> Just as well. I love my iPod dearly, but I never forget that it's not a hi-fi system, no matter what snazzy device > I plug it into. The dorks at Apple probably only listen to Titney Spears or Celine Dion [shudder] so they would > never notice that the sound quality isn't up to scratch for real music in the living-room.
If you encode your CD's as MPEG-4 Apple Lossless then the bitstream that is played for you by the iPod will be exactly the same as the CD. When you consider the iPod can't skip and the music can't be scratched you will generally get better sound than a CD player, even a really good one. If a CD player can't read some bits of audio due to a scratch or dirt or vibration then it just makes that data up, which lowers the sound quality. And of course a skip lowers the sound quality significantly. And with the iPod you have fewer cables to lose sound quality over as well. A lot of little things add up so that playing an Apple Lossless file made from a new CD on an iPod is really surprisingly good hi-fi. What you're getting out of the audio output is surprisingly good and surprisingly consistent audio. Even if you use a lossy format like MP3 or AAC you are still better than cassette of course (the previous portable format) or a skipping CD.
As for the "iPod Hi-Fi" speakers... it is just a boom box. I don't think Apple thinks they are rocking the tech world with this. However, many people are plugging their iPods into either computer speakers (replacing a computer essentially) or a home stereo (replacing a CD player) and in many cases they are better off with a single rugged box filled with speakers and with an iPod dock on top of it. When you compare it to an old-style boom box filled with cassette, CD, many controls... the iPod Hi-Fi sure packs a lot of speaker in there. When you compare it to a high-end $10,000 stereo system, yeah it leaves something to be desired, but when you compare it to what people are actually buying and using in their living rooms it is probably as-good sound quality, dollar for dollar, with much more convenience.
If you think about it, that is the value proposition of the iPod also. About the same sound as your CD players and cassette decks, but only much more convenient due to small size, battery life, and the fact that all the music is just THERE and doesn't have to be loaded at play time. The iPod was also called "over-hyped" and "not innovative" for a year or two until all the other MP3 players disappeared from the market for being either too small in storage or too hard to use in interface or both. Then suddenly the iPod was a magical product even though it lacked the bulit-in jet pack that some people apparently wanted.
This would all be fine except that you still end up working like a dog from 9-6 in addition to being on call at weird hours of the day. It's not like suddenly you're liberated from the workhouse.
This writer ought to be ashamed of himself. You can just use your own two eyes and look around and see people working harder than ever for less real money, taking on extra work here and there. You can see many geeks doing amazing things with technology, but there are many more people who just get into trouble with it.
I have a client who pulls out her cell phone every time she has a brain fart and calls me up to tell me about it. How do you measure that productivity?
Tech companies keep cash on hand rather than inventory.
Computers are time-sensitive. You don't make 1000 computers in January and store them until March. Instead you bank the cash in January and make the computers in March after they are already sold. It's all the just-in-time inventory and supply chain stuff taken to a ridiculous degree.
Then you add the uncertainty and ups and downs of the technology industry and the need to aquire other companies and technologies in order to grow and there are many reasons to have cash on hand.
Microsoft is the king of this. They have the most cash stored of any company ever in the history of the world.
The iPod is really great but it is a paperweight if you don't plug it into a Mac at some point and put some music on it. Also, if you want to make your own music, there is nothing better than a Mac at the heart of your studio.
A camcorder is highly specialized, has a lens and microphone and makes and stores movie clips. If you hook it up to a Mac you can edit the clips and create an actual movie. You can turn the movie into a DVD. You can put the movie on the Web.
The wireless phone is great but I get a new one every year and that whole process is much easier since the phones started having Bluetooth in them, meaning they could automatically get all my phone numbers from where they are centrally stored which is on my Mac.
The more specialized devices I get the more I need that main full-featured computer, actually two since I have a notebook also. What's more, I'm more likely to buy a Mac mini and an HDTV these days instead of TV, DVD, CD, DVR, etc. so there is a case of a small full-featured computer taking the place of a specialized device.
To say that a format may be obsolete in the future means nothing because this is true of all formats. However the audio format that Apple uses in the iTunes Music Store is a) less likely to be obsolete than competing formats, b) can easily be converted to plain audio CD just by burning the playlist to a CD in iTunes. That is so far from a Microsoft-style vendor lock-in that it's crazy to knock it. Not just crazy, it's suspicious crazy. Like spreading FUD crazy.
If you compare iTunes MPEG-4 to the previous portable formats (MP3, Compact Cassette, 8-Track) then iTunes comes out looking better in every way. Hence the success. On the other hand, Microsoft has not shipped anything to do with music that is better than plain-Jane MP3. Where's the beef?
In 1995 you could buy a music album on CD or on Compact Cassette. If you bought it on cassette you could listen more readily with a car or portable music player, but the cassette would wear out fairly quickly and the music that's on there is not going to make it to another format.
In 2005 you could buy a music album on CD or in iTunes. Again the reason you choose the non-CD format is for portability, but now the portable format is more durable (MPEG-4 AAC backed up to DVD), sounds better, and can be burned to standard audio CD as well. Once it is a CD you can turn it into anything else you want, of course.
There is a legitimate issue in the music industry with people being asked to buy every Led Zeppelin album again and again. However, this issue is not specific to iTunes. In fact, the case could easily be made that iTunes and MP3 are a step forward from past formats because MPEG-4 AAC and MP3 can be turned into CD's and back again.
A legitimate license for Mac OS X comes with a Mac. The retail boxes are upgrades for licensed versions only... they are $129 compared to Windows XP Pro at $300. You can't get a license to run Mac OS on your Dell. Truth is, you should run Linux on that Dell. Use it for Apache and email and all the other stuff it's good for, and get a Mac if you want to do the stuff the Mac is good at, which is anything to do with digital media.
Even if you want Mac OS for generic hardware, isn't it a bit much to expect it ALREADY? Consider the years it has taken Microsoft to get Windows running this poorly on generic hardware. Apple announced a processor switch for the platform six months ago.There are no code keys or authorizations or product activation in Mac OS X. It would be a drag to see that change.
Intel's new firmware is called EFI. It fills the same function in Intel-based Macs that OpenFirmware fills in PowerPC-based Macs.
In order to boot legacy operating systems that rely on BIOS (such as Windows 2000, Windows XP) there is a feature of EFI that enables it to emulate BIOS. Apple took this feature out of their EFI implementation. That is why nobody can get Windows XP running on the Intel Macs. Some say that Vista will work because it supports EFI but apparently it is not that simple due to different versions of EFI and the timing of the Vista release. Probably the first versions of Vista will require BIOS.
So... if Apple is planning to run MS Windows on the new Intel-based Macs they are sure going about it in a strange way by making systems that can't even run Windows at all.
And... if Apple is planning to run MS Windows on the Mac then they sure are going to a lot of trouble to create BOTH Mac OS X (PowerPC) and Mac OS X (Intel) and also Server versions, not to mention Mac-only applications. For example a few years ago they bought Emagic and canned Logic for Windows and gave hardware rebates to the Windows using customers. Now two versions later what are they going to do, port the Mac OS X version to Windows? Ha ha Microsoft will have to build some pro audio plumbing first (compare to Apple's CoreAudio, CoreMIDI, AudioUnits.)
And... Apple is going to a lot of trouble to prevent people from running Mac OS X (Intel) on generic Intel hardware for a company that is about to abandon Mac OS X.
It is hard for Dvorak and other PC bigots to face the fact that they ran MS Windows on promises for 10 years and for their trouble they are hip-deep in crapware and watching helplessly as Apple proves itself right.
Oh, please Mac trolls do not play with the GHz numbers using some ad hoc math you're doing in your head.
Intel's follow-up to the Pentium4 4.13 GHz is the Core Duo 2.13 GHz and the Core Duo is of course faster. I think that puts the clock speed equals performance argument firmly to rest for all time.
The weird thing lately is that the PowerPC got big and hot and the Intel chips got small and low-power. What the fuck happened? It's a credit to Apple that they were ready to switch and that they switched, staying on the small and low-power side of the fence even as IBM and Intel traded sides. The newest G5 model is another 100w chip while in the Intel-based iMac apparently runs cooler than its G5 predecessor.
All of the above means that trolls have to update their repetoire. Macs now ship with multiple mouse buttons and x86 instruction sets and people still want to run Windows on their. Microsoft junkies. Please billg may I have another?
A few years ago it was common for a person with a Mac OS 9 computer to purchase a Mac OS X system and there is this scary moment when you first do that when you realize you have zero third-party software, that all of your third-party software is for the previous system. And all of your documents and work depend to some degree on that software. However, Mac OS X (PowerPC) includes an application called Classic that can run Mac OS 9 and its applications. It is basically a Mac emulator that uses the real PowerPC processor so it runs the system and applications at about 90% of native speed. So you ran your old Mac OS 9 apps in Classic on Mac OS X while you slowly transitioned to Mac OS X native applications (Carbon and Cocoa). The old apps looked like they always did, with their distinctive Mac OS 9 -style windows, but you could cut and paste between Classic and non-Classic apps, and you could make sure you had your calendar imported into a new calendaring app before you retired your old calendar app. You didn't have to switch overnight. Took me about a year. Not having to rush makes a big difference.
Now Mac OS X (Intel) has Rosetta to run Carbon and Cocoa applications that are compiled for PowerPC. Obviously that is a bridge until all Mac apps have both Intel and PowerPC binaries inside of them. And Apple already announced that you won't be able to run Mac OS 9 apps on Mac OS X (Intel) to nobody's surprise. But wouldn't it be interesting if Apple shipped a Classic-like application for Mac OS X (Intel) that could run MS Windows and its applications? It would be basically a PC emulator (common technology) except it could use the real Intel processor so that the Windows system and applications run at 90% of full speed. In fact it would probably work better than Classic because where Classic really showed its seams was the single menubar of the Mac platform because when you switched between a Classic and non-Classic app the menubar changes subtly. On MS Windows you can easily contain each app and its menus in a single window, and the menubar could show some menus for the Classic-like environment that is running the Windows system.
It probably sounds far out to a Windows user, but if you've used Classic on a PowerPC Mac, one of the first things you notice is that the Mac OS 9 system and applications are just sitting there on the disk minding their own business without any knowledge of Mac OS X or Classic. When they are running on Mac OS X, they "think" they are running natively on their own Mac. In fact, it was a feature that you could boot the machine in Mac OS 9 if you wanted to. So Apple doesn't have to ship MS Windows, or do a WINE thing where you're replacing parts of it. The MS Windows comes off a PC hard disk and thinks its running on its own PC. A new Mac Intel user just puts their old disk in a FireWire enclosure and hooks it onto their Mac and runs their old apps whenever they need to.
Someone will want to say that once Windows apps run on Mac OS X then Mac developers are screwed. No. For one thing, the Mac application platform is better... even if the two apps are feature-identical, it is better to run the Mac version for security reasons if nothing else, or for consistent key shortcuts, or the more sophisticated clipboard. Mac apps are great (if not they wouldn't get ported to Windows so often hello Photoshop and Word and Excel). Secondly, you limit it to 32-bit "legacy" Windows, probably just MS Windows 2000 and MS Windows XP. Finally, Classic didn't try to make the non-native Mac OS 9 apps appear to be native and neither would the Intel equivalent. Windows apps that are running on Mac OS X (Intel) would still look like Windows apps, with their distinctive windows and fonts and everything else because they are literally, actually, running in Windows. Users have shown that they prefer the modern apps when they run old and new side-by-side. The new stuff runs better, faster, feels better, and has modern features like Unicode and Bonjour. Developers can easily give the user reas
In the first place, your iMac already has CD/DVD burner, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Gigabit Ethernet, FireWire, USB2, digital out for a second display or TV, 24-bit digital audio, a Webcam, and a media remote. It is easy to add USB and FireWire peripherals of every description by just hot-plugging them on. USB peripherals first appeared in the iMac's distinctive transparent blue plastic... they are not unique to MS Windows. And I have specialized stuff, too, like Wacom tablet and MOTU FireWire pro audio and there are stable Mac drivers that are easy to install. Printers, scanners, digital cameras, camcorders all just work.
In the second place, THERE ARE NO DRIVERS FOR 64-BIT WINDOWS. The 32-bit drivers have all kinds of technical problems and are not coming forward. The move to 64-bit on the Windows platform is going to be messy and there will be a great culling of various hardware. When you look ahead to a couple of years from now, Apple is way, way, way out front in the next-generation driver race. You can plug all kinds of things into a 64-bit G5 Mac today and it works. The driver architecture is object-oriented and mature and stable. Microsoft's 64-bit Windows is the first version where they've jettisoned some cruft and you can call it a next-generation system and it is way behind Mac OS X.
Finally, if you consider the Dvorak article again but ask yourself whether it is more likely to be the other way around: Microsoft switching to Mac OS X, or Dell-HP-et-al switching to Mac OS X. It is a year until Windows Vista and that is just XP II. Think of the work that has to be done to MS Windows regarding security (they are only just adopting user accounts now in Vista), reliability, stability, anti-malware, 64-bit (including 64-bit drivers), and on and on. All to recreate Mac OS X that's available today?
Also, the application platform is about 1000x better. Standardized menus, key commands, sophisticated clipboard, QuickTime in and out, 32-bit multichannel audio, modern audio plug-ins, modern graphics plug-ins, modern video plug-ins. None of this is available on MS Windows.
Plus, all the UNIX software such as Apache is indispensible if you are a Web developer or similar.
There are 1000 myths about why the Mac is better and 1000 reasons why it is better and none of them overlap. A while back Scott Hacker was a BeOS advocate and then he got a Mac and on the first day he moved all his MP3's to some other file system location and he was surprised that iTunes still knew where they were. That is because of HFS+ tracking files by an ID number, not just by name or path. That kind of quiet feature is what makes the Mac so much easier.
Just a few weeks ago, Steve Jobs told Fortune or Business Week (or similar business mag) that if Microsoft wanted success in digital music then they were going to have to build their own iPod. He went out of his way to contrast the software/hardware integration philosophies of Microsoft and Apple and gave many reasons why Apple's way of doing things is better. Why would Steve make a fool of himself that way if there is a secret "we're switching to Windows" announcement coming?
In Dvorak's world, Steve Jobs would have sat down with the business press recently and told them the problem with the iPod and Mac is that the hardware is OK but if we could just get some of that great Microsoft software on there then we'd really be cooking. Once we get Pocket Windows running on the iPod why then you'll be able to look at your Excel spreadsheets while you listen to music. Who wouldn't want that after all?
Apple said a long time ago that they wouldn't stop people from running MS Windows on their Mac. Same as Linux in the past. Do what you want with your box.
What Dvorak is saying is that Apple will start selling and promoting MS Windows over Mac OS X which makes no sense. It is actually kind of sad because it shows Dvorak doesn't get Mac OS X. I don't know how you can look at it and not get it if you have any kind of technical acumen at all but apparently that is what happens with him. He complains about Microsoft also which is sort of weird. He's like "how come it's so hard to edit my photos" and it is like watching someone nail their own foot to the floor.
It would surprise me if the MS Windows Vista disc doesn't run on Intel Macs. Some people will dual boot, no doubt. I think Apple will give them some sort of alternative to dual-booting, though. A way to easily run your Windows apps while still running Mac OS X. Then the apps go head to head... you have the Win32 application platform running next to Cocoa and Carbon and BSD and X-Windows and when you do that it is obvious how much better the Mac apps are. Even Adobe apps which are generally the same feature-wise are much better in Carbon than Win32.
> But I'm getting sidetracked by Dvorak, here, because the iPod not having FireWire is completely, > utterly unrelated to any discussion about whether or not Apple might be switching to Windows.
The iPod Dock connector is smaller than FireWire and contains an analog audio out and other functionality that is beyond FireWire, which is at least two reasons to switch the iPod from plain FireWire to Dock connector that don't involve specious Mac vs. PC reasoning. I don't know why people want to pit USB vs. FireWire when many PC's are still shipping with serial ports and parallel ports.
> Dvorak is also actually missing the biggest play for Apple here: being able to run Windows > and other x86 OSes in virtualization.
This is exactly right because Mac OS X is a much more solid platform than MS Windows and arguably anything else available for consumer and desktop use.
What's to prevent Apple from creating a "Classic" for Mac OS X (Intel) that runs MS Windows XP instead of Mac OS 9? If you could buy an Intel Mac and still run all your MS Windows programs right in Aqua while you transition to Cocoa and Carbon apps. Apple just finished transitioning the Mac OS 9 application platform and user base to Mac OS X (PowerPC) so what's to prevent them from doing the same and transition MS Windows XP application platform and user base to Mac OS X (Intel)?
There is a whole range of options here, from a basic DOS box through to a Classic-like Windows apps running in Aqua.
I ran VirtualPC for a while a few years ago. MS Windows in a box on another system is better than MS Windows taking up a whole PC. It's the only way to run Windows apps without a virus being able to take out your system.
Steve Jobs said the reason he came back to Apple was that he "didn't want to run Windows for the rest of my life."
Why bother with Mac OS X for Intel in that case? Why wouldn't they just do the Intel shift along with a Vista release? In other words, if Apple were going to do this they would be shipping iMacs with Intel Core Duo and MS Windows Vista. There is no need to do Mac OS X for Intel at all... just keep cranking out PowerPC hardware until the middle of 2006 then ship Intel with Vista.
Not to mention, why bother solving all these really hard OS problems that Apple solved over the last few years just to go to MS Windows which still has all those problems and many more?
This is a poor article even for Dvorak. It's not even logical.
I couldn't agree more that we are not moving towards every person carrying one multi-purpose device for the same reason that we're not all moving towards using just one software application on our personal computers.
I would rather buy one iPod nano for $149 and one plain phone for $149 than a $300 multi-purpose music-playing phone. Then I can swap the phone for a new one to get a new phone service provider and I don't have to worry about listening to music draining a battery I might need for a phone call later. Then I can get into a car and plug my iPod into the stereo without affecting the use of my phone in any way. I can drop the iPod and not break my phone and vice versa. I can strap the tiny iPod nano to my arm while I workout and the phone can stay in my locker. Compare to the guy next to me wearing a Trio on a utility belt.
You can't ignore how perfect the iPod nano is... it's not possible to replace an iPod nano with a software MP3 player included as an add-on in a phone. Apple is selling 1 GB nanos for $149, how can a phone company compete with that? Just adding 1 GB of storage to a phone costs $100 and you haven't yet added the music player, iTunes stuff, long battery life, headphones, accessories, armbands, etc. of the iPod. That is why the ROKR sucks so bad... Motorola was unwilling to double the price of the phone just to give the music player enough memory to be useful. You are better to buy a plain Motorola phone and an iPod nano and that option is cheaper too.
> I have no problems listening to music on [my T650 with 1 GB SD card and accessory headphones].
A 1 GB iPod nano costs $149 including headphones and saves wear and tear on your T650. By the time you do third-party headphones, SD card, SD card reader you are going a good part of the ways towards an iPod nano and you are still wearing out your T650's parts and batteries just to play music.
The smartphone idea is exactly opposite to what Apple does and is doing. If there is an Apple phone it will be a phone and that's all. It will be a dumb phone. That will be why it will be so easy to use and people will love them. Compare the Apple Remote with six buttons to the MS Windows Media Center Remote with a hundred buttons. Most people have trouble with the complexity of their wireless phones and would welcome a handset that is iPod-easy.
Given that the technology exists to make a music player like the iPod nano, and additionally to make a simple phone of a similar size, why bolt the two together at the end of the day?
Once upon a time Steve Jobs tried to buy Palm for Apple but it was in 1997.
Keeping your calendar is one thing you can do with a handheld computer, but it isn't the most exciting thing. Certainly, you wouldn't trade music and TV shows and other media distribution and playback for calendars. The handheld software platform that Apple features and promotes is MPEG-4. The development platform is this thing called "Mac".
In 2006, if you want miniature software applications you get a Web browser and Wi-Fi, not the whole Palm application platform. Is there really anything you can do in a Palm application that you can't do with a Web browser and Wi-Fi? These little operating systems crashing on handhelds is not the way to do it.
I bet you most everybody who works at Palm has an iPod but hardly anyone at Apple uses a Palm.
Intel's next-generation CPU family includes ultra-low-power models that could be used to design a handheld that runs Mac OS X.
It's true Apple is all about the quality of the final product, not empire-building or playing monopoly. If Steve Jobs is using a Treo and likes it then that is much more likely to lead to Apple buying Palm than any kind of business analysis that declares that there's money to be made in some market sector.
Apple is king of the handheld right now, even if does not include phones and PDA's. There is a big iPod vending machine at Macy's in SF and NYC and probably other places... you put in your debit or credit card and choose your iPod like an automat. Apple Stores now have a little iPod desk where if all you want is an iPod you go in and say "black iPod nano 4 GB" and hand them your credit card and you're out of there in seconds with your iPod. Everybody wants one and it is because the product is good. There is a feeling that people will buy anything if you design it and style it like the iPod nano. We're waiting to see what Apple will come up with next and it would be surprising to see them bring Palm into that ecosystem.
Notice the comparison Steve Jobs made recently between the Windows Media Center remote control and the Apple Remote. The Windows remote looks like a typical Sony or JVC universal TV remote, festooned with buttons and labels and context switches, while the Apple remote is six buttons that activate menus on the screen so that you're making the choices on the screen not the remote. If Apple were to release a phone or PDA, I think you would have to be able to make that same comparison between the Apple phone and other phones. The Apple phone would have a keypad and some way of storing your phone numbers (retrieved over Bluetooth from iSync) and that would be it. It would be small and light and rugged and easy to use and nobody will ask for their iPhone and iPod to be in the same device because they will so obviously each be fulfilling their own best function in the ideal way.
The other approach is the "soft iPod"... where Apple makes a more powerful handheld, with a large touchscreen filing the front and if you set it on iPod then the screen shows an iPod, complete with touchwheel and "iPod display", but if you set it on phone then a phone appears on screen, in full color, all touchable.
Phone-wise, Apple doesn't need the Palm name. If they release something called "iPhone" and it is as simple to use as the iPod then it will explain itself.
Slashdot Mirror
> Just as well. I love my iPod dearly, but I never forget that it's not a hi-fi system, no matter what snazzy device
... it is just a boom box. I don't think Apple thinks they are rocking the tech world with this. However, many people are plugging their iPods into either computer speakers (replacing a computer essentially) or a home stereo (replacing a CD player) and in many cases they are better off with a single rugged box filled with speakers and with an iPod dock on top of it. When you compare it to an old-style boom box filled with cassette, CD, many controls ... the iPod Hi-Fi sure packs a lot of speaker in there. When you compare it to a high-end $10,000 stereo system, yeah it leaves something to be desired, but when you compare it to what people are actually buying and using in their living rooms it is probably as-good sound quality, dollar for dollar, with much more convenience.
> I plug it into. The dorks at Apple probably only listen to Titney Spears or Celine Dion [shudder] so they would
> never notice that the sound quality isn't up to scratch for real music in the living-room.
If you encode your CD's as MPEG-4 Apple Lossless then the bitstream that is played for you by the iPod will be exactly the same as the CD. When you consider the iPod can't skip and the music can't be scratched you will generally get better sound than a CD player, even a really good one. If a CD player can't read some bits of audio due to a scratch or dirt or vibration then it just makes that data up, which lowers the sound quality. And of course a skip lowers the sound quality significantly. And with the iPod you have fewer cables to lose sound quality over as well. A lot of little things add up so that playing an Apple Lossless file made from a new CD on an iPod is really surprisingly good hi-fi. What you're getting out of the audio output is surprisingly good and surprisingly consistent audio. Even if you use a lossy format like MP3 or AAC you are still better than cassette of course (the previous portable format) or a skipping CD.
As for the "iPod Hi-Fi" speakers
If you think about it, that is the value proposition of the iPod also. About the same sound as your CD players and cassette decks, but only much more convenient due to small size, battery life, and the fact that all the music is just THERE and doesn't have to be loaded at play time. The iPod was also called "over-hyped" and "not innovative" for a year or two until all the other MP3 players disappeared from the market for being either too small in storage or too hard to use in interface or both. Then suddenly the iPod was a magical product even though it lacked the bulit-in jet pack that some people apparently wanted.
This would all be fine except that you still end up working like a dog from 9-6 in addition to being on call at weird hours of the day. It's not like suddenly you're liberated from the workhouse.
This writer ought to be ashamed of himself. You can just use your own two eyes and look around and see people working harder than ever for less real money, taking on extra work here and there. You can see many geeks doing amazing things with technology, but there are many more people who just get into trouble with it.
I have a client who pulls out her cell phone every time she has a brain fart and calls me up to tell me about it. How do you measure that productivity?
Tech companies keep cash on hand rather than inventory.
Computers are time-sensitive. You don't make 1000 computers in January and store them until March. Instead you bank the cash in January and make the computers in March after they are already sold. It's all the just-in-time inventory and supply chain stuff taken to a ridiculous degree.
Then you add the uncertainty and ups and downs of the technology industry and the need to aquire other companies and technologies in order to grow and there are many reasons to have cash on hand.
Microsoft is the king of this. They have the most cash stored of any company ever in the history of the world.
The iPod is really great but it is a paperweight if you don't plug it into a Mac at some point and put some music on it. Also, if you want to make your own music, there is nothing better than a Mac at the heart of your studio.
A camcorder is highly specialized, has a lens and microphone and makes and stores movie clips. If you hook it up to a Mac you can edit the clips and create an actual movie. You can turn the movie into a DVD. You can put the movie on the Web.
The wireless phone is great but I get a new one every year and that whole process is much easier since the phones started having Bluetooth in them, meaning they could automatically get all my phone numbers from where they are centrally stored which is on my Mac.
The more specialized devices I get the more I need that main full-featured computer, actually two since I have a notebook also. What's more, I'm more likely to buy a Mac mini and an HDTV these days instead of TV, DVD, CD, DVR, etc. so there is a case of a small full-featured computer taking the place of a specialized device.
To say that a format may be obsolete in the future means nothing because this is true of all formats. However the audio format that Apple uses in the iTunes Music Store is a) less likely to be obsolete than competing formats, b) can easily be converted to plain audio CD just by burning the playlist to a CD in iTunes. That is so far from a Microsoft-style vendor lock-in that it's crazy to knock it. Not just crazy, it's suspicious crazy. Like spreading FUD crazy.
If you compare iTunes MPEG-4 to the previous portable formats (MP3, Compact Cassette, 8-Track) then iTunes comes out looking better in every way. Hence the success. On the other hand, Microsoft has not shipped anything to do with music that is better than plain-Jane MP3. Where's the beef?
In 1995 you could buy a music album on CD or on Compact Cassette. If you bought it on cassette you could listen more readily with a car or portable music player, but the cassette would wear out fairly quickly and the music that's on there is not going to make it to another format.
In 2005 you could buy a music album on CD or in iTunes. Again the reason you choose the non-CD format is for portability, but now the portable format is more durable (MPEG-4 AAC backed up to DVD), sounds better, and can be burned to standard audio CD as well. Once it is a CD you can turn it into anything else you want, of course.
There is a legitimate issue in the music industry with people being asked to buy every Led Zeppelin album again and again. However, this issue is not specific to iTunes. In fact, the case could easily be made that iTunes and MP3 are a step forward from past formats because MPEG-4 AAC and MP3 can be turned into CD's and back again.
A legitimate license for Mac OS X comes with a Mac. The retail boxes are upgrades for licensed versions only ... they are $129 compared to Windows XP Pro at $300. You can't get a license to run Mac OS on your Dell. Truth is, you should run Linux on that Dell. Use it for Apache and email and all the other stuff it's good for, and get a Mac if you want to do the stuff the Mac is good at, which is anything to do with digital media.
Even if you want Mac OS for generic hardware, isn't it a bit much to expect it ALREADY? Consider the years it has taken Microsoft to get Windows running this poorly on generic hardware. Apple announced a processor switch for the platform six months ago.There are no code keys or authorizations or product activation in Mac OS X. It would be a drag to see that change.
Intel's new firmware is called EFI. It fills the same function in Intel-based Macs that OpenFirmware fills in PowerPC-based Macs.
In order to boot legacy operating systems that rely on BIOS (such as Windows 2000, Windows XP) there is a feature of EFI that enables it to emulate BIOS. Apple took this feature out of their EFI implementation. That is why nobody can get Windows XP running on the Intel Macs. Some say that Vista will work because it supports EFI but apparently it is not that simple due to different versions of EFI and the timing of the Vista release. Probably the first versions of Vista will require BIOS.
Refer to this article:
Why XP Will Never Officially Work On The Mac
So ... if Apple is planning to run MS Windows on the new Intel-based Macs they are sure going about it in a strange way by making systems that can't even run Windows at all.
And ... if Apple is planning to run MS Windows on the Mac then they sure are going to a lot of trouble to create BOTH Mac OS X (PowerPC) and Mac OS X (Intel) and also Server versions, not to mention Mac-only applications. For example a few years ago they bought Emagic and canned Logic for Windows and gave hardware rebates to the Windows using customers. Now two versions later what are they going to do, port the Mac OS X version to Windows? Ha ha Microsoft will have to build some pro audio plumbing first (compare to Apple's CoreAudio, CoreMIDI, AudioUnits.)
And ... Apple is going to a lot of trouble to prevent people from running Mac OS X (Intel) on generic Intel hardware for a company that is about to abandon Mac OS X.
It is hard for Dvorak and other PC bigots to face the fact that they ran MS Windows on promises for 10 years and for their trouble they are hip-deep in crapware and watching helplessly as Apple proves itself right.
Oh, please Mac trolls do not play with the GHz numbers using some ad hoc math you're doing in your head.
Intel's follow-up to the Pentium4 4.13 GHz is the Core Duo 2.13 GHz and the Core Duo is of course faster. I think that puts the clock speed equals performance argument firmly to rest for all time.
The weird thing lately is that the PowerPC got big and hot and the Intel chips got small and low-power. What the fuck happened? It's a credit to Apple that they were ready to switch and that they switched, staying on the small and low-power side of the fence even as IBM and Intel traded sides. The newest G5 model is another 100w chip while in the Intel-based iMac apparently runs cooler than its G5 predecessor.
All of the above means that trolls have to update their repetoire. Macs now ship with multiple mouse buttons and x86 instruction sets and people still want to run Windows on their. Microsoft junkies. Please billg may I have another?
A few years ago it was common for a person with a Mac OS 9 computer to purchase a Mac OS X system and there is this scary moment when you first do that when you realize you have zero third-party software, that all of your third-party software is for the previous system. And all of your documents and work depend to some degree on that software. However, Mac OS X (PowerPC) includes an application called Classic that can run Mac OS 9 and its applications. It is basically a Mac emulator that uses the real PowerPC processor so it runs the system and applications at about 90% of native speed. So you ran your old Mac OS 9 apps in Classic on Mac OS X while you slowly transitioned to Mac OS X native applications (Carbon and Cocoa). The old apps looked like they always did, with their distinctive Mac OS 9 -style windows, but you could cut and paste between Classic and non-Classic apps, and you could make sure you had your calendar imported into a new calendaring app before you retired your old calendar app. You didn't have to switch overnight. Took me about a year. Not having to rush makes a big difference.
... even if the two apps are feature-identical, it is better to run the Mac version for security reasons if nothing else, or for consistent key shortcuts, or the more sophisticated clipboard. Mac apps are great (if not they wouldn't get ported to Windows so often hello Photoshop and Word and Excel). Secondly, you limit it to 32-bit "legacy" Windows, probably just MS Windows 2000 and MS Windows XP. Finally, Classic didn't try to make the non-native Mac OS 9 apps appear to be native and neither would the Intel equivalent. Windows apps that are running on Mac OS X (Intel) would still look like Windows apps, with their distinctive windows and fonts and everything else because they are literally, actually, running in Windows. Users have shown that they prefer the modern apps when they run old and new side-by-side. The new stuff runs better, faster, feels better, and has modern features like Unicode and Bonjour. Developers can easily give the user reas
Now Mac OS X (Intel) has Rosetta to run Carbon and Cocoa applications that are compiled for PowerPC. Obviously that is a bridge until all Mac apps have both Intel and PowerPC binaries inside of them. And Apple already announced that you won't be able to run Mac OS 9 apps on Mac OS X (Intel) to nobody's surprise. But wouldn't it be interesting if Apple shipped a Classic-like application for Mac OS X (Intel) that could run MS Windows and its applications? It would be basically a PC emulator (common technology) except it could use the real Intel processor so that the Windows system and applications run at 90% of full speed. In fact it would probably work better than Classic because where Classic really showed its seams was the single menubar of the Mac platform because when you switched between a Classic and non-Classic app the menubar changes subtly. On MS Windows you can easily contain each app and its menus in a single window, and the menubar could show some menus for the Classic-like environment that is running the Windows system.
It probably sounds far out to a Windows user, but if you've used Classic on a PowerPC Mac, one of the first things you notice is that the Mac OS 9 system and applications are just sitting there on the disk minding their own business without any knowledge of Mac OS X or Classic. When they are running on Mac OS X, they "think" they are running natively on their own Mac. In fact, it was a feature that you could boot the machine in Mac OS 9 if you wanted to. So Apple doesn't have to ship MS Windows, or do a WINE thing where you're replacing parts of it. The MS Windows comes off a PC hard disk and thinks its running on its own PC. A new Mac Intel user just puts their old disk in a FireWire enclosure and hooks it onto their Mac and runs their old apps whenever they need to.
Someone will want to say that once Windows apps run on Mac OS X then Mac developers are screwed. No. For one thing, the Mac application platform is better
Apple is going to switch to Windows for drivers?
... they are not unique to MS Windows. And I have specialized stuff, too, like Wacom tablet and MOTU FireWire pro audio and there are stable Mac drivers that are easy to install. Printers, scanners, digital cameras, camcorders all just work.
In the first place, your iMac already has CD/DVD burner, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Gigabit Ethernet, FireWire, USB2, digital out for a second display or TV, 24-bit digital audio, a Webcam, and a media remote. It is easy to add USB and FireWire peripherals of every description by just hot-plugging them on. USB peripherals first appeared in the iMac's distinctive transparent blue plastic
In the second place, THERE ARE NO DRIVERS FOR 64-BIT WINDOWS. The 32-bit drivers have all kinds of technical problems and are not coming forward. The move to 64-bit on the Windows platform is going to be messy and there will be a great culling of various hardware. When you look ahead to a couple of years from now, Apple is way, way, way out front in the next-generation driver race. You can plug all kinds of things into a 64-bit G5 Mac today and it works. The driver architecture is object-oriented and mature and stable. Microsoft's 64-bit Windows is the first version where they've jettisoned some cruft and you can call it a next-generation system and it is way behind Mac OS X.
Finally, if you consider the Dvorak article again but ask yourself whether it is more likely to be the other way around: Microsoft switching to Mac OS X, or Dell-HP-et-al switching to Mac OS X. It is a year until Windows Vista and that is just XP II. Think of the work that has to be done to MS Windows regarding security (they are only just adopting user accounts now in Vista), reliability, stability, anti-malware, 64-bit (including 64-bit drivers), and on and on. All to recreate Mac OS X that's available today?
No viruses is not a luxury.
Also, the application platform is about 1000x better. Standardized menus, key commands, sophisticated clipboard, QuickTime in and out, 32-bit multichannel audio, modern audio plug-ins, modern graphics plug-ins, modern video plug-ins. None of this is available on MS Windows.
Plus, all the UNIX software such as Apache is indispensible if you are a Web developer or similar.
There are 1000 myths about why the Mac is better and 1000 reasons why it is better and none of them overlap. A while back Scott Hacker was a BeOS advocate and then he got a Mac and on the first day he moved all his MP3's to some other file system location and he was surprised that iTunes still knew where they were. That is because of HFS+ tracking files by an ID number, not just by name or path. That kind of quiet feature is what makes the Mac so much easier.
If you are running Photoshop or similar creative software, there is nothing faster or better than a Power Mac G5.
An Opteron with Windows just doesn't cut it.
Just a few weeks ago, Steve Jobs told Fortune or Business Week (or similar business mag) that if Microsoft wanted success in digital music then they were going to have to build their own iPod. He went out of his way to contrast the software/hardware integration philosophies of Microsoft and Apple and gave many reasons why Apple's way of doing things is better. Why would Steve make a fool of himself that way if there is a secret "we're switching to Windows" announcement coming?
In Dvorak's world, Steve Jobs would have sat down with the business press recently and told them the problem with the iPod and Mac is that the hardware is OK but if we could just get some of that great Microsoft software on there then we'd really be cooking. Once we get Pocket Windows running on the iPod why then you'll be able to look at your Excel spreadsheets while you listen to music. Who wouldn't want that after all?
Apple said a long time ago that they wouldn't stop people from running MS Windows on their Mac. Same as Linux in the past. Do what you want with your box.
... you have the Win32 application platform running next to Cocoa and Carbon and BSD and X-Windows and when you do that it is obvious how much better the Mac apps are. Even Adobe apps which are generally the same feature-wise are much better in Carbon than Win32.
What Dvorak is saying is that Apple will start selling and promoting MS Windows over Mac OS X which makes no sense. It is actually kind of sad because it shows Dvorak doesn't get Mac OS X. I don't know how you can look at it and not get it if you have any kind of technical acumen at all but apparently that is what happens with him. He complains about Microsoft also which is sort of weird. He's like "how come it's so hard to edit my photos" and it is like watching someone nail their own foot to the floor.
It would surprise me if the MS Windows Vista disc doesn't run on Intel Macs. Some people will dual boot, no doubt. I think Apple will give them some sort of alternative to dual-booting, though. A way to easily run your Windows apps while still running Mac OS X. Then the apps go head to head
> But I'm getting sidetracked by Dvorak, here, because the iPod not having FireWire is completely,
> utterly unrelated to any discussion about whether or not Apple might be switching to Windows.
The iPod Dock connector is smaller than FireWire and contains an analog audio out and other functionality that is beyond FireWire, which is at least two reasons to switch the iPod from plain FireWire to Dock connector that don't involve specious Mac vs. PC reasoning. I don't know why people want to pit USB vs. FireWire when many PC's are still shipping with serial ports and parallel ports.
> Dvorak is also actually missing the biggest play for Apple here: being able to run Windows
> and other x86 OSes in virtualization.
This is exactly right because Mac OS X is a much more solid platform than MS Windows and arguably anything else available for consumer and desktop use.
What's to prevent Apple from creating a "Classic" for Mac OS X (Intel) that runs MS Windows XP instead of Mac OS 9? If you could buy an Intel Mac and still run all your MS Windows programs right in Aqua while you transition to Cocoa and Carbon apps. Apple just finished transitioning the Mac OS 9 application platform and user base to Mac OS X (PowerPC) so what's to prevent them from doing the same and transition MS Windows XP application platform and user base to Mac OS X (Intel)?
There is a whole range of options here, from a basic DOS box through to a Classic-like Windows apps running in Aqua.
I ran VirtualPC for a while a few years ago. MS Windows in a box on another system is better than MS Windows taking up a whole PC. It's the only way to run Windows apps without a virus being able to take out your system.
Steve Jobs said the reason he came back to Apple was that he "didn't want to run Windows for the rest of my life."
... just keep cranking out PowerPC hardware until the middle of 2006 then ship Intel with Vista.
Why bother with Mac OS X for Intel in that case? Why wouldn't they just do the Intel shift along with a Vista release? In other words, if Apple were going to do this they would be shipping iMacs with Intel Core Duo and MS Windows Vista. There is no need to do Mac OS X for Intel at all
Not to mention, why bother solving all these really hard OS problems that Apple solved over the last few years just to go to MS Windows which still has all those problems and many more?
This is a poor article even for Dvorak. It's not even logical.
I couldn't agree more that we are not moving towards every person carrying one multi-purpose device for the same reason that we're not all moving towards using just one software application on our personal computers.
... it's not possible to replace an iPod nano with a software MP3 player included as an add-on in a phone. Apple is selling 1 GB nanos for $149, how can a phone company compete with that? Just adding 1 GB of storage to a phone costs $100 and you haven't yet added the music player, iTunes stuff, long battery life, headphones, accessories, armbands, etc. of the iPod. That is why the ROKR sucks so bad ... Motorola was unwilling to double the price of the phone just to give the music player enough memory to be useful. You are better to buy a plain Motorola phone and an iPod nano and that option is cheaper too.
I would rather buy one iPod nano for $149 and one plain phone for $149 than a $300 multi-purpose music-playing phone. Then I can swap the phone for a new one to get a new phone service provider and I don't have to worry about listening to music draining a battery I might need for a phone call later. Then I can get into a car and plug my iPod into the stereo without affecting the use of my phone in any way. I can drop the iPod and not break my phone and vice versa. I can strap the tiny iPod nano to my arm while I workout and the phone can stay in my locker. Compare to the guy next to me wearing a Trio on a utility belt.
You can't ignore how perfect the iPod nano is
> I have no problems listening to music on [my T650 with 1 GB SD card and accessory headphones].
A 1 GB iPod nano costs $149 including headphones and saves wear and tear on your T650. By the time you do third-party headphones, SD card, SD card reader you are going a good part of the ways towards an iPod nano and you are still wearing out your T650's parts and batteries just to play music.
The smartphone idea is exactly opposite to what Apple does and is doing. If there is an Apple phone it will be a phone and that's all. It will be a dumb phone. That will be why it will be so easy to use and people will love them. Compare the Apple Remote with six buttons to the MS Windows Media Center Remote with a hundred buttons. Most people have trouble with the complexity of their wireless phones and would welcome a handset that is iPod-easy.
Given that the technology exists to make a music player like the iPod nano, and additionally to make a simple phone of a similar size, why bolt the two together at the end of the day?
>> think different
> differently, dammit!
It's poetry dumbass.
1 in 10,000 Grafiti users lost the ability to print regularly and had to be re-trained. Little known fact.
Once you have used a real handwriting recognition like Newton or Inkwell then Grafiti seems sadistic.
Steve Jobs probably thinks the name "Treo" sucks.
Then again there is the "MacBook Pro" ugh.
Once upon a time Steve Jobs tried to buy Palm for Apple but it was in 1997.
Keeping your calendar is one thing you can do with a handheld computer, but it isn't the most exciting thing. Certainly, you wouldn't trade music and TV shows and other media distribution and playback for calendars. The handheld software platform that Apple features and promotes is MPEG-4. The development platform is this thing called "Mac".
In 2006, if you want miniature software applications you get a Web browser and Wi-Fi, not the whole Palm application platform. Is there really anything you can do in a Palm application that you can't do with a Web browser and Wi-Fi? These little operating systems crashing on handhelds is not the way to do it.
I bet you most everybody who works at Palm has an iPod but hardly anyone at Apple uses a Palm.
Intel's next-generation CPU family includes ultra-low-power models that could be used to design a handheld that runs Mac OS X.
It's true Apple is all about the quality of the final product, not empire-building or playing monopoly. If Steve Jobs is using a Treo and likes it then that is much more likely to lead to Apple buying Palm than any kind of business analysis that declares that there's money to be made in some market sector.
... you put in your debit or credit card and choose your iPod like an automat. Apple Stores now have a little iPod desk where if all you want is an iPod you go in and say "black iPod nano 4 GB" and hand them your credit card and you're out of there in seconds with your iPod. Everybody wants one and it is because the product is good. There is a feeling that people will buy anything if you design it and style it like the iPod nano. We're waiting to see what Apple will come up with next and it would be surprising to see them bring Palm into that ecosystem.
... where Apple makes a more powerful handheld, with a large touchscreen filing the front and if you set it on iPod then the screen shows an iPod, complete with touchwheel and "iPod display", but if you set it on phone then a phone appears on screen, in full color, all touchable.
Apple is king of the handheld right now, even if does not include phones and PDA's. There is a big iPod vending machine at Macy's in SF and NYC and probably other places
Notice the comparison Steve Jobs made recently between the Windows Media Center remote control and the Apple Remote. The Windows remote looks like a typical Sony or JVC universal TV remote, festooned with buttons and labels and context switches, while the Apple remote is six buttons that activate menus on the screen so that you're making the choices on the screen not the remote. If Apple were to release a phone or PDA, I think you would have to be able to make that same comparison between the Apple phone and other phones. The Apple phone would have a keypad and some way of storing your phone numbers (retrieved over Bluetooth from iSync) and that would be it. It would be small and light and rugged and easy to use and nobody will ask for their iPhone and iPod to be in the same device because they will so obviously each be fulfilling their own best function in the ideal way.
The other approach is the "soft iPod"
Palm doesn't seem that relevant.
Phone-wise, Apple doesn't need the Palm name. If they release something called "iPhone" and it is as simple to use as the iPod then it will explain itself.