to pump audio and video thru various cables. A standard USB port would actually be a step down.
...and the camera connection kit includes two dongles: a SD card adapter and a "standard" USB port: the only officially supported use of these is to load pictures from cameras, but I tried a USB keyboard and it worked - there was some talk that a USB soundcard might work but I have never seen that confirmed. Of course, memory sticks/cards would be useless because iOS has no user access to the file system, nor are mice any use on a touch-only system.
Wireless syncing:
What nongeeky average joe is absolutely screaming for wireless sync? Can you give me a list of names please?
Actually, one of the real weaknesses of the iPad (as opposed to the imaginary ones touted by haters) is that the "official" method for syncing files, with Pages, Keynote etc. is horribly counter-intuitive and is tucked away in an obscure corner of the desktop iTunes app. Third party reader apps (Goodreader etc.) end up providing their own http or WEBDAV clients. Dropbox works well for syncing files, provided you don't mind putting your files "in the cloud" but not so well with Apple's iWorks - you can open files from dropbox in iWorks but can't save them back (other office apps are available, which do).
At the same time, you are getting over the air file sharing, it's in iOS 4.3.
I didn't see that announced (yes, there's video/music sharing with iTunes, but nothing about files). One of the rumors that didn't materialize was a new MobileMe service.
I don't see Microsoft suing anybody because they say they are using Ubuntu with a windows GUI.
I can see Apple suing people to stop saying "app" or "app store"
Fullchester Windows - your one-stop-shop for double glazing!
Click on Ctrl-W to close all the windows on the screen.
Compatible with Windows.
Acme Linux - NOW WITH WINDOWS GUII!!
If the courts do their job, then any claims about the first three of those should be thrown out with extreme prejudice, but anybody using the last one is definitely guilty of taking the piss and asking for a nastygram from MS lawyers.
Likewise, if we could trust the lawyers not to go after references to "application stores" unless someone was explicitly using "App Store" to describe a competing product or service there wouldn't be a problem.
The music bits don't align properly when coming out of an automatically created directory structure.
Fortunately, the Mac Finder has an option to color-code files: if you set all your MP3 files to appear in green you'll eliminate the laser scatter that was produced when you ripped them from CD and vastly improve sound quality. Also, wearing a pair of underpants on your head (green cotton, for preference) while listening filters out unpleasant compression artifacts.
They found a bad apple. So that makes our sample size is n=1 so far.
If this was a brand spanking new retail unit, then the fact that the model bought by iFixit had manufacturing defects is certainly a cause for further investigation.
However, this was obtained on the day of release by a site dedicated to teardowns. They don't say how they obtained it, just "we got our hands on..." The faults they found sound consistent with the machine having been previously disassembled and reassembled. If they paid full whack for a new, production model, they should state this in the review, because it is entirely feasible to an outsider that they got their hands on an ex-review or pre-production model.
When I want to put a song or picture onto my music player, I don't really like the fact that I have to first import it into a library, wait for it to scan through all the gapless information (!), and the transfer it to the iPod.
The practical upshot is that you then get to listen to Dark Side of the Moon without any fugly gaps between tracks!
I now use my Android phone, so I don't actually need iTunes for transferring anything.
This is what I don't get. I've tried RhythmBox, Amarok and other players on Linux, I have an Android Phone and other MP3 players, and I find that, although not without its flaws, iTunes is streets ahead when it comes to organising music. I've spend hours writing scripts to sort and number tracks and directories so that they appear in a sensible order on my phone and in-car players. As for flexibility, iTunes keeps its music as files in a sensible directory structure and stores a copy of the most important metadata in an easily interpreted XML file, so with a bit of XML-fu I can cook up scripts which will, e.g. grab a playlist from iTunes, generate a load of symlinks to the tracks and rsync them to a SD card or USB filesystem for my non-i players. Since iTunes stores its libraries as plain files, I've also got my iTunes library mounted over the net by my MythTV box.
but then for everyone's different needs, there are choices. I've ended up just installing XBMC on the Mac,
So... you don't like iTunes, and you've installed another media player (I use VLC for things that won't play on iTunes) - what's the problem?
(Someone is working on Amarok for Mac, too - looks like you can compile it now using Macports or Fink, which you should definitely get if you're pining for Linux)
I find that a Mac does give you most of the flexibility of Linux but with a better GUI and the ability to run Microsoft and Adobe bloatware when they can't be avoided.
Me, I love my MacbookPro, but I'm still miffed that there's no Home and End keys on it:-)
It was announced that LightPeak will use a compatible connector with, I suppose, a fiber connection embedded in it somewhere. But otherwise the connector is the same
Apparently, the plan is to stick with the electrical-only Display Port connector and embed optical transceivers into each end of the optical cable. It looks like the main advantage of fibre is going to be long (>3m) cable runs, so maybe that's not such a silly idea.
TB is crying out for some nice "docking stations" for laptops - which previously have relied on proprietary connectors. I mostly use my laptop "docked" and it would be great to have ethernet, firewire, video and multiple USB all hanging off one connector. Presumably we'll see future (reassuringly expensive) Apple Cinema Displays that use TB instead of the current DisplayPort + USB combo.
totally hated how Apple forces you to use iTunes and locks down everything to their way
Except for the standards-based browser, talks-to-everything email app, third-party apps like GoodReader, DropBox, AirVideo... which offer alternative ways to sync/share/stream material... Oh, and while you do have to use iTunes to sync videos and music, iTunes will happily accept audio and video in a variety of common formats from any source (you may need to re-encode the video - but there is free software for that and it makes sense to optimze video for the target device anyway). Yes, there is an element of lock-in, but it doesn't half get exaggerated.
Of course, none of this really applies to OS X, which is about as "open" and standards-compliant as it gets for a proprietary operating system, comes with Apache, PHP, Perl, Python and a full development system (...and has most of the Free Software ouvre available via MacPorts or Fink). Even the new App Store is optional (its actually some of the developers who are deciding to go app-store-only - if they don't want to offer demos or sell to buisness or education that's their funeral).
Usually, there's a practical or strategic reason for these things - even if you don't agree with that reason. Apple don't want to introduce Blu-ray because they're trying to ditch the optical drive anyway (...besides, the only place I want to watch 1080p movies is my living-room TV, and flash or external HD is better for backup).
However other things, like the C2D in the Mac Mini,
...which is there because of the spat between Intel and Nvidia meaning that there were no Nvidia chipsets for the Core i, and the Mini and 13" MacBook Pro didn't have space for a discrete graphics card . Apple decided that the C2D+Nvidia chipset combo was better all-round than first-gen i3 with Intel on-chip graphics.
Now that the 2nd-gen i3, with better on-chip graphics, is out, and its clear that there never will be Nvidia chipsets for Core i, expect the mini to be upgraded, eventually (it will probably have to wait in line behind iMac and Mac Pro).
Also, the sort of server use that Minis will see isn't exactly processor intensive: they're really for workgroups who need something better than a NAS or as an alterntative to a shared/virtual hosting acount.
As for USB3 - if Apple/Intel are going to get behind Thunderbolt then they're hardly going to support its prime competitor. If Mac users want something a bit faster than USB2 then they have Firewire 800 to tide them over until Thunderbolt devices (or Thunderbolt-to-eSata adaptors) start to appear.
So - is there actually an optical link hiding inside the socket on the new Macs?
Ah - apparently, the sockets are electrical-only, but the forthcoming optical cables will have a transceiver built in to the plug. How very 1980s Ethernet....:-)
I hope Apple hasn't let their fascination with reducing port count get in the way of what might otherwise have been an interesting technology...
Well, first the mini-DisplayPort compatible connector has been adopted by Intel as well - so this is the official Thunderbolt connector, not some Apple proprietary thing.
Secondly, according to the Apple website, you can still plug a monitor directly into the thunderbolt port, using your existing Mini-DP cables and adaptors. So nothing has been lost.
Interestingly, if you look on the tech brief at the intel site, it says:
Thunderbolt cables may be electrical or optical; both use the same Thunderbolt connector. An active electrical-only cable provides for connections of up to 3 meters in length, and provides for up to 10W of power deliverable to a bus-powered device. And an active optical cable provides for much greater lengths; tens of meters.
So - is there actually an optical link hiding inside the socket on the new Macs? (Not unfeasible: there's already one hiding inside the audio jacks, but the rumors had said that Lightpeak was going to be optical only).
Unless they have a clever plan in mind to make it useful for niche cases that could actually use the 10gb/s, without blocking external monitor capabilities
If you read TFA you'll see that the port contains 2 independent, duplex, 10Gbps channels.
As of 2011, there are(to the best of my knowledge), zero displayport peripherals, announced or in production, that either support display daisy chaining or use the AUX channel to integrate USB ports, webcams, audio, or other peripheral functions into displayport devices without the use of additional cabling, despite 720mb/s being ample for quite a few applications. Zip, zero, nada.
Yeah - that's annoying. Even the Apple Cinema Display, which is DisplayPort only, doesn't have a daisychain and uses a separate USB link for the camera, audio and USB hub (which kinda suggests that there is some hitch with doing that over DisplayPort - I can't see Apple getting any advantage from denying people the opportunity to buu two cinema displays...!)
Maybe the fact that the first Thunderbolt machines out of the gate only have single ports will ensure that device manufacturers include daisychain ports...
Slashdot Mirror
With Canvas/SVG, you have to maintain a separate map of where everything is
Nope - SVG is fully scriptable, you can manipulate indivicual graphic elements directly, attach mouse event handlers etc. via DOM. As with all "HTML5" technology there are some browser quirks to faff around with, though.
Thats why Canvas isnt a replacement for SVG (or Flash).
ActionScript is practically JavaScript? Good god, that's like saying VB is practically C.
If I've got my version numbers right....
ActionScript 1 was an implementation of ECMAScript - i.e. the language was virtually identical to Javascript.
ActionScript 2 diverged from Javascript in that it included some elements that were being discussed for the next version of ECMAScript but never materialised (e.g. class-based OOP).
ActionScript 3 diverged a bit more (e.g. package-management stuff).
...AFAIK most of this was just "syntactic sugar" so, e.g. you can declare a class Java-style rather than creating a function and appending methods to its prototype JS-style. So cross-compiling ActionScript to Javascript should be mainly a job of translating shortcuts added in AS2&3 back into "longhand"
Of course, that's just the language - the Flash API is nothing like HTML DOM, but SVG seems a fairly good substitute for Flash's vector graphics. Pity that, unlike Apple, Android disabled SVG in their web browser (people forget that when they're ragging on iOS for not having Flash...) :-(
Nope, sorry, disagree. The IBM PC was open in every reasonable sense of the word:
Except for the sense that if you tried to make and sell your own IBM compatible PC you had to copy the BIOS, and if you did that you'd find IBM's famously sweet and cuddly lawyers knocking on your door (whether or not listings were available). The first manufacturers of IBM clones had to use elaborate clean room techniques to produce a legal "clone" BIOS.
It only takes one, crucial proprietary component to trump a whole load of open-nes.
you didn't need permission from IBM to develop for it or distribute apps for it, and IBM didn't try to claim royalties on your apps for it; IBM fully published all specs, including circuit diagrams [snip] Likewise, you didn't need permission to make plug-in cards for the original ISA bus of the original PC.
Pretty much true of all microcomputers at the time (I think it was people coming from IBM's former mainframe stomping ground that found that notable). There were tons of third-party expansion cards for Apple II, and many CP/M computers used the S100 bus standard. The stumbling block for cloners was always the need to copy some ROM or other.
Sorry, this point is just wrong. The IBM PC had a BIOS, and you were allowed to use it; you were supposed to use it, you were supposed to do nothing but use it.
Eh? I'm not arguing that nobody was allowed to write software for IBM PCs or that the BIOS, I'm saying that nobody was able to make 100% IBM compatible PCs until elaborate "clean room" development was used to get around IBM's copyright on the BIOS.
(Looking back to the "Is Apple Evil" theme: there's no restriction on writing or distributing Mac software or even iOS webapps, just installable iOS apps)
But what if Apple had tried licensing out their OS in 1988, when Windows was still a joke? People were paying serious money for Macs in those days
You answered your own question - and its exactly the same argument as today. The only thing licensing would have been guaranteed to do was to reduce the amount of money they could charge for a Mac by eating in to their existing customer base. You won't compete with PCs on price alone (unless you're suggesting they ported MacOS to entry level 1988-era PC hardware - not a small job and I don't think the result would have just worked) and DOS was already pretty ingrained in corporate culture - they weren't worried about windows being a joke because they never used Windows. There were other systems around in 1988 that made DOS/Windows look a joke (Amiga? Atari ST? ARM-based systems from Acorn in the UK?) that couldn't get a look-in in business. Perhaps you never knew the frustration of trying to persuade a suit not to buy PC. Heck, even Windows' main competitor was DOS (when did MS finally drop DOS compatibility?).
and prevented Windows from taking over the industry.
Windows never took over the industry - it inherited it from DOS, and had to wait a long, long time for the old bastard to die.
But I'm going to predict that Android is going to take the lion's share of the phone and tablet markets in the long run.
I wouldn't bet against that, especially on phones. On the other hand, I equally predict that Apple will make more money selling iDevices than Google will make from licensing Android. Of course, Android has the nice side effect of funneling punters into Google's cloud services empire. Could Apple (say) have licensed iOS, but still kept its hands on the iTunes and App Stores?
OTOH, I think its only in the past year that the Android ecosystem has started coming out with serious competitors to the iPhone - and there's still noth
Unfortunately, by the time I've told my phone to make the drive mountable, the stereo has decided that it doesn't recognize the USB device. Yeah, I'm using the makers integrated stereo - I had a much nicer Bluetooth/iPod/MP3-friendly head unit in my previous car :-(.
I don't like using my car's USB connection, because I use that to charge my phone, especially on long trips.
If you just want to charge, get a USB to cigar lighter adapter (mine's a no-name, not Belkin, but it does the job).
This makes particular sense in my car (BMW pseudoMini) because the USB socket is a complete bugger to get at, but the upshot is that if you get one of the smaller USB pendrives it is almost invisible.
Seriously, do the makers of car stereos need a tap with the User Interface Design cluebat or what? Next job for Apple?
There's nothing stopping you from buying songs from iTunes for this purpose either. Apple haven't used DRM for music for a long time.
Yeah, but I don't want to give all my money to Apple and, as you say, not everything supports AAC :-) Wake me when iTunes switches to lossless.
They decided to tie their hardware and software together, forcing the end user to buy their hardware - at a drastically increased initial investment cost - in order to get their software.
Apple lost their initial lead because the Apple 3 was a complete lemon, not because of their business model!
Microsoft came along and blew that concept out of the water,
Not exactly. MS's big break was getting DOS adopted over CPM/86 for the IBM PC. IBM were slow getting into PCs but they already had a huge locked-in customer base in corporate business systems - customers with nice suits who didn't want to buy computers with psychedelic logos from hippies.
What everybody seems to conveniently forget is that The IBM PC was a closed, proprietary system - yes, the word "open" was bandied around at the time, but it didn't mean then what it means today (I think it basically meant that if you paid IBM lots of money they'd let you build plug-in cards). Yes, it ran MS-DOS and other MS-DOS systems were available, but software compatibility was restricted to command-line programs with character I/O. Any sort of remotely modern user interface, color, animation etc. required access to the IBM BIOS which was very much strictly (c) (r) IBM and only available on a kosher IBM PC.
Then some bright spark found a legal way to reverse-engineer the IBM BIOS and, several lawsuits later, cheap IBM compatible clones appeared. Wouldn't happen today, of course, since you can't clean-room your way around software patents. Of course, the only reason people wanted those clones was that IBM's huge captive corporate market had already turned the proprietary IBM PC, warts and all, into the "industry standard" system with a huge software/hardware base.
Of course, that was the beginning of the end for IBM (for any smaller fry it would have been the end of the end) so a few years later they sold off their last profitable PC line to Lenovo, renounced evil and became the fluffy, lovable champions of Open Source they are today.
Microsoft, of course, still got paid for every copy of MS DOS sold and lived happily ever after. However, this wasn't just because they were a software company who stayed out of the hardware business - they were a software company who managed to license their software to a near-monopoly holder just as the corporate PC market went exponential. Nice work if you can get it - but I don't think its available.
The other thing worth noting is that, at least through the late 80s and early 90s, Apple was using more advanced hardware than the PC world (proper 32-bit 68000 vs. the 086/186/286, then switching to PPC when 68k got old, built-in LAN and network printing) - which was pretty important when their main market was DTP and pro graphics. System 7 on a 80286 would not have been a big seller, I suggest (certainly not on the PC architecture with the 640K limit). You might also bear in mind that while the first Mac portable was a bit of a turkey (although, ISTR, it did introduce the world to active matrix screens) the first Powerbook pretty much defined the modern laptop (with the back-set keyboard and pointing device in front) and one of Apple's important selling points ever since has been that they made damn nice laptops. OK, now they are using essentially the same platform as MS, but if you don't think they've still got the edge in product design (albeit with a more cosmetic than technical bent than in the past) then you should have gone to Specsavers.
The other little historical wrinkle to remember is that Apple have already tried licensing their OS - round about the time they nearly went titsup and had to be rescued by Jobs. Did the licensees make "economy" Macs to vastly expand the customer base? Of course not - they made high-end workstations that just undercut Apple's models and punted them to existing Apple customers (Trying to remember if I ever saw a StarMac advertised outside of a Mac specialist magazine...)
How come I can't plug my MP3 player into my car? (Hint: If iPods were Mass Storage Devices and they used a regular USB cable like mine/most others do, this would work.)
I'd be more impressed by this argument if I could plug my Android phone into my car (you have to unmount the SD card to make it externally mountable - this seems to be stopping my car from recognizing it, but even if it did, the GPS wouldn't be much use with the SD card dismounted).
OTOH, if I cross my car manufacturer's palm with silver I can get a fully working iPod connection kit, or if I cross Amazon's palm with far less silver I can get a USB charge+3.5mm audio cable... or I could just plug in a 3.5mm audio lead. Or buy one of the numerous aftermarket car stereos with iPod support - or one with proper bluetooth audio (which worked fine between my iPod touch and my last car).
Or (my actual solution) get a cheap 16GB pendrive and leave that permanently plugged into the car with my MP3 collection which I can do because, although I have an iPod, there is nothing whatsoever compelling me to buy music from iTunes so my entire collection comes from ripped CDs, Play.com or Amazon.
Now if I could only find a way of syncing my playlists to a flash drive that didn't involve messing around with scripts and rsync...
You dont get to be a big, multinational company without at least a long-haired white cat and a pihrana pool when the prime requirement of the law is to make as much profit as humanly possible. In fact, doesn't Sarbarnes-Oxley require you to build a large underground refuge under the nearest dormant volcano to house your accounts?
If i had modpoints, you would have gotten +1 whatever you want, funny, insightfull, interesting, informative, i cant decide which would be best!]]
-1 plagarized, I'm afraid - see belated acknowledgment above. Can I mod myself down?
(The word is awesome, but not my own invention).
While I'd love to take credit for the term "fondleslab" that one comes from the fine journalists of The Register, who have long been selflessly working to bring the subtle and beautiful art of British Tabloid Headline Writing to the world of technology news.
I hadn't realised that this particular mot juste was new to Slashdot.
True, but don't let the "HD" label fool you. Yes, it is 720p resolution for video, and comparable video on the iPod Touch 4G is quite respectable and decent. But resolution will also be 720p for stills as well
Which is fine for video calling, barcodes and getting an image when you don't have anything else. Plus, lower resolution often translates to better low light performance and lower noise. For taking proper photos, use a proper camera with a lens bigger than a baby's thumbnail. Even a phone is better ergonomically than a 10" fondleslab.
In Greg Egan's book Terenesia the protagonist is taken to see:
Blade Runner(tm) OnIce(tm) With Songs InTheStyleOf(r) Gilbert and Sullivan(tm)
Why did I just think of that?
Deckard leads a crack team of Blade Runners (most of whom get killed in the second reel) to a colony world where they have to fight a whole nest of replicants!
Be careful what you wish for...
Blade Runner is actually one of his lesser books. Philip has produced tons of great science-based fiction (and some fantasy):
Er, Blade Runner wasn't one of his books at all. Perhaps you're thinking of:
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968)
...on which Blade Runner is loosely based (the electric sheep got cut).
A Scanner Darkly (1977)
Which got made into one of those rare and delicate creatures: a good film with Keanau Reeves in it.
I really dig my iPad, and have no reason to get this new one.
Of course not - your old iPad is barely a year old: you'd be pretty pissed of if it was obsolete. This update just keeps it ahead of the competition, particularly the XOOM, that will be arriving real soon now (honestly, any time... nearly there...) The big upgrade push will come with the iPad 3.
Personally, I had no problems with the last iOS update, and Snow Leopard was actually smaller/faster.
USB port: There is a USB port, it's the 30 pin connector. Yes it's not a standard connector but otherwise works just like a USB port. Actually it works like a USB port on steroids because it also allows you to pump audio and video thru various cables. A standard USB port would actually be a step down.
...and the camera connection kit includes two dongles: a SD card adapter and a "standard" USB port: the only officially supported use of these is to load pictures from cameras, but I tried a USB keyboard and it worked - there was some talk that a USB soundcard might work but I have never seen that confirmed. Of course, memory sticks/cards would be useless because iOS has no user access to the file system, nor are mice any use on a touch-only system.
Wireless syncing: What nongeeky average joe is absolutely screaming for wireless sync? Can you give me a list of names please?
Actually, one of the real weaknesses of the iPad (as opposed to the imaginary ones touted by haters) is that the "official" method for syncing files, with Pages, Keynote etc. is horribly counter-intuitive and is tucked away in an obscure corner of the desktop iTunes app. Third party reader apps (Goodreader etc.) end up providing their own http or WEBDAV clients. Dropbox works well for syncing files, provided you don't mind putting your files "in the cloud" but not so well with Apple's iWorks - you can open files from dropbox in iWorks but can't save them back (other office apps are available, which do).
At the same time, you are getting over the air file sharing, it's in iOS 4.3.
I didn't see that announced (yes, there's video/music sharing with iTunes, but nothing about files). One of the rumors that didn't materialize was a new MobileMe service.
I don't see Microsoft suing anybody because they say they are using Ubuntu with a windows GUI.
I can see Apple suing people to stop saying "app" or "app store"
If the courts do their job, then any claims about the first three of those should be thrown out with extreme prejudice, but anybody using the last one is definitely guilty of taking the piss and asking for a nastygram from MS lawyers.
Likewise, if we could trust the lawyers not to go after references to "application stores" unless someone was explicitly using "App Store" to describe a competing product or service there wouldn't be a problem.
Of course, those are very big ifs...
The music bits don't align properly when coming out of an automatically created directory structure.
Fortunately, the Mac Finder has an option to color-code files: if you set all your MP3 files to appear in green you'll eliminate the laser scatter that was produced when you ripped them from CD and vastly improve sound quality. Also, wearing a pair of underpants on your head (green cotton, for preference) while listening filters out unpleasant compression artifacts.
They found a bad apple. So that makes our sample size is n=1 so far.
If this was a brand spanking new retail unit, then the fact that the model bought by iFixit had manufacturing defects is certainly a cause for further investigation.
However, this was obtained on the day of release by a site dedicated to teardowns. They don't say how they obtained it, just "we got our hands on..." The faults they found sound consistent with the machine having been previously disassembled and reassembled. If they paid full whack for a new, production model, they should state this in the review, because it is entirely feasible to an outsider that they got their hands on an ex-review or pre-production model.
When I want to put a song or picture onto my music player, I don't really like the fact that I have to first import it into a library, wait for it to scan through all the gapless information (!), and the transfer it to the iPod.
The practical upshot is that you then get to listen to Dark Side of the Moon without any fugly gaps between tracks!
I now use my Android phone, so I don't actually need iTunes for transferring anything.
This is what I don't get. I've tried RhythmBox, Amarok and other players on Linux, I have an Android Phone and other MP3 players, and I find that, although not without its flaws, iTunes is streets ahead when it comes to organising music. I've spend hours writing scripts to sort and number tracks and directories so that they appear in a sensible order on my phone and in-car players. As for flexibility, iTunes keeps its music as files in a sensible directory structure and stores a copy of the most important metadata in an easily interpreted XML file, so with a bit of XML-fu I can cook up scripts which will, e.g. grab a playlist from iTunes, generate a load of symlinks to the tracks and rsync them to a SD card or USB filesystem for my non-i players. Since iTunes stores its libraries as plain files, I've also got my iTunes library mounted over the net by my MythTV box.
but then for everyone's different needs, there are choices. I've ended up just installing XBMC on the Mac,
So... you don't like iTunes, and you've installed another media player (I use VLC for things that won't play on iTunes) - what's the problem?
(Someone is working on Amarok for Mac, too - looks like you can compile it now using Macports or Fink, which you should definitely get if you're pining for Linux)
I find that a Mac does give you most of the flexibility of Linux but with a better GUI and the ability to run Microsoft and Adobe bloatware when they can't be avoided.
Me, I love my MacbookPro, but I'm still miffed that there's no Home and End keys on it :-)
Plug in an external keyboard...
It was announced that LightPeak will use a compatible connector with, I suppose, a fiber connection embedded in it somewhere. But otherwise the connector is the same
Apparently, the plan is to stick with the electrical-only Display Port connector and embed optical transceivers into each end of the optical cable. It looks like the main advantage of fibre is going to be long (>3m) cable runs, so maybe that's not such a silly idea.
TB is crying out for some nice "docking stations" for laptops - which previously have relied on proprietary connectors. I mostly use my laptop "docked" and it would be great to have ethernet, firewire, video and multiple USB all hanging off one connector. Presumably we'll see future (reassuringly expensive) Apple Cinema Displays that use TB instead of the current DisplayPort + USB combo.
totally hated how Apple forces you to use iTunes and locks down everything to their way
Except for the standards-based browser, talks-to-everything email app, third-party apps like GoodReader, DropBox, AirVideo... which offer alternative ways to sync/share/stream material... Oh, and while you do have to use iTunes to sync videos and music, iTunes will happily accept audio and video in a variety of common formats from any source (you may need to re-encode the video - but there is free software for that and it makes sense to optimze video for the target device anyway). Yes, there is an element of lock-in, but it doesn't half get exaggerated.
Of course, none of this really applies to OS X, which is about as "open" and standards-compliant as it gets for a proprietary operating system, comes with Apache, PHP, Perl, Python and a full development system (...and has most of the Free Software ouvre available via MacPorts or Fink). Even the new App Store is optional (its actually some of the developers who are deciding to go app-store-only - if they don't want to offer demos or sell to buisness or education that's their funeral).
Usually, there's a practical or strategic reason for these things - even if you don't agree with that reason. Apple don't want to introduce Blu-ray because they're trying to ditch the optical drive anyway (...besides, the only place I want to watch 1080p movies is my living-room TV, and flash or external HD is better for backup).
However other things, like the C2D in the Mac Mini,
...which is there because of the spat between Intel and Nvidia meaning that there were no Nvidia chipsets for the Core i, and the Mini and 13" MacBook Pro didn't have space for a discrete graphics card . Apple decided that the C2D+Nvidia chipset combo was better all-round than first-gen i3 with Intel on-chip graphics.
Now that the 2nd-gen i3, with better on-chip graphics, is out, and its clear that there never will be Nvidia chipsets for Core i, expect the mini to be upgraded, eventually (it will probably have to wait in line behind iMac and Mac Pro).
Also, the sort of server use that Minis will see isn't exactly processor intensive: they're really for workgroups who need something better than a NAS or as an alterntative to a shared/virtual hosting acount.
As for USB3 - if Apple/Intel are going to get behind Thunderbolt then they're hardly going to support its prime competitor. If Mac users want something a bit faster than USB2 then they have Firewire 800 to tide them over until Thunderbolt devices (or Thunderbolt-to-eSata adaptors) start to appear.
So - is there actually an optical link hiding inside the socket on the new Macs?
Ah - apparently, the sockets are electrical-only, but the forthcoming optical cables will have a transceiver built in to the plug. How very 1980s Ethernet.... :-)
I hope Apple hasn't let their fascination with reducing port count get in the way of what might otherwise have been an interesting technology...
Well, first the mini-DisplayPort compatible connector has been adopted by Intel as well - so this is the official Thunderbolt connector, not some Apple proprietary thing.
Secondly, according to the Apple website, you can still plug a monitor directly into the thunderbolt port, using your existing Mini-DP cables and adaptors. So nothing has been lost.
Interestingly, if you look on the tech brief at the intel site, it says:
Thunderbolt cables may be electrical or optical; both use the same Thunderbolt connector. An active electrical-only cable provides for connections of up to 3 meters in length, and provides for up to 10W of power deliverable to a bus-powered device. And an active optical cable provides for much greater lengths; tens of meters.
So - is there actually an optical link hiding inside the socket on the new Macs? (Not unfeasible: there's already one hiding inside the audio jacks, but the rumors had said that Lightpeak was going to be optical only).
Unless they have a clever plan in mind to make it useful for niche cases that could actually use the 10gb/s, without blocking external monitor capabilities
If you read TFA you'll see that the port contains 2 independent, duplex, 10Gbps channels.
As of 2011, there are(to the best of my knowledge), zero displayport peripherals, announced or in production, that either support display daisy chaining or use the AUX channel to integrate USB ports, webcams, audio, or other peripheral functions into displayport devices without the use of additional cabling, despite 720mb/s being ample for quite a few applications. Zip, zero, nada.
Yeah - that's annoying. Even the Apple Cinema Display, which is DisplayPort only, doesn't have a daisychain and uses a separate USB link for the camera, audio and USB hub (which kinda suggests that there is some hitch with doing that over DisplayPort - I can't see Apple getting any advantage from denying people the opportunity to buu two cinema displays...!)
Maybe the fact that the first Thunderbolt machines out of the gate only have single ports will ensure that device manufacturers include daisychain ports...