I bet the RIAA would love to see the iPod 'opened up' to support other DRM schemes. Then they could use a different distribution method... one that has variable pricing.
It may be that the RIAA thinks that, but I think there's more to iTunes success than that. It's not just the iPod, it's the simplicity of it. Simple interface, easy to find what you're looking for, simple pricing, and when you're all done, it's easy to transfer the music to your portable player. Sure, the portable player is the iPod, but it's also that iTunes' automatic syncing and everything works really well. Plus you can share libraries between computers on a LAN and stream to the Airport Extreme.
Remember, for Apple, iTunes is incentive to buy and iPod, not the other way around, and they've done a good job of making something that people are willing to use. So far, I haven't seen a store that really offers as pleasant of an experience, and I think even if everything was open and DRM-free, other stores still wouldn't be as successful. The only thing that would compete well would be something like AllofMP3.com, but that's only because it's way cheaper. I don't think the RIAA would like that being the most successful store either.
So, in summary, Apple provides a great experience at a reasonable price, and so people are buying albums from them. The RIAA may be annoyed because they think Apple has the market cornered by leveraging hardware, and Apple refuses to raise prices and enforce stricter DRM. However, Apple has only been successful because they refuse to raise prices and enforce stricter DRM. If the RIAA would allow Apple to drop DRM altogether and lower prices, far from eliminating their user base, I'm quite sure they'd make a load more sales.
I used to have an outlook rule that anything set to "Urgent" was automatically reset to "low priority". I know, it' childish and stupid, but then again, so was my job.
Of course, no one has ever once sent me something marked "low priority", so whenever I received a low priority message, i knew it meant high priority.
I just liked the fact that when my boss looked over my shoulder, all his messages were marked "low priority".
Well, the only problem is when people try to turn this sort of editorial of "I think Apple could/should buy Adobe" into a rumor of "Apple is planning to buy Adobe!"
I mean, if you're a journalist, paid to analyze technology trends and make wild shot-in-the-dark predictions of what might possibly happen one day, or you're writing an article of what business moves might benefit one group or another, that's perfectly fine. Cringly thinks Apple should buy Adobe, and I'm sure lots of people could write articles on why they think Apple shouldn't.
Let's just not let this get out of hand and become an actual rumor.
My wife's a doctor, and she's usually telling me the next wrong diagnosis they're about to make. As far as the medicine is concerned, they seem to be very accurate.
No offense to your wife, but any decent doctor can tell you all along what the next bad diagnosis will be, then at least it shows a certain lack of realism regarding these doctors as some of the most brialliant diagnotisticians in the country (which I get the impression they're supposed to be).
Eh... I guess it's nice to know they aren't TOTALLY off.
Well, I can tell you that ER does have several doctors on the payroll to make it as realistic as they can. There's pretty much always a doctor on set. And real doctors, not just people who went through med school.
"specific part of networking needs", yes, but important. I don't think the claim is that they're holding the world's network (singular, meaning the internet) in a strangle-hold. The problem is they have a strangle-hold on loads of networks around the world. Think about every business that has a few Windows components, and so pretty much everything on the network needs to be Windows in order to preserve interoperability. Projects like Samba give us a lot more options.
Not if all your friends speak that language and you're in a position to persecute anyone who isn't fluent.
Microsoft isn't shooting itself in the foot when it breaks with standards and insists on it's own hidden protocols and such-- not until customers start refusing to buy MS products.
No, really, that all sounds great until you realize that the majority of people on this earth will crawl through glass for $3 a day, and most companies have no loyalty to their people whatsoever.
It is my attitude, for the most part, to consider that I'm "offering my services" as you say. Employers try to make it seem like they're doing you some huge favor by letting you work for them, which is BS. In my mind, my work tends to be perceived as a mutual exchange-- I'm happy to give X hours of work for $Y, and they're happy to give me $Y for X hours worth of my work, so why not do that?
At the same time, it's worth noting that this is the society we live in-- businesses, by being larger entities, have greater resources to make things happen, and consumers/employees let them run away with this power. The result is that, between companies, the larger tends to have a disproportionate advantage. Between employees/employers, it's the employers, and between consumers/retailers, it's often the retailers.
So yes, we let ourselves be bullied, but you'd better be careful, clever, or lucky if you want to be the one to stand up to these bullies.
...and they're more likely to become pervasive if people get used to the idea, which is likely to happen if a lot companies start requiring them. These sorts of things start slowly, and the first step is forcing some set of people to use these devices.
Something like this, it's easy enough to say, "well, you could get another job", but the question is, what if this becomes the new dumb security fad, and 90% of the companies offering decent jobs suddenly require this.
You're right. The quote shows the author to be naive/uninformed:
I don't hate Windows Vista, and I certainly don't hate Microsoft for disappointing me and countless other customers with a product that doesn't even come close to meeting its original promises. I'm sure the company learned something from this debacle, and hopefully it will be more open and honest about what it can and cannot do in the future
This has always been Microsoft's MO. Late and with most of the intended features dropped out. They promise the world when they start development, but the new versions of their software tend to be the old version with a few tweaks, updates, fixes, a new skin, and all the controls in different places.
Fedora isn't meant to be a "test version" for RedHat so much as the "community driven" source from which RedHat can build an "enterprise" product.
What's the difference? The people making Fedora intend for it to be stable. It's just driven more by the needs/desires of a community of users. RedHat can then cherry-pick the changes that they like to build a standardized business product.
I question the whole meaning of this. "Most modern"? What the hell does that mean? Modern generally has two uses, as far as I hear people using it: either a time period that existed roughly 50 years ago, or "current".
So either their management style is from 50 years ago, or... it's current. None of that tells us whether it's good. It's probably just bad writing, and they probably mean "advanced", but even that doesn't tell us whether it will be good and useful and successful, or if it will just be a fad that we laugh at 3 years from now.
I guess I'm still missing your point. That if I stop upgrading the OS, Apple will be out a couple hundred dollars? Microsoft is also going to miss out on hundreds of dollars if I don't upgrade, but at least Apple has a successful hardware line that will continue to generate money. Microsoft's big cash cows are Windows and Office, and so they have much more to lose by users failing to purchase software upgrades.
I'd also like to compare size/weight. Most Dell laptops I've seen are pretty thick, ugly plastic, and the Macbook Pro is pretty light. You pay a premium for those things also.
It's like when people look to compare Mac minis to Dell Dimensions, and they note that the Dells are cheaper for the same stats... but then you have to look at the form factor. The closest thing Dell offers is the Ultra-small form factor Optiplexes, which are still bigger than the Mac minis. Suddenly, the minis don't look that expensive.
Incidently, if you are a Mac owner, and you've paid for every major release of OS X, you've paid about $500 over the last 5 years for your operating system
Incidently, I have bought 2 OS X upgrades in the past couple years, totaling $260. Both times, I was COMPLETELY satisfied that I'd gotten my money's worth. When 10.5 comes out in a few months, I'll happily pay another $130, and be glad that I'm paying another $130 for a great, new, innovative OS rather than $300 for the years-old hunk o'junk that is Windows XP Pro.
Actually, my impression was that curtain mode was using the fast-user-switching sort of functionality to be able to log in and work while the user is logged in and working without interfering with each other's session. At least, I hope so, because that would be really useful.
uh... you're implying that Apple should switch to Microsoft's business model because of Microsoft's success, and then immediately point out that Microsoft is having problems?
Part of the problem with Microsoft is their business model, you know. Microsoft has created a situation where their biggest competitor is older versions of their own software, and they can't exercise direct control over the hardware platform their software runs on. Both of these factors have hindered Their ability to innovate, and contributed to this mess that they find themselves in.
I'm not claiming it's as simple as that, but I certainly don't think Apple should try to turn itself into Microsoft.
Maybe... Maybe some people will buy Macs just to run Windows, and maybe some people will dual-boot, but what I think is more likely to be the dominant effect of Boot Camp is that it will reduce risk for the casual "switcher". If I'd never run OSX and wasn't absolutely sure that I'd like it, I can now know that I can fall back on running Windows if need be.
People willfully misinterpreting this test should be ashamed of the FUD they are spreading. This does not prove MacBooks are the "fastest" laptop. It proves they are (aside from the non-existant video drivers) as good as anything else out there for running Windows.
I think to some degree, the intention here is to spread some anti-FUD. The purpose isn't really to prove the Apple notebooks are significantly superior hardware in any way-- it's good hardware, but generally it uses the same components as other laptops. But there's a general conception that gets spread around that Apple is somehow incompetent and making sub-standard products. You know, those trolls with a 2 MB file taking 20 hours to transfer?
Anyway, the real point is that they're pretty much as good performers as any of these new Dual Core laptops, but with sleak designs, nice features, and the ability to run OSX. This is the first meaningful opportunity to benchmark Apple hardware vs. Dell (or whoever), and the point is that no, the Apple hardware does not somehow suck for being Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
It may be that the RIAA thinks that, but I think there's more to iTunes success than that. It's not just the iPod, it's the simplicity of it. Simple interface, easy to find what you're looking for, simple pricing, and when you're all done, it's easy to transfer the music to your portable player. Sure, the portable player is the iPod, but it's also that iTunes' automatic syncing and everything works really well. Plus you can share libraries between computers on a LAN and stream to the Airport Extreme.
Remember, for Apple, iTunes is incentive to buy and iPod, not the other way around, and they've done a good job of making something that people are willing to use. So far, I haven't seen a store that really offers as pleasant of an experience, and I think even if everything was open and DRM-free, other stores still wouldn't be as successful. The only thing that would compete well would be something like AllofMP3.com, but that's only because it's way cheaper. I don't think the RIAA would like that being the most successful store either.
So, in summary, Apple provides a great experience at a reasonable price, and so people are buying albums from them. The RIAA may be annoyed because they think Apple has the market cornered by leveraging hardware, and Apple refuses to raise prices and enforce stricter DRM. However, Apple has only been successful because they refuse to raise prices and enforce stricter DRM. If the RIAA would allow Apple to drop DRM altogether and lower prices, far from eliminating their user base, I'm quite sure they'd make a load more sales.
I used to have an outlook rule that anything set to "Urgent" was automatically reset to "low priority". I know, it' childish and stupid, but then again, so was my job.
Of course, no one has ever once sent me something marked "low priority", so whenever I received a low priority message, i knew it meant high priority.
I just liked the fact that when my boss looked over my shoulder, all his messages were marked "low priority".
I mean, if you're a journalist, paid to analyze technology trends and make wild shot-in-the-dark predictions of what might possibly happen one day, or you're writing an article of what business moves might benefit one group or another, that's perfectly fine. Cringly thinks Apple should buy Adobe, and I'm sure lots of people could write articles on why they think Apple shouldn't.
Let's just not let this get out of hand and become an actual rumor.
Wait, so you mean me and my girlfriend will be able to play with my Wii-Wii together?
No offense to your wife, but any decent doctor can tell you all along what the next bad diagnosis will be, then at least it shows a certain lack of realism regarding these doctors as some of the most brialliant diagnotisticians in the country (which I get the impression they're supposed to be).
Eh... I guess it's nice to know they aren't TOTALLY off.
Well, I can tell you that ER does have several doctors on the payroll to make it as realistic as they can. There's pretty much always a doctor on set. And real doctors, not just people who went through med school.
"specific part of networking needs", yes, but important. I don't think the claim is that they're holding the world's network (singular, meaning the internet) in a strangle-hold. The problem is they have a strangle-hold on loads of networks around the world. Think about every business that has a few Windows components, and so pretty much everything on the network needs to be Windows in order to preserve interoperability. Projects like Samba give us a lot more options.
Microsoft isn't shooting itself in the foot when it breaks with standards and insists on it's own hidden protocols and such-- not until customers start refusing to buy MS products.
It is my attitude, for the most part, to consider that I'm "offering my services" as you say. Employers try to make it seem like they're doing you some huge favor by letting you work for them, which is BS. In my mind, my work tends to be perceived as a mutual exchange-- I'm happy to give X hours of work for $Y, and they're happy to give me $Y for X hours worth of my work, so why not do that?
At the same time, it's worth noting that this is the society we live in-- businesses, by being larger entities, have greater resources to make things happen, and consumers/employees let them run away with this power. The result is that, between companies, the larger tends to have a disproportionate advantage. Between employees/employers, it's the employers, and between consumers/retailers, it's often the retailers.
So yes, we let ourselves be bullied, but you'd better be careful, clever, or lucky if you want to be the one to stand up to these bullies.
...and they're more likely to become pervasive if people get used to the idea, which is likely to happen if a lot companies start requiring them. These sorts of things start slowly, and the first step is forcing some set of people to use these devices.
Something like this, it's easy enough to say, "well, you could get another job", but the question is, what if this becomes the new dumb security fad, and 90% of the companies offering decent jobs suddenly require this.
What's really scary is that, apparently, people's lives seem pointless and repetitive in comparison to a MMOG.
it's all hype until they don't deliver, and then it's anti-hype.
You're right. The quote shows the author to be naive/uninformed:
I don't hate Windows Vista, and I certainly don't hate Microsoft for disappointing me and countless other customers with a product that doesn't even come close to meeting its original promises. I'm sure the company learned something from this debacle, and hopefully it will be more open and honest about what it can and cannot do in the future
This has always been Microsoft's MO. Late and with most of the intended features dropped out. They promise the world when they start development, but the new versions of their software tend to be the old version with a few tweaks, updates, fixes, a new skin, and all the controls in different places.
well, given that dapper drake got pushed back to 06-06, the next version may well be 7.01.
What's the difference? The people making Fedora intend for it to be stable. It's just driven more by the needs/desires of a community of users. RedHat can then cherry-pick the changes that they like to build a standardized business product.
I question the whole meaning of this. "Most modern"? What the hell does that mean? Modern generally has two uses, as far as I hear people using it: either a time period that existed roughly 50 years ago, or "current". So either their management style is from 50 years ago, or... it's current. None of that tells us whether it's good. It's probably just bad writing, and they probably mean "advanced", but even that doesn't tell us whether it will be good and useful and successful, or if it will just be a fad that we laugh at 3 years from now.
I guess I'm still missing your point. That if I stop upgrading the OS, Apple will be out a couple hundred dollars? Microsoft is also going to miss out on hundreds of dollars if I don't upgrade, but at least Apple has a successful hardware line that will continue to generate money. Microsoft's big cash cows are Windows and Office, and so they have much more to lose by users failing to purchase software upgrades.
It's like when people look to compare Mac minis to Dell Dimensions, and they note that the Dells are cheaper for the same stats... but then you have to look at the form factor. The closest thing Dell offers is the Ultra-small form factor Optiplexes, which are still bigger than the Mac minis. Suddenly, the minis don't look that expensive.
Incidently, I have bought 2 OS X upgrades in the past couple years, totaling $260. Both times, I was COMPLETELY satisfied that I'd gotten my money's worth. When 10.5 comes out in a few months, I'll happily pay another $130, and be glad that I'm paying another $130 for a great, new, innovative OS rather than $300 for the years-old hunk o'junk that is Windows XP Pro.
Actually, my impression was that curtain mode was using the fast-user-switching sort of functionality to be able to log in and work while the user is logged in and working without interfering with each other's session. At least, I hope so, because that would be really useful.
Come on - Microsoft is vulnerable
uh... you're implying that Apple should switch to Microsoft's business model because of Microsoft's success, and then immediately point out that Microsoft is having problems?
Part of the problem with Microsoft is their business model, you know. Microsoft has created a situation where their biggest competitor is older versions of their own software, and they can't exercise direct control over the hardware platform their software runs on. Both of these factors have hindered Their ability to innovate, and contributed to this mess that they find themselves in.
I'm not claiming it's as simple as that, but I certainly don't think Apple should try to turn itself into Microsoft.
Maybe... Maybe some people will buy Macs just to run Windows, and maybe some people will dual-boot, but what I think is more likely to be the dominant effect of Boot Camp is that it will reduce risk for the casual "switcher". If I'd never run OSX and wasn't absolutely sure that I'd like it, I can now know that I can fall back on running Windows if need be.
I know lots of people who've heard of Apple and vaguely know what a Macintosh is, but have no idea what "OS X" is.
I think to some degree, the intention here is to spread some anti-FUD. The purpose isn't really to prove the Apple notebooks are significantly superior hardware in any way-- it's good hardware, but generally it uses the same components as other laptops. But there's a general conception that gets spread around that Apple is somehow incompetent and making sub-standard products. You know, those trolls with a 2 MB file taking 20 hours to transfer?
Anyway, the real point is that they're pretty much as good performers as any of these new Dual Core laptops, but with sleak designs, nice features, and the ability to run OSX. This is the first meaningful opportunity to benchmark Apple hardware vs. Dell (or whoever), and the point is that no, the Apple hardware does not somehow suck for being Apple.