I don't know, I was running Windows 2000 as my home OS since when it was in beta. There were some compatibility issues early on, but no more than Windows Vista as far as I can recall.
In your world, the consumer always buys the superior product because only the benefits are relevant.
No, in my world, there are situations where refusing to spend money can end up costing you more than if you spend money. In my world, there is such a thing as "investment", where you spend money specifically because of the return.
You can draw all the arbitrary lines and classifications as you want.
I'm not drawing arbitrary lines-- you are. Does this sound familiar? "An investment is something you do when the benefits outweigh the cost"
Now, maybe you've somehow convinced yourself that an investment is *anything* where the benefits outweigh the costs, but I was giving you more credit than that. I was presuming you meant that an "investment" was something where you get back a benefit in the same kind of the cost, but with a greater return. So a financial investment would be something that costs you money, but that you're expecting to ultimately get a return of more financial benefit than the money you put in.
That would be sensible, since that's what "investment" means. HDTVs and plane tickets are not, under most circumstances, financial investments. They're more likely just expenditures-- you've spent the money on something, and that money isn't coming back to you.
I'm really having a hard time believing that anyone could be so short-sighted as to believe that building infrastructure is not a worthwhile investment. I mean, you could argue about exactly how much money should be spent on which infrastructure, but there are no credible economists anywhere who believe that building infrastructure isn't economically important, or that the government shouldn't have a part of planning/building infrastructure.
I don't even think Vista is all that hated, not when you get down to it. I think the real issue is it's probably the biggest and most popular software release ever that no one really cared about.
Sure, some weirdos think it's really awesome, and lots of techies really dislike it for various reasons, but most people just don't really care. From talking to some of my non-techie friends, it seems like everyone knows that "people think it's really bad... for some reason", but they don't know much about it unless they've actually used it.
If they've used it, all they know is it looks different. Maybe they like the way it looks, but Vista in general doesn't seem particularly good or bad to them. The new borders around the windows don't particularly help nor hinder their ability to check their email or view we pages, so they're mostly indifferent.
I'll tell you, I'm someone who talks some sh*t about Vista, but I don't think it's really that awful. It's... fine... mostly. In my mind, it's mostly a trade-off. You get a couple new features that are actually slightly useful, but the hardware requirements are higher and you have to deal with a more annoying activation scheme. (On Windows XP, I buy the volume licensing stuff so I don't have to deal with activation. I have plenty of licenses, but just don't want to deal with my computer not-working because of copy protection.)
As I said, it's a trade-off, but probably not one that I'd gladly make for free. It's definitely not one that I'd pay for. I'll try Windows 7 with an open mind, but I'll tell you, I'm not disposed to pay for software that forces me to "activate" it.
I'll withhold judgment until I actually use the thing. Microsoft's tendency to move shit around with every release for no apparent reason other than to make it look "new" has gotten a bit old IMO, but I would welcome some real UI improvements. It's not as though the current Windows Taskbar is the height of UI intuitiveness that can never be surpassed.
I think the key issue that they have to address with Windows 7 is answering the question, "why should I upgrade?" Some valid answers might be:
a significantly better UI
significant performance improvements
better security
features people will actually use
And yes, I think there's a difference between "a better UI" and "ooooo... shiney!" A better UI might just mean that it's more clear what's going on, it takes fewer clicks to get where you want to go, or features/settings are easier to find.
I'd say it was worse than "rushed out before ready." Maybe more like "pushed out even though their was no point." After saying that Win98 would be the last of its line, they turned around and apparently diverted resources to pushing an OS that was basically Win98+bugs. Bugs that would never really be fixed anyway, since they were about to start pushing people to the NT kernel anyway in the form of Windows 2000 and later WindowsXP.
It's like if I were discontinuing a model of car because of several huge design problems, but after releasing the replacement model, suddenly started reselling the discontinued model again-- this time, with a spoiler that somehow made it harder to steer. It doesn't make a lot of sense unless it's a half-assed money-grab.
It's not really the case that you "must" get there in 10 hours.
Like I said, it's a bad metaphor, but it's a metaphor of your choosing. Both first class and coach class get you from point A to point B equally well, so there's no translation (and besides, a airplane ticket doesn't really count as an "investment" unless you're specifying some return on the money you've spent). If I was claiming that the government should give me free booze and slippers while they build infrastructure instead of just building infrastructure, then your metaphor might begin to make sense.
...leads to the bankrupt, overleveraged state our government is currently in.
Yes, yes, it's the communists to blame for our current economic state. All those communists who've been running the government for the past several decades, spending so much money on infrastructure that we're now in trouble. It couldn't be that we've been spending our money badly and stupidly.
Who are you talking to? From your post, it sounds like you imagine there's one group of people who are constantly making new distributions and never finishing them, and we need to convince those people to stop doing that.
In reality, it's usually that a new group of people form around an idea of what they want out of Linux, which is a different idea than other available distributions. Since the other distributions already have a direction that isn't going to change, and this new group has no power to make existing distributions change, they start building their own version.
And really, there's no problem here. The freedom to come up with your own distribution or fork an application has been invaluable to Linux. Ubuntu (one of the most popular distributions today) was one of these "new" distributions just a few years ago.
Just get back to me when you can tell me whether that Dell is actually cheaper than the Xserv.
The Dell _hardware_ most certainly is, which is the only point I was making.
Yes, and I started the whole thing by saying it's not just the initial cost of the hardware --for which OSX may be ~20% more expensive for the same hardware-- but the TCO of a Dell w/Windows and Exchange vs. an Xserv w/OSX server. The first thing to look at is the CALs. It doesn't end there, since you also have to figure out support costs and such, but you can't rebut me by saying the hardware is a little more expensive, since that's an assumption of my argument.
So go ahead, do the math. When you add the cost of Windows, Exchange, and 50-250 CALs to your Dell hardware, let me know what the price comes out to.
Because that's my whole point. When you're running a business, you don't just look at "what's the cheapest advertised price," but rather "what's the price, all told, when you figure real world cost of usage/support over a span of years?" TCO isn't just marketing-speak.
Stop dancing around and add the cost of Windows, Exchange, and those CALs to you Dell quote and tell me which one is cheaper. Go ahead. I'll sit here and wait for you do to the math.
You can tell me Linux is cheaper, and that's great. I use Linux on most of my servers, but it's not really relevant here, since we're talking about Apple taking business away from Microsoft.
And yes, I know different flavors of Unix are different-- that was my point in saying it's not super-easy to switch between Solaris and AIX and FreeBSD. If you want to laud the quality of Unix operating systems, though, you may as well through OSX in there, since it's not really inferior to the others. Some may have different strengths, but they're even running lots of the same code.
But go ahead, plug your fingers in your ears and pretend you don't hear me. Just get back to me when you can tell me whether that Dell is actually cheaper than the Xserv.
In the grand scheme of things, the cost of CALs is miniscule.
Ok, then add 50 CALs for file sharing, terminal services, and Exchange into your figures. And the cost of Exchange itself. How do the costs compare then?
Yes, but it only kind of looks, feels, and tastes like a UNIX, so a standard UNIX-jockey is not going to be highly productive.
Nope, it's as much Unix as Unix is, which is to say it's Unix. Someone switching from AIX to Solaris, or Solaris to FreeBSD might have a few moments where they have to adjust to the fact that they're working on a different OS, but it's all Unix.
It's like if I tried to tell you that no one would ever purchase a coach plane ticket because the first class ticket is obviously a superior product
But we're not talking about a choice between a functional product vs. a luxury product. We're talking a choice between investing in infrastructure without which economic growth will be hindered vs. not making that investment. So if we must go into bad metaphors, it's a bit more like asking, "You have to get across the country in under 10 hours or you'll lose a few thousand dollars. Do you buy a thousand dollar plane ticket?"
Out Internet infrastructure is falling behind the rest of the world. Out bridges are falling down. Our electrical grid can't handle alternative energy sources. Most of this stuff has failed us yet (aside from a couple bridges literally falling down and some electrical grids suffering blackouts and brownouts), but we haven't been spending the money that's needed to maintain and upgrade this stuff, so it's going to fail sooner or later.
Yes, I'm aware of the Xserv, but that's all they really have on the server end. I was saying it would help them to have a greater variety of configurations. Apple has pretty good market segmentation in the client end, but only offering the Xserv is like if they only offered the iMac. Nothing wrong with the iMac, but it's good to have a few different models for people for whom the iMac doesn't meet their needs.
As far as Linux on the server, yes, that's what I use now for many purposes. However, OSX offers a lot of the same benefits, but with a nice GUI for people who need that sort of thing. Additionally, if Apple creates an effective Exchange competitor (which seems to be their aim with Snow Leopard)... well, as much as I hate catchy little phrases like this, I think it might be a "game changer".
So you're complaining that creating more jobs in the US will drive up demand for workers, thereby increasing their pay, thereby increasing the likelihood that businesses will outsource? That's quite a roundabout way of getting there, but good job, you've made an argument why we should pray for a high unemployment rate. I don't think anyone will buy it, though.
Anyway, my point was that hardware tech jobs need to be local to wherever the hardware is. When you're talking about jobs created by building tech infrastructure, a certain percentage (probably relatively high percentage) of those jobs will be for hardware techs.
Hardware tech jobs and programming jobs aren't really filled by the same set of people-- at least not to the degree that some people assume. Being the Verizon guy that installs hardware (and being good at it) doesn't generally require as much training as being a good programmer, and that job can't be outsourced to India.
> Even according to this, building useful infrastructure sounds like an "investment".
Then why didn't we do it already?
Because we've been short-sighted and stupid. Lots of people put off investments, even good investments, in order to have more money in the short term.
Why is it that some people spent tons of money on big-screen TVs without putting any money into their retirement fund? Same reason.
Also, when communism fell apart in Russia, we seem to have taken that as some kind of a sign that "pure free market capitalism" is the end-all be-all of economics, and there has been a diminished political will to spend money on anything that can be labelled as "public".
Doing good and useful stuff is good and useful, you say? Profound.
That's not what I said. I said it was an "investment" by your own definition. But yes, I will say that good and useful things are good and useful, since you seem to be unable to grasp the idea.
The problem is that you have to show that it is good and show that it is useful and show that those benefits are a net gain after subtracting the costs.
You doubt that infrastructure is good and useful? Like... roads, electricity, water, sewage systems... these things aren't useful, or aren't worth the cost of building them? Are you seriously claiming that infrastructure doesn't have any economic benefit? Maybe you're a genius with some obscure and unexplained theory, but I don't know anyone who would agree with you.
Infrastructure may not generate wealth all by itself, but businesses are more likely to invest into areas with good infrastructure, good infrastructure allows businesses to operate more efficiently, and good infrastructure creates new business opportunities. For example, companies aren't going to put their offices someplace with no electricity, it's cheaper to run a restaurant with clean running water, and the car industry simply wouldn't exist if there weren't good roads.
I'd be careful about using the term "own" when making your arguments though
I am being careful, or didn't you notice that I was using it in limited ways and constantly putting it in quotes?
as many people see it in the polar opposite way: that files they download (rented or not) ARE owned (just as you own the copy of a car design that you buy).
I don't see how anyone could think that they own a movie that they rented. If I rent a DVD from Blockbuster, do I then own the copy to that movie? If you say yes, then I have to accuse you of not understanding what the word "rent" means.
Yes, which is why I'm opposed to anyone else wrapping files that I "own" with DRM. Having your own files wrapped in DRM against your will is like buying a buying a house and finding that the house builder keeps it locked and won't let me have free access to the key. Some else wrapping their own files in DRM is like someone else buying a house, keeping it locked, and not allowing me free access to the keys. I don't see where I have any right to be upset that someone is wrapping their own files in DRM, any more than I have a right to be upset that other people keep their houses locked.
And the thing with "rentals" is that when you "rent" a digital movie (from iTunes or Netflix or someplace like that), you don't "own" that file. So if it's wrapped in DRM, I don't think you have a lot of grounds to complain. Once you "buy" a digital movie, then I think you have grounds to complain if it's wrapped in DRM.
Not only that, but it would make it cheaper for many existing businesses to operate in the US. Let's say I need a 20 Mbps connection for my company, and lets say right now it costs me something like $5k a month. Meanwhile, Verizon FIOS 20Mbps symmetric connections are something like $100/month?
Not only is that some decent savings, but lets say you're starting a new business, and you have the option of locating your business in a country where your internet connection will cost you $5,000/month or in a country that's providing the same connection for $40/month, where are you going to invest in setting up shop?
Having good infrastructure is imperative if we want to stay competitive with the rest of the world.
but until or unless Apple moves out of the hardware business, I just don't see Enterprise level adoption..
I don't really think they need to get out of hardware to see Enterprise adoption as long as they provide the features Enterprises want. The Enterprise market as some particular needs, but mostly I don't see many reasons why someone who's unwilling to buy an Apple-branded server would jump on the opportunity to buy a comparable Dell server that runs OSX.
Really, there are two reasons: possibly cheaper hardware (which isn't a huge barrier, really), and greater diversity of configurations. I'd agree that, in order for Apple to really make a big splash in the enterprise, they'd have to provide a wider variety of configurations (including things like blade servers, for example), but I think they just aren't there yet. There's no point in them ramping up production on lots of different configs when there isn't overwhelming demand for the basic configurations they have. They need to get Snow Leopard out there, replace some SMB Exchange servers and file servers, and build some momentum. When seeing an Xserv in a server room becomes less of an oddity, then they can ramp things up further.
But anyway, I definitely think they're aimed in that direction, and I think it's pretty clear if you pay attention (i.e. this isn't any great prognostication on my part). They just aren't quite there yet.
An investment is something you do when the benefits outweigh the costs. If that was the case here, it would have been on the books before the decision to "create jobs."
Even according to this, building useful infrastructure sounds like an "investment". Unfortunately, we've under-invested in our infrastructure for several decades, an in recent times somehow magically expected the "free market" to take care of keeping our bridges from falling down.
Building good and useful infrastructure is an investment, and one that happens to have a side benefit of "creating jobs".
In the same way, the government can give Verizon (or similar) 60% of the cost to wire California with fiber to the house.
My only objection is, if we give Verizon 60% of the cost to wire the country with fiber, then they better damn well do it. They had better be transparent to the government about how that money gets spent, and they had better to transparent to consumers (who are now in the position of also being "investors") about network availability.
I'm under the impression that we already subsidized Verizon to build a fiber network, and they've barely scratched the surface as far as availability. Hell, I can't get FIOS, and I live in NYC. Worse, Verizon won't tell me what areas they're servicing with FIOS or why. Building a few blocks in any given direction have FIOS, but they won't put it in my building, and they won't tell me where I have to move to be able to get it.
When you get down to it, the Internet is infrastructure, and should be considered public infrastructure (like streets). If a private company is building streets, deciding not to build streets outside of major cities, and deciding arbitrarily not to pave streets to certain buildings even in major cities, and they're in a position to be secretive about which streets they're building and where those streets go, then I think you have a problem.
Ultimately, though, I don't have a problem with a private company building and maintaining the Internet, but I think it should be pretty heavily regulated (like power companies). The whole thing should be pretty transparent.
Also, I kind of think that you shouldn't be legally allowed to be both the person building the network and the company providing service on that network. In other words, if we're paying Verizon to lay the cable, then that network should be completely open to any Internet, voice, or TV provider. If you don't want to bar Verizon from providing those services completely, then they should at least be barred from giving themselves special access above what other providers have.
Well it also is true to some extent that wars generate economic activity. When we go to war these days, it means more jobs for some people somewhere to build tanks and guns and stuff. But when the war is over, you have a bunch of guns and tanks and stuff that aren't much use for anything other than starting a new war.
If you put the same amount of money toward building infrastructure, you get the same economic activity (basically), but when the whole thing is over, you have useful infrastructure. It's a much better deal.
Wars also sometimes have the peripheral benefit in that sometimes we build factories and infrastructure for the benefit of the war, which then go on to be useful after the war too. Factories that built tanks can be converted to build other things, after all. On the other hand, it would be cheaper to just build the factories to build those other things in the first place.
I would quibble with this a little, in that the iPhone *was* primarily targeted at the consumer, but that has been changing. The iPhone has gained full Exchange support, has become a decent platform for 3rd party apps, and AT&T has started allowing iPhones to be sold as part of business plans. They're great for small businesses, and should be OK for Enterprise even, provided you have an AT&T account.
That assumes that people are buying Apple computers for reasons of fashion and "bling". I understand that's a pretty common idea here on Slashdot. It's like thinking people only use Windows to play games, or only use Linux to satisfy masturbatory mr. fixit fantasies. Those are all funny little stereotypes, but far from the complete picture.
In short, TCO isn't just marketing-speak. Apple hardware isn't *that* expensive, and if a little extra money up-front can save me more money in the long-run (in support costs, for example), then I'd be stupid not to evaluate that option.
Also, if you buy an Xserv, you can a copy with OSX server with unlimited client licenses. No more worrying about CALs-- and CALs are a big hidden cost in choosing to use Windows/Exchange.
As far as technical merit, Apple has it in spades. It's real Unix running most of the same hardware that long-trusted Unix servers run. There's no problem there.
Anyway, the question wasn't whether Apple would be successful in the enterprise market, but rather, "Why does everybody think that Apple wants to deal with Enterprise issues?" My answer is that they're making moves that are clearly aimed at the enterprise market.
We're not necessarily talking about programming jobs that can easily be handled remotely. For at least a certain percentage, you're talking about support jobs that need to be local, and don't require that much training.
By that logic, no expense of money will ever lead to a net creation of jobs-- since that money is always being taken out of something else somewhere else in the system. At best, you're taking away jobs from someplace else to support the ones you're "creating".
Of course, it doesn't really work out. Money can be spent on good things that improve the economy, or can be spent on stupid things that harm the economy.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know, I was running Windows 2000 as my home OS since when it was in beta. There were some compatibility issues early on, but no more than Windows Vista as far as I can recall.
In your world, the consumer always buys the superior product because only the benefits are relevant.
No, in my world, there are situations where refusing to spend money can end up costing you more than if you spend money. In my world, there is such a thing as "investment", where you spend money specifically because of the return.
You can draw all the arbitrary lines and classifications as you want.
I'm not drawing arbitrary lines-- you are. Does this sound familiar? "An investment is something you do when the benefits outweigh the cost"
Now, maybe you've somehow convinced yourself that an investment is *anything* where the benefits outweigh the costs, but I was giving you more credit than that. I was presuming you meant that an "investment" was something where you get back a benefit in the same kind of the cost, but with a greater return. So a financial investment would be something that costs you money, but that you're expecting to ultimately get a return of more financial benefit than the money you put in.
That would be sensible, since that's what "investment" means. HDTVs and plane tickets are not, under most circumstances, financial investments. They're more likely just expenditures-- you've spent the money on something, and that money isn't coming back to you.
I'm really having a hard time believing that anyone could be so short-sighted as to believe that building infrastructure is not a worthwhile investment. I mean, you could argue about exactly how much money should be spent on which infrastructure, but there are no credible economists anywhere who believe that building infrastructure isn't economically important, or that the government shouldn't have a part of planning/building infrastructure.
I don't even think Vista is all that hated, not when you get down to it. I think the real issue is it's probably the biggest and most popular software release ever that no one really cared about.
Sure, some weirdos think it's really awesome, and lots of techies really dislike it for various reasons, but most people just don't really care. From talking to some of my non-techie friends, it seems like everyone knows that "people think it's really bad... for some reason", but they don't know much about it unless they've actually used it.
If they've used it, all they know is it looks different. Maybe they like the way it looks, but Vista in general doesn't seem particularly good or bad to them. The new borders around the windows don't particularly help nor hinder their ability to check their email or view we pages, so they're mostly indifferent.
I'll tell you, I'm someone who talks some sh*t about Vista, but I don't think it's really that awful. It's... fine... mostly. In my mind, it's mostly a trade-off. You get a couple new features that are actually slightly useful, but the hardware requirements are higher and you have to deal with a more annoying activation scheme. (On Windows XP, I buy the volume licensing stuff so I don't have to deal with activation. I have plenty of licenses, but just don't want to deal with my computer not-working because of copy protection.)
As I said, it's a trade-off, but probably not one that I'd gladly make for free. It's definitely not one that I'd pay for. I'll try Windows 7 with an open mind, but I'll tell you, I'm not disposed to pay for software that forces me to "activate" it.
I'll withhold judgment until I actually use the thing. Microsoft's tendency to move shit around with every release for no apparent reason other than to make it look "new" has gotten a bit old IMO, but I would welcome some real UI improvements. It's not as though the current Windows Taskbar is the height of UI intuitiveness that can never be surpassed.
I think the key issue that they have to address with Windows 7 is answering the question, "why should I upgrade?" Some valid answers might be:
And yes, I think there's a difference between "a better UI" and "ooooo... shiney!" A better UI might just mean that it's more clear what's going on, it takes fewer clicks to get where you want to go, or features/settings are easier to find.
I'd say it was worse than "rushed out before ready." Maybe more like "pushed out even though their was no point." After saying that Win98 would be the last of its line, they turned around and apparently diverted resources to pushing an OS that was basically Win98+bugs. Bugs that would never really be fixed anyway, since they were about to start pushing people to the NT kernel anyway in the form of Windows 2000 and later WindowsXP.
It's like if I were discontinuing a model of car because of several huge design problems, but after releasing the replacement model, suddenly started reselling the discontinued model again-- this time, with a spoiler that somehow made it harder to steer. It doesn't make a lot of sense unless it's a half-assed money-grab.
It's not really the case that you "must" get there in 10 hours.
Like I said, it's a bad metaphor, but it's a metaphor of your choosing. Both first class and coach class get you from point A to point B equally well, so there's no translation (and besides, a airplane ticket doesn't really count as an "investment" unless you're specifying some return on the money you've spent). If I was claiming that the government should give me free booze and slippers while they build infrastructure instead of just building infrastructure, then your metaphor might begin to make sense.
...leads to the bankrupt, overleveraged state our government is currently in.
Yes, yes, it's the communists to blame for our current economic state. All those communists who've been running the government for the past several decades, spending so much money on infrastructure that we're now in trouble. It couldn't be that we've been spending our money badly and stupidly.
Who are you talking to? From your post, it sounds like you imagine there's one group of people who are constantly making new distributions and never finishing them, and we need to convince those people to stop doing that.
In reality, it's usually that a new group of people form around an idea of what they want out of Linux, which is a different idea than other available distributions. Since the other distributions already have a direction that isn't going to change, and this new group has no power to make existing distributions change, they start building their own version.
And really, there's no problem here. The freedom to come up with your own distribution or fork an application has been invaluable to Linux. Ubuntu (one of the most popular distributions today) was one of these "new" distributions just a few years ago.
Just get back to me when you can tell me whether that Dell is actually cheaper than the Xserv.
The Dell _hardware_ most certainly is, which is the only point I was making.
Yes, and I started the whole thing by saying it's not just the initial cost of the hardware --for which OSX may be ~20% more expensive for the same hardware-- but the TCO of a Dell w/Windows and Exchange vs. an Xserv w/OSX server. The first thing to look at is the CALs. It doesn't end there, since you also have to figure out support costs and such, but you can't rebut me by saying the hardware is a little more expensive, since that's an assumption of my argument.
So go ahead, do the math. When you add the cost of Windows, Exchange, and 50-250 CALs to your Dell hardware, let me know what the price comes out to.
Because that's my whole point. When you're running a business, you don't just look at "what's the cheapest advertised price," but rather "what's the price, all told, when you figure real world cost of usage/support over a span of years?" TCO isn't just marketing-speak.
Stop dancing around and add the cost of Windows, Exchange, and those CALs to you Dell quote and tell me which one is cheaper. Go ahead. I'll sit here and wait for you do to the math.
You can tell me Linux is cheaper, and that's great. I use Linux on most of my servers, but it's not really relevant here, since we're talking about Apple taking business away from Microsoft.
And yes, I know different flavors of Unix are different-- that was my point in saying it's not super-easy to switch between Solaris and AIX and FreeBSD. If you want to laud the quality of Unix operating systems, though, you may as well through OSX in there, since it's not really inferior to the others. Some may have different strengths, but they're even running lots of the same code.
But go ahead, plug your fingers in your ears and pretend you don't hear me. Just get back to me when you can tell me whether that Dell is actually cheaper than the Xserv.
In the grand scheme of things, the cost of CALs is miniscule.
Ok, then add 50 CALs for file sharing, terminal services, and Exchange into your figures. And the cost of Exchange itself. How do the costs compare then?
Yes, but it only kind of looks, feels, and tastes like a UNIX, so a standard UNIX-jockey is not going to be highly productive.
Nope, it's as much Unix as Unix is, which is to say it's Unix. Someone switching from AIX to Solaris, or Solaris to FreeBSD might have a few moments where they have to adjust to the fact that they're working on a different OS, but it's all Unix.
It's like if I tried to tell you that no one would ever purchase a coach plane ticket because the first class ticket is obviously a superior product
But we're not talking about a choice between a functional product vs. a luxury product. We're talking a choice between investing in infrastructure without which economic growth will be hindered vs. not making that investment. So if we must go into bad metaphors, it's a bit more like asking, "You have to get across the country in under 10 hours or you'll lose a few thousand dollars. Do you buy a thousand dollar plane ticket?"
Out Internet infrastructure is falling behind the rest of the world. Out bridges are falling down. Our electrical grid can't handle alternative energy sources. Most of this stuff has failed us yet (aside from a couple bridges literally falling down and some electrical grids suffering blackouts and brownouts), but we haven't been spending the money that's needed to maintain and upgrade this stuff, so it's going to fail sooner or later.
Yes, I'm aware of the Xserv, but that's all they really have on the server end. I was saying it would help them to have a greater variety of configurations. Apple has pretty good market segmentation in the client end, but only offering the Xserv is like if they only offered the iMac. Nothing wrong with the iMac, but it's good to have a few different models for people for whom the iMac doesn't meet their needs.
As far as Linux on the server, yes, that's what I use now for many purposes. However, OSX offers a lot of the same benefits, but with a nice GUI for people who need that sort of thing. Additionally, if Apple creates an effective Exchange competitor (which seems to be their aim with Snow Leopard)... well, as much as I hate catchy little phrases like this, I think it might be a "game changer".
So you're complaining that creating more jobs in the US will drive up demand for workers, thereby increasing their pay, thereby increasing the likelihood that businesses will outsource? That's quite a roundabout way of getting there, but good job, you've made an argument why we should pray for a high unemployment rate. I don't think anyone will buy it, though.
Anyway, my point was that hardware tech jobs need to be local to wherever the hardware is. When you're talking about jobs created by building tech infrastructure, a certain percentage (probably relatively high percentage) of those jobs will be for hardware techs.
Hardware tech jobs and programming jobs aren't really filled by the same set of people-- at least not to the degree that some people assume. Being the Verizon guy that installs hardware (and being good at it) doesn't generally require as much training as being a good programmer, and that job can't be outsourced to India.
> Even according to this, building useful infrastructure sounds like an "investment".
Then why didn't we do it already?
Because we've been short-sighted and stupid. Lots of people put off investments, even good investments, in order to have more money in the short term.
Why is it that some people spent tons of money on big-screen TVs without putting any money into their retirement fund? Same reason.
Also, when communism fell apart in Russia, we seem to have taken that as some kind of a sign that "pure free market capitalism" is the end-all be-all of economics, and there has been a diminished political will to spend money on anything that can be labelled as "public".
Doing good and useful stuff is good and useful, you say? Profound.
That's not what I said. I said it was an "investment" by your own definition. But yes, I will say that good and useful things are good and useful, since you seem to be unable to grasp the idea.
The problem is that you have to show that it is good and show that it is useful and show that those benefits are a net gain after subtracting the costs.
You doubt that infrastructure is good and useful? Like... roads, electricity, water, sewage systems... these things aren't useful, or aren't worth the cost of building them? Are you seriously claiming that infrastructure doesn't have any economic benefit? Maybe you're a genius with some obscure and unexplained theory, but I don't know anyone who would agree with you.
Infrastructure may not generate wealth all by itself, but businesses are more likely to invest into areas with good infrastructure, good infrastructure allows businesses to operate more efficiently, and good infrastructure creates new business opportunities. For example, companies aren't going to put their offices someplace with no electricity, it's cheaper to run a restaurant with clean running water, and the car industry simply wouldn't exist if there weren't good roads.
I'd be careful about using the term "own" when making your arguments though
I am being careful, or didn't you notice that I was using it in limited ways and constantly putting it in quotes?
as many people see it in the polar opposite way: that files they download (rented or not) ARE owned (just as you own the copy of a car design that you buy).
I don't see how anyone could think that they own a movie that they rented. If I rent a DVD from Blockbuster, do I then own the copy to that movie? If you say yes, then I have to accuse you of not understanding what the word "rent" means.
Yes, which is why I'm opposed to anyone else wrapping files that I "own" with DRM. Having your own files wrapped in DRM against your will is like buying a buying a house and finding that the house builder keeps it locked and won't let me have free access to the key. Some else wrapping their own files in DRM is like someone else buying a house, keeping it locked, and not allowing me free access to the keys. I don't see where I have any right to be upset that someone is wrapping their own files in DRM, any more than I have a right to be upset that other people keep their houses locked.
And the thing with "rentals" is that when you "rent" a digital movie (from iTunes or Netflix or someplace like that), you don't "own" that file. So if it's wrapped in DRM, I don't think you have a lot of grounds to complain. Once you "buy" a digital movie, then I think you have grounds to complain if it's wrapped in DRM.
Not only that, but it would make it cheaper for many existing businesses to operate in the US. Let's say I need a 20 Mbps connection for my company, and lets say right now it costs me something like $5k a month. Meanwhile, Verizon FIOS 20Mbps symmetric connections are something like $100/month?
Not only is that some decent savings, but lets say you're starting a new business, and you have the option of locating your business in a country where your internet connection will cost you $5,000/month or in a country that's providing the same connection for $40/month, where are you going to invest in setting up shop?
Having good infrastructure is imperative if we want to stay competitive with the rest of the world.
but until or unless Apple moves out of the hardware business, I just don't see Enterprise level adoption..
I don't really think they need to get out of hardware to see Enterprise adoption as long as they provide the features Enterprises want. The Enterprise market as some particular needs, but mostly I don't see many reasons why someone who's unwilling to buy an Apple-branded server would jump on the opportunity to buy a comparable Dell server that runs OSX.
Really, there are two reasons: possibly cheaper hardware (which isn't a huge barrier, really), and greater diversity of configurations. I'd agree that, in order for Apple to really make a big splash in the enterprise, they'd have to provide a wider variety of configurations (including things like blade servers, for example), but I think they just aren't there yet. There's no point in them ramping up production on lots of different configs when there isn't overwhelming demand for the basic configurations they have. They need to get Snow Leopard out there, replace some SMB Exchange servers and file servers, and build some momentum. When seeing an Xserv in a server room becomes less of an oddity, then they can ramp things up further.
But anyway, I definitely think they're aimed in that direction, and I think it's pretty clear if you pay attention (i.e. this isn't any great prognostication on my part). They just aren't quite there yet.
An investment is something you do when the benefits outweigh the costs. If that was the case here, it would have been on the books before the decision to "create jobs."
Even according to this, building useful infrastructure sounds like an "investment". Unfortunately, we've under-invested in our infrastructure for several decades, an in recent times somehow magically expected the "free market" to take care of keeping our bridges from falling down.
Building good and useful infrastructure is an investment, and one that happens to have a side benefit of "creating jobs".
In the same way, the government can give Verizon (or similar) 60% of the cost to wire California with fiber to the house.
My only objection is, if we give Verizon 60% of the cost to wire the country with fiber, then they better damn well do it. They had better be transparent to the government about how that money gets spent, and they had better to transparent to consumers (who are now in the position of also being "investors") about network availability.
I'm under the impression that we already subsidized Verizon to build a fiber network, and they've barely scratched the surface as far as availability. Hell, I can't get FIOS, and I live in NYC. Worse, Verizon won't tell me what areas they're servicing with FIOS or why. Building a few blocks in any given direction have FIOS, but they won't put it in my building, and they won't tell me where I have to move to be able to get it.
When you get down to it, the Internet is infrastructure, and should be considered public infrastructure (like streets). If a private company is building streets, deciding not to build streets outside of major cities, and deciding arbitrarily not to pave streets to certain buildings even in major cities, and they're in a position to be secretive about which streets they're building and where those streets go, then I think you have a problem.
Ultimately, though, I don't have a problem with a private company building and maintaining the Internet, but I think it should be pretty heavily regulated (like power companies). The whole thing should be pretty transparent.
Also, I kind of think that you shouldn't be legally allowed to be both the person building the network and the company providing service on that network. In other words, if we're paying Verizon to lay the cable, then that network should be completely open to any Internet, voice, or TV provider. If you don't want to bar Verizon from providing those services completely, then they should at least be barred from giving themselves special access above what other providers have.
Well it also is true to some extent that wars generate economic activity. When we go to war these days, it means more jobs for some people somewhere to build tanks and guns and stuff. But when the war is over, you have a bunch of guns and tanks and stuff that aren't much use for anything other than starting a new war.
If you put the same amount of money toward building infrastructure, you get the same economic activity (basically), but when the whole thing is over, you have useful infrastructure. It's a much better deal.
Wars also sometimes have the peripheral benefit in that sometimes we build factories and infrastructure for the benefit of the war, which then go on to be useful after the war too. Factories that built tanks can be converted to build other things, after all. On the other hand, it would be cheaper to just build the factories to build those other things in the first place.
The iPhone is primarily targeted at the consumer.
I would quibble with this a little, in that the iPhone *was* primarily targeted at the consumer, but that has been changing. The iPhone has gained full Exchange support, has become a decent platform for 3rd party apps, and AT&T has started allowing iPhones to be sold as part of business plans. They're great for small businesses, and should be OK for Enterprise even, provided you have an AT&T account.
That assumes that people are buying Apple computers for reasons of fashion and "bling". I understand that's a pretty common idea here on Slashdot. It's like thinking people only use Windows to play games, or only use Linux to satisfy masturbatory mr. fixit fantasies. Those are all funny little stereotypes, but far from the complete picture.
In short, TCO isn't just marketing-speak. Apple hardware isn't *that* expensive, and if a little extra money up-front can save me more money in the long-run (in support costs, for example), then I'd be stupid not to evaluate that option.
Also, if you buy an Xserv, you can a copy with OSX server with unlimited client licenses. No more worrying about CALs-- and CALs are a big hidden cost in choosing to use Windows/Exchange.
As far as technical merit, Apple has it in spades. It's real Unix running most of the same hardware that long-trusted Unix servers run. There's no problem there.
Anyway, the question wasn't whether Apple would be successful in the enterprise market, but rather, "Why does everybody think that Apple wants to deal with Enterprise issues?" My answer is that they're making moves that are clearly aimed at the enterprise market.
We're not necessarily talking about programming jobs that can easily be handled remotely. For at least a certain percentage, you're talking about support jobs that need to be local, and don't require that much training.
By that logic, no expense of money will ever lead to a net creation of jobs-- since that money is always being taken out of something else somewhere else in the system. At best, you're taking away jobs from someplace else to support the ones you're "creating".
Of course, it doesn't really work out. Money can be spent on good things that improve the economy, or can be spent on stupid things that harm the economy.