The problem is the Atom supports a similar instruction set to the standard processors.
emphasis mine.
If its 'similar' and not 'the same', (I don't know, I am taking your word for it) then it would need to be tested separately.
None of your products use it, so you aren't going to waste money testing it. If it hasn't been tested then their is a chance it might not work as designed.
I think as an apple exec you would then have the following decision to make:
1. Release untested code that works on Atom. 2. Release tested code that is disabled on Atom.
In scenario 1 you please a niche (likely non-profitable) group. Possible headline in the press is 'Mac OS X is buggy' - which is understood by all - with the caveat 'on non apple hardware' - which is understood by few. This is bad PR, that is widespread and (mis)understood by many.
In scenario 2 you piss of your niche (likely non-profitable) group. There is no mainstream-newsworthy story, at least not one which everyone understands, or even cares about. A few people on tech sites debate the ins and outs.
As a shareholder, you choose option 2 every time. You don't get a market cap of $185bn without maybe upsetting a few people along the way, for sure you make sure you don't upset large groups of potential customers though.
If one is so desperate to run Mac OS X then one should probably just buy a Mac. Yeah it sucks that they are expensive. Valuable things often are.
A fair point indeed. I would agree the problem is people, how do we solve this though? Isn't it better to try something, knowing full well its not the ideal solution, than do nothing?
I'd rather be faced a savage trained killer cocker-spaniel than a pit-bull if push come to shove.
Oh I would back you up on that, I don't think the system is superior because of the limited hardware - certainly not performance wise.
I wonder if the performance is limited because they have higher stability requirements. I suspect a lot of manufacturers ship hardware that has only been tested to a certain level. At the risk of sounding like I am defending MS, this might go some way to explain why Windows has such a bad reputation.
I agree with you (I think) that its not so much about being elite for me.
I wish everyone could have a mac. I wish people were open minded enough to at least try it out, really try it out, and not just cry because its different and the go running back to windows and then bitch about how awful 'computers' are.
I think computers are ace, and so far macs are the best of the bunch for me (long time windows & linux user).
The problem with linux is that everything still feels a bit like its still in beta. The problem with windows is that everything is finished, but its a huge lumbering monster dragging along years of legacy baggage.
OS X addresses both of these problems well, its not perfect by any stretch but imho its the best of the bunch right now. You get the polished desktop feel of windows, with the solid reliability of a *nix kernel and userspace, and you can tell when you dig around with xcode just how well engineered the whole thing is.
With quality there often comes a price. I think thats the real reason that its expensive, not because they are trying to be elite, but because they are valuable.
Apple's marketing and product is based around an intangible experience, that experience is a combination of the hardware/software.
If you run OS X on an atom chip then you are running on underpowered hardware. I'm sure it will work but the experience will be substandard to that which apple is trying to promote. Apple don't want people to have a substandard experience of their products.
Likewise, if you put OS X on an Atom based machine then it is unsupported by Apple. Part of the Apple experience is that if you have a problem with your Apple device then you can take it to a mac store and they will give you support, the quality of support is much better because it is cost effective for them to do so, because they have limited the variables.
Apples Unique Selling Point is that it sells you an experience that is (intended to be, for the typical desktop user at least) far superior than using the competition. If they allow people to dilute this experience, then they lose their competitive advantage.
I think it might also be interesting to consider that instead of the act of copyright infringement being likened to the original meaning of the word piracy, all that is happened is that the word piracy has now been stripped of its terrible meaning and now simply evokes the idea of copying a few CD's... (citation needed of course).
you pay quite a premium for a rack chassis imho. Dont get rackmount unless you need to put it in a rack, you can spend the extra cash on better internals.
you can get a dual quad core, 8gig ram, 500gig raid 1 for just over 1200gbp from dell in a tower, same config in rackmount is 110gbp more.
Depends on the terms of your contract as to what remedies would be made available to you.
One would have to be incredibly naive to expect perfection from any service, let alone one which you are getting for free.
If Blackberry screw up then I could ask for financial recompense wrt the contract I have with them, and/or I could sue for damages.
Brown could sue google for damages (Well the students could sue Brown, who in turn....), which is when then promptness (or not) of suspending accounts comes into play. If google suspended the instant they knew then they aren't going to be liable - if Brown sat on it before telling Google then they are probably liable.
In any case you would probably have to demonstrate some sort of negligence somewhere along the line along with some sort of actual damages, material or otherwise.
That's exactly how I feel. I have had lengthy debates with the childless about the pros of a such a device, whilst at being fully aware of the cons.
It seems to be though that unless you have a child you can't understand the strength of the emotional response that losing a child elicits - even if just for a second.
It's that response that will ensure, rightly or wrongly, that the device will sell.
Whilst it's great to advocate privacy, I think that the privacy you grant your child should be proportianate to the increased freedom and responsibilty that you are afforded as you grow older. Ther is no hard and fast answer, and it is a decision each parent makes.
Me, I'd go for it for the pre-teen years (rough guide). Until they are old enough to really start to understand and want privacy I don't see why privacy should be thrust upon them.
What's the privacy brigade think about Baby Monitors?
Interesting! I must admit I had to do a double take when I was checking the total user-base to figure out a percentage, it did seem low to me for a University but as I'm not familiar with the US system I didn't go any further. Seems, I should have dug deeper - I'll never make a journalist eh.
I suspect this bit of misinformation was another convenient re-phrasing designed to increase the newsworthiness of this non-event.
Its conveniently devoid of detail regarding the timeline of things. I don't mean to be a google apologist, but the article seems full of conjecture.
11 % of users were affected during a migration. OK it could have been better, but a 3 day turnaround (over a weekend) of an outage during planned maintenance doesn't sound *that* bad to me. Is this still the gmail that you don't pay for btw?
The critical (missing) detail is how quickly did Google turn off access to other people's mail following notification. Yes it may be a contentious decision if it was made without approval, but in areas of privacy it might be a good idea to CYA first ask questions later.
Heated discussions are one thing, being taken to court over Data Protection is quite another.
I'm confused at the reaction from Brown, were they advocating leaving people's data out in the open whilst it was resolved?
Assuming of course that they haven't just conveniently ignored the port jumpers, so that they can report great numbers to push their 'miraculous-p2p-traffic-reducing' software.
Sorry I am UK so made assumptions based on that - afaik nobody (major) uses Deep packet Inspection here yet. People have been droppingPhorm trials for the hot potato it is.
Once they do though (I see virgin still seem to be on board, which is worrying to me as cable is the only decent choice in the uk imho) then the users move to the next level (they already know how, but why bother when simple port 80 stuff works for now)...
I agree the ISP's will react in time, but my money is on the community moving faster than the ISPs. (look at how CSS, AACS and DRM in general is working out...)
I think the real answer (from ISP's) is legal downloadable media content with a compelling price. Convenience is the huge elephant in the room that media providers seem intent on ignoring. Yes, there will always be freeloaders but there are a huge swathe of people who would quite happily pay for the convenience of not having to trawl binsearch or tpb for the content they want.
There is a quite significant market in reasonably priced 'authorised' downloadable content (itunes, virgin on demand, sky box office etc) which proves the model works.
Cost of delivery vs price? The potential margin must be huge. At least comparable to that of physical media. if ISP's cache content locally they are laughing. If I was an ISP with a fat network that already had a content delivery arm (oh yes thats right Virgin) then I would set up my own 'iPlayer' knock off, I know - vPlayer.
I have a hunch that bandwidth costs (From p2p at least) would be slashed, as everyone would just get the content of your own servers.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is the Atom supports a similar instruction set to the standard processors.
emphasis mine.
If its 'similar' and not 'the same', (I don't know, I am taking your word for it) then it would need to be tested separately.
None of your products use it, so you aren't going to waste money testing it. If it hasn't been tested then their is a chance it might not work as designed.
I think as an apple exec you would then have the following decision to make:
1. Release untested code that works on Atom.
2. Release tested code that is disabled on Atom.
In scenario 1 you please a niche (likely non-profitable) group. Possible headline in the press is 'Mac OS X is buggy' - which is understood by all - with the caveat 'on non apple hardware' - which is understood by few. This is bad PR, that is widespread and (mis)understood by many.
In scenario 2 you piss of your niche (likely non-profitable) group. There is no mainstream-newsworthy story, at least not one which everyone understands, or even cares about. A few people on tech sites debate the ins and outs.
As a shareholder, you choose option 2 every time. You don't get a market cap of $185bn without maybe upsetting a few people along the way, for sure you make sure you don't upset large groups of potential customers though.
If one is so desperate to run Mac OS X then one should probably just buy a Mac. Yeah it sucks that they are expensive. Valuable things often are.
A fair point indeed. I would agree the problem is people, how do we solve this though? Isn't it better to try something, knowing full well its not the ideal solution, than do nothing?
I'd rather be faced a savage trained killer cocker-spaniel than a pit-bull if push come to shove.
Oh I would back you up on that, I don't think the system is superior because of the limited hardware - certainly not performance wise.
I wonder if the performance is limited because they have higher stability requirements. I suspect a lot of manufacturers ship hardware that has only been tested to a certain level. At the risk of sounding like I am defending MS, this might go some way to explain why Windows has such a bad reputation.
I agree with you (I think) that its not so much about being elite for me.
I wish everyone could have a mac. I wish people were open minded enough to at least try it out, really try it out, and not just cry because its different and the go running back to windows and then bitch about how awful 'computers' are.
I think computers are ace, and so far macs are the best of the bunch for me (long time windows & linux user).
The problem with linux is that everything still feels a bit like its still in beta. The problem with windows is that everything is finished, but its a huge lumbering monster dragging along years of legacy baggage.
OS X addresses both of these problems well, its not perfect by any stretch but imho its the best of the bunch right now. You get the polished desktop feel of windows, with the solid reliability of a *nix kernel and userspace, and you can tell when you dig around with xcode just how well engineered the whole thing is.
With quality there often comes a price. I think thats the real reason that its expensive, not because they are trying to be elite, but because they are valuable.
That depends on how you define just fine.
Apple's marketing and product is based around an intangible experience, that experience is a combination of the hardware/software.
If you run OS X on an atom chip then you are running on underpowered hardware. I'm sure it will work but the experience will be substandard to that which apple is trying to promote. Apple don't want people to have a substandard experience of their products.
Likewise, if you put OS X on an Atom based machine then it is unsupported by Apple. Part of the Apple experience is that if you have a problem with your Apple device then you can take it to a mac store and they will give you support, the quality of support is much better because it is cost effective for them to do so, because they have limited the variables.
Apples Unique Selling Point is that it sells you an experience that is (intended to be, for the typical desktop user at least) far superior than using the competition. If they allow people to dilute this experience, then they lose their competitive advantage.
Hey! If no-one will notice then it won't be a problem ;)
I think it might also be interesting to consider that instead of the act of copyright infringement being likened to the original meaning of the word piracy, all that is happened is that the word piracy has now been stripped of its terrible meaning and now simply evokes the idea of copying a few CD's... (citation needed of course).
Rather backfired then eh?
you pay quite a premium for a rack chassis imho. Dont get rackmount unless you need to put it in a rack, you can spend the extra cash on better internals.
you can get a dual quad core, 8gig ram, 500gig raid 1 for just over 1200gbp from dell in a tower, same config in rackmount is 110gbp more.
Which genius thought a 6 meg background image was a good idea?
At that size I expect some pretty good embedded malware.
You're hired!
I thought it was bad when places emailed you your own password, but this is prettty 'special'...
Depends on the terms of your contract as to what remedies would be made available to you.
One would have to be incredibly naive to expect perfection from any service, let alone one which you are getting for free.
If Blackberry screw up then I could ask for financial recompense wrt the contract I have with them, and/or I could sue for damages.
Brown could sue google for damages (Well the students could sue Brown, who in turn ....), which is when then promptness (or not) of suspending accounts comes into play. If google suspended the instant they knew then they aren't going to be liable - if Brown sat on it before telling Google then they are probably liable.
In any case you would probably have to demonstrate some sort of negligence somewhere along the line along with some sort of actual damages, material or otherwise.
I guess that confirms me as one of those 'new' coders. *embarassed*
I don't think its the languages that are getting worse...
At least they won't lose the chip....
*ducks*
That's exactly how I feel. I have had lengthy debates with the childless about the pros of a such a device, whilst at being fully aware of the cons.
It seems to be though that unless you have a child you can't understand the strength of the emotional response that losing a child elicits - even if just for a second.
It's that response that will ensure, rightly or wrongly, that the device will sell.
Whilst it's great to advocate privacy, I think that the privacy you grant your child should be proportianate to the increased freedom and responsibilty that you are afforded as you grow older. Ther is no hard and fast answer, and it is a decision each parent makes.
Me, I'd go for it for the pre-teen years (rough guide). Until they are old enough to really start to understand and want privacy I don't see why privacy should be thrust upon them.
What's the privacy brigade think about Baby Monitors?
Interesting! I must admit I had to do a double take when I was checking the total user-base to figure out a percentage, it did seem low to me for a University but as I'm not familiar with the US system I didn't go any further. Seems, I should have dug deeper - I'll never make a journalist eh.
I suspect this bit of misinformation was another convenient re-phrasing designed to increase the newsworthiness of this non-event.
Its conveniently devoid of detail regarding the timeline of things. I don't mean to be a google apologist, but the article seems full of conjecture.
11 % of users were affected during a migration. OK it could have been better, but a 3 day turnaround (over a weekend) of an outage during planned maintenance doesn't sound *that* bad to me. Is this still the gmail that you don't pay for btw?
The critical (missing) detail is how quickly did Google turn off access to other people's mail following notification. Yes it may be a contentious decision if it was made without approval, but in areas of privacy it might be a good idea to CYA first ask questions later.
Heated discussions are one thing, being taken to court over Data Protection is quite another.
I'm confused at the reaction from Brown, were they advocating leaving people's data out in the open whilst it was resolved?
Is that three days after they were notified, or did the affected students keep it quiet for a couple of days for 'research purposes'.
I have no idea why, but I immediately thought of 7 of 9 for the job.
Wait! if you just referenced the Simpson's ... that means ...
Yeah, leave that to the stem cells.
But original sonic was written with emeralds not ruby?
(sorry)
Assuming of course that they haven't just conveniently ignored the port jumpers, so that they can report great numbers to push their 'miraculous-p2p-traffic-reducing' software.
Sorry I am UK so made assumptions based on that - afaik nobody (major) uses Deep packet Inspection here yet. People have been dropping Phorm trials for the hot potato it is.
Once they do though (I see virgin still seem to be on board, which is worrying to me as cable is the only decent choice in the uk imho) then the users move to the next level (they already know how, but why bother when simple port 80 stuff works for now) ...
http://www.inputoutput.io/how-to-subvert-deep-packet-inspection-the-right-way/
I agree the ISP's will react in time, but my money is on the community moving faster than the ISPs. (look at how CSS, AACS and DRM in general is working out...)
I think the real answer (from ISP's) is legal downloadable media content with a compelling price. Convenience is the huge elephant in the room that media providers seem intent on ignoring. Yes, there will always be freeloaders but there are a huge swathe of people who would quite happily pay for the convenience of not having to trawl binsearch or tpb for the content they want.
There is a quite significant market in reasonably priced 'authorised' downloadable content (itunes, virgin on demand, sky box office etc) which proves the model works.
Cost of delivery vs price? The potential margin must be huge. At least comparable to that of physical media. if ISP's cache content locally they are laughing. If I was an ISP with a fat network that already had a content delivery arm (oh yes thats right Virgin) then I would set up my own 'iPlayer' knock off, I know - vPlayer.
I have a hunch that bandwidth costs (From p2p at least) would be slashed, as everyone would just get the content of your own servers.
Meh, I'm rambling now.