And let's not forget -- Apple on Intel is a form of advertising for Intel. Apple is very, very good at getting in the press, so Intel might be willing to take a smaller margin in exchange.
Have you seen Intel's new ads where people are dancing around? Slightly reminiscent of Apple's iTunes ads? Plus, Intel is always coming up with concept designs for cool stuff people could do with their hardware, but most of Intel's partners are so focussed on doing massive volumes on cheap systems that they won't take up any of the ideas and run with them.
I'm sure that there are people at Intel who view Apple as their prestige partner.
A lot of people are arguing, but I think there's something to what you're saying. Most of the time, really, people should be using straight HTML/CSS. Sometimes people get into the other complicated stuff way too quickly.
Now I'll admit to liking some of the Ajax stuff, but that's not even that much. HTML, CSS, a little javascript and XML. That all seems fine. Flash? We start hitting a problem. It's not good for most of what it's used for, but I guess it's fine, especially when it's an optional plug-in.
But then developers take it to another level. Microsoft uses the web browser as an application to update system files. PDFs open in your web browser instead of downloading them. I had a user call me recently because her Excel files were opening in her IE instead of Excel. It's like Microsoft decided at some point that the web browser was going to be an all-purpose viewer and file manager.
On the other hand, IE7 and Vista seem to be aimed at fixing some of these problems. There are still things to complain about, but it does seem that IE7 is a step in the right direction. From what I understand, it's at least been dislodged from Windows Explorer.
Yeah, but like I said, it's a rebuttal of a specific theory of education. At one point, a lot of educators were being told that feeling good and have high self-esteem would help children learn better. They said that when children didn't feel good about their abilities, it lead to self-defeating behavior which inhibited their education.
I've always been saying that if we suddenly passed a law requiring all software to be open-sourced, it would leave an awful lot of software companies without business models. I've always been talking from the point of view of the user. And don't count on me developing anything.
I don't know how you're putting that metaphor together. Are car companies making most of their money by selling directly to local garages? Do local garages hate putting up with crappy design choices made by car manufacturers?
Because I assure you, I am an "IT person", and in every single place I've worked, the network support and desktop support have plenty to worry about without Microsoft making it harder on us.
No I read the article (at least partially), but I was responding to the summary. The article seems more to be a rebuttal of education theory that started being implemented about 10-20 years ago. People kept focussing on making kids feel good and increasing their self-esteem, but they're finding that making kids feel good about math doesn't help them do well at math. If anything, it's the kids who worry about doing well enough in math that succeed.
Ok, so let me rephrase: It would only kill most of the commercial/retail/general purpose software. Oh, I feel much better now that I realize only the software I use would cease to developed, while some other random company's ERP system would keep chugging away.
...students who are good with math are less likely to be happy, and are likely to have low confidence. From the article "In essence, happiness is overrated" says study author Tom Loveless.
Really? Didn't anyone stop to think that maybe math is overrated?
I don't need Microsoft to be altruistic. In the abstract, it's fine for Microsoft to be self-interested; I only have a problem with Microsoft when they're stupid and vicious. For example, Microsoft could see the looming threat that there are a lot of IT people who hate them and find their software frustrating, and Microsoft could make their software better and easier to use, and make the best software in the universe, all in order to keep their customers happy. This would be a good self-interested move, because it would inspire some brand-loyalty, and in the long-term it would keep them on-top. And that'd be fine.
As it is, Microsoft keeps being anti-competitive, screwing their customers on a daily basis and releasing service-packs with catchier graphics for $400 an update. This brings various governments down on them, and scorn from loads of users and IT professionals, which may well be their undoing one of these days. That's not sufficiently self-interested to be smart.
Last I checked there were a few chat programs that can use Jabber, but not many that could use Google Talk's voice stuff. Regardless, the point is that Google usually produces Windows client software, but until recently hasn't even shown signs that they would make Macintosh ports.
Yes, throwing the word "democracy" around doesn't help things, but the problem isn't that the US is a republic. Republics certainly don't do a worse job at preserving minority rights, since they're in fact less bound to follow "the tyranny of the masses". Not that it provides a lot of extra protection from mob mentality, but it does a little.
The real problem is that we just don't preserve individual rights anymore. We don't behave like a democratic republic. It's more like we're run by two warring aristocracies, except that an "aristocracy" is supposedly run by the "best" people, whereas the heads of the two major political parties are generally just the greedy and well-connected.
Yeah, so really it's worse than a two-party system, because the "two parties" are actually in collusion to keep the current power-structure. The "two" parties are actually one system, superficially divided in two in order to keep the American people fighting amongst themselves. If they can keep one each half of the country at the other half's throat relatively trivial issues like abortion and gay marriage, no one will notice that they're selling our country out for bribes from various special-interest groups.
Kids are very simple life forms, they don't have a firm grasp of logic and hence do stupid things which get them hurt. This is a basic fact of life and if you repress it you make adults who do the same because they never learnt any better.
I think this is the serious issue here. What parents can sometimes fail to grasp is that getting injured can be instructive. As a kid, you learn what your limits are, you learn what pain is, and you learn how to deal with it.
Now, of course I'm not suggesting that anyone goes around beating children, but I do pity children whose parents are concerned with "near collisions". Really? "Near collisions"? Like two kids *almost* bumped into each other, which *almost* might have given one of them a small bruise or something?
If you get to be a grown man and have never taken a punch, never gotten a bloody nose, and never scraped your knee, then I don't trust you.
But then, what we do is we also distribute a external hard drive with encryption keys to restrict access to the USB dongle. When that's cracked, we should release a DVD that carries the encryption keys to the hard drive.
I didn't say it would be a bad thing, but only that it would probably mess things up in the short-term if everyone were suddenly forced to go open-source.
I didn't say there was no way to make money. However, that business model won't work for everything. Redhat can make money because they're selling to businesses who care about support. IBM is a different issue. But all of these business models are a bit tricky, and require that you're selling a specific kind of product to a specific market.
So you have some open-source business models, and a some closed source business models, but right now, most businesses are using the closed-source models. If you suddenly took away the possibility of the closed-source models, it's not clear that all the current closed-source shops would be able to transition to an open-sourced model and successfully make money.
You'd still have the kind of programmers who enjoy programming, and write software for personal achievement.
Except that a lot of those programmers could go from working full time and developing their skills in their spare time, to working a different job full-time and never having the time to get in-depth.
Does anyone REALLY believe that making software free (as is the case with open source) will suddenly leave our economy starved of new software?
Doesn't it seem like obsoleting most successful software business models all at once, making it harder to make a living as a programmer, would lead to a net loss in software development? Obviously there would still be software, and there might be a long-term gain in pushing towards all software being open-sourced over time, but it's not a simple issue.
At any rate, I'm sure the Windows operating system would be more expensive if Linux and OSX (yes, it's OSS)...
Well, Darwin is OSS, but OSX as a whole isn't. I mostly say this as a preemptive strike, because I know someone is going to say it, but it doesn't void what you're saying. OSX server and OSX desktop both rely on a lot of open source. It would have taken Apple far longer to bring it to market if they had started from scratch, and it's benefitting by updates to it's open source components all the time. Therefore, Apple would have a much harder time making their OS competitive if not for the effect of OSS.
When print pros are working on things, they might use Photoshop/Illustrator/Quark while editing, but when it comes time to ship it to someone (like the printers), they're usually using some sort of postscript file or PDF so that they can be sure that the final product will be a faithful reproduction of the design. A lot can happen with photoshop and illustrator files to shift things around a little or cause problems, but there are strict subsets of the PDF spec. that will ensure that the printed product is correct.
And no, this won't matter to Joe Schmo, but it's part of the reason why PDF is so common, so if Microsoft wants to displace Adobe, they should address these things to make sure their spec can be used for professional-level printing purposes. I'm not claiming they haven't done that, but I was asking.
They don't give away the free PDF writer because that's where they're making their money on the format-- Adobe Acrobat. A lot of people pay for this expensive and bloated software in spite of only needing the virtual printer. Not that Acrobat's extra features aren't useful for some people, but it's expensive software and overkill for a guy who just wants to make a PDF of his word document. But a lot of Windows users* who just need simple PDF-writing capability don't know any better.
* I single out Windows users because PDF writing is free and easy on OSX and Linux**
Slashdot Mirror
And let's not forget -- Apple on Intel is a form of advertising for Intel. Apple is very, very good at getting in the press, so Intel might be willing to take a smaller margin in exchange.
Have you seen Intel's new ads where people are dancing around? Slightly reminiscent of Apple's iTunes ads? Plus, Intel is always coming up with concept designs for cool stuff people could do with their hardware, but most of Intel's partners are so focussed on doing massive volumes on cheap systems that they won't take up any of the ideas and run with them.
I'm sure that there are people at Intel who view Apple as their prestige partner.
Because everyone can offer Windows XP, but only Apple can offer OSX?
A lot of people are arguing, but I think there's something to what you're saying. Most of the time, really, people should be using straight HTML/CSS. Sometimes people get into the other complicated stuff way too quickly.
Now I'll admit to liking some of the Ajax stuff, but that's not even that much. HTML, CSS, a little javascript and XML. That all seems fine. Flash? We start hitting a problem. It's not good for most of what it's used for, but I guess it's fine, especially when it's an optional plug-in.
But then developers take it to another level. Microsoft uses the web browser as an application to update system files. PDFs open in your web browser instead of downloading them. I had a user call me recently because her Excel files were opening in her IE instead of Excel. It's like Microsoft decided at some point that the web browser was going to be an all-purpose viewer and file manager.
On the other hand, IE7 and Vista seem to be aimed at fixing some of these problems. There are still things to complain about, but it does seem that IE7 is a step in the right direction. From what I understand, it's at least been dislodged from Windows Explorer.
Users can care about lack of commercial software business models, insofar as it would leave us with a lack of software to use.
Yeah, but like I said, it's a rebuttal of a specific theory of education. At one point, a lot of educators were being told that feeling good and have high self-esteem would help children learn better. They said that when children didn't feel good about their abilities, it lead to self-defeating behavior which inhibited their education.
I've always been saying that if we suddenly passed a law requiring all software to be open-sourced, it would leave an awful lot of software companies without business models. I've always been talking from the point of view of the user. And don't count on me developing anything.
I don't know how you're putting that metaphor together. Are car companies making most of their money by selling directly to local garages? Do local garages hate putting up with crappy design choices made by car manufacturers?
Because I assure you, I am an "IT person", and in every single place I've worked, the network support and desktop support have plenty to worry about without Microsoft making it harder on us.
No I read the article (at least partially), but I was responding to the summary. The article seems more to be a rebuttal of education theory that started being implemented about 10-20 years ago. People kept focussing on making kids feel good and increasing their self-esteem, but they're finding that making kids feel good about math doesn't help them do well at math. If anything, it's the kids who worry about doing well enough in math that succeed.
Not too surprising, if you ask me.
Ok, so let me rephrase: It would only kill most of the commercial/retail/general purpose software. Oh, I feel much better now that I realize only the software I use would cease to developed, while some other random company's ERP system would keep chugging away.
Really? Didn't anyone stop to think that maybe math is overrated?
I don't need Microsoft to be altruistic. In the abstract, it's fine for Microsoft to be self-interested; I only have a problem with Microsoft when they're stupid and vicious. For example, Microsoft could see the looming threat that there are a lot of IT people who hate them and find their software frustrating, and Microsoft could make their software better and easier to use, and make the best software in the universe, all in order to keep their customers happy. This would be a good self-interested move, because it would inspire some brand-loyalty, and in the long-term it would keep them on-top. And that'd be fine.
As it is, Microsoft keeps being anti-competitive, screwing their customers on a daily basis and releasing service-packs with catchier graphics for $400 an update. This brings various governments down on them, and scorn from loads of users and IT professionals, which may well be their undoing one of these days. That's not sufficiently self-interested to be smart.
Last I checked there were a few chat programs that can use Jabber, but not many that could use Google Talk's voice stuff. Regardless, the point is that Google usually produces Windows client software, but until recently hasn't even shown signs that they would make Macintosh ports.
Yes, throwing the word "democracy" around doesn't help things, but the problem isn't that the US is a republic. Republics certainly don't do a worse job at preserving minority rights, since they're in fact less bound to follow "the tyranny of the masses". Not that it provides a lot of extra protection from mob mentality, but it does a little.
The real problem is that we just don't preserve individual rights anymore. We don't behave like a democratic republic. It's more like we're run by two warring aristocracies, except that an "aristocracy" is supposedly run by the "best" people, whereas the heads of the two major political parties are generally just the greedy and well-connected.
Yeah, so really it's worse than a two-party system, because the "two parties" are actually in collusion to keep the current power-structure. The "two" parties are actually one system, superficially divided in two in order to keep the American people fighting amongst themselves. If they can keep one each half of the country at the other half's throat relatively trivial issues like abortion and gay marriage, no one will notice that they're selling our country out for bribes from various special-interest groups.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
I think this is the serious issue here. What parents can sometimes fail to grasp is that getting injured can be instructive. As a kid, you learn what your limits are, you learn what pain is, and you learn how to deal with it.
Now, of course I'm not suggesting that anyone goes around beating children, but I do pity children whose parents are concerned with "near collisions". Really? "Near collisions"? Like two kids *almost* bumped into each other, which *almost* might have given one of them a small bruise or something?
If you get to be a grown man and have never taken a punch, never gotten a bloody nose, and never scraped your knee, then I don't trust you.
But then, what we do is we also distribute a external hard drive with encryption keys to restrict access to the USB dongle. When that's cracked, we should release a DVD that carries the encryption keys to the hard drive.
I didn't say it would be a bad thing, but only that it would probably mess things up in the short-term if everyone were suddenly forced to go open-source.
I didn't say there was no way to make money. However, that business model won't work for everything. Redhat can make money because they're selling to businesses who care about support. IBM is a different issue. But all of these business models are a bit tricky, and require that you're selling a specific kind of product to a specific market.
So you have some open-source business models, and a some closed source business models, but right now, most businesses are using the closed-source models. If you suddenly took away the possibility of the closed-source models, it's not clear that all the current closed-source shops would be able to transition to an open-sourced model and successfully make money.
You'd still have the kind of programmers who enjoy programming, and write software for personal achievement.
Except that a lot of those programmers could go from working full time and developing their skills in their spare time, to working a different job full-time and never having the time to get in-depth.
If you were quick-witted, you could have turned it into an "insensitive clod" cliche joke.
Doesn't it seem like obsoleting most successful software business models all at once, making it harder to make a living as a programmer, would lead to a net loss in software development? Obviously there would still be software, and there might be a long-term gain in pushing towards all software being open-sourced over time, but it's not a simple issue.
At any rate, I'm sure the Windows operating system would be more expensive if Linux and OSX (yes, it's OSS)...
Well, Darwin is OSS, but OSX as a whole isn't. I mostly say this as a preemptive strike, because I know someone is going to say it, but it doesn't void what you're saying. OSX server and OSX desktop both rely on a lot of open source. It would have taken Apple far longer to bring it to market if they had started from scratch, and it's benefitting by updates to it's open source components all the time. Therefore, Apple would have a much harder time making their OS competitive if not for the effect of OSS.
When print pros are working on things, they might use Photoshop/Illustrator/Quark while editing, but when it comes time to ship it to someone (like the printers), they're usually using some sort of postscript file or PDF so that they can be sure that the final product will be a faithful reproduction of the design. A lot can happen with photoshop and illustrator files to shift things around a little or cause problems, but there are strict subsets of the PDF spec. that will ensure that the printed product is correct.
And no, this won't matter to Joe Schmo, but it's part of the reason why PDF is so common, so if Microsoft wants to displace Adobe, they should address these things to make sure their spec can be used for professional-level printing purposes. I'm not claiming they haven't done that, but I was asking.
They don't give away the free PDF writer because that's where they're making their money on the format-- Adobe Acrobat. A lot of people pay for this expensive and bloated software in spite of only needing the virtual printer. Not that Acrobat's extra features aren't useful for some people, but it's expensive software and overkill for a guy who just wants to make a PDF of his word document. But a lot of Windows users* who just need simple PDF-writing capability don't know any better.
* I single out Windows users because PDF writing is free and easy on OSX and Linux**
**Depending on distribution