Intel does not have to optimise for AMD. Intel should not use its dominant position in the hardware market to influence other software to be slower on AMDs processors. Because software vendors are going to be using the same compiler to compile software that should run on AMDs processors, then they have a duty to play fair. Imagine if Microsoft purchased AMD, and "optimised" Windows to run better on AMD CPUs by ignoring instructions that are present on Intel CPUs whilst using the very same instructions on AMD CPUs. There would be an almighty uproar. It's pretty much the same thing Intel is doing here.
No, not its own product. It's sabotaging the software that other vendors create to not run as fast on AMD CPUs thus making them seem slower than they really are, and discouraging customer from buying them, or forcing AMD to sell them at lower prices, which hurts AMD unfairly. If Intel can't play fair, they should get out of the compiler business, because the compiler are used to run compile software that run on both companies' CPUs, and so they have to play fair.
There is a difference between not optimising for a competitors processor and deliberately making performance worse for a competitors processor.
Is there? No seriously, is there?
In a sense, everything that I do that gives me competitive advantage impacts my competitors' businesses negatively. Like the earlier commenter said, why is it incumbent upon Intel to write a compiler that works equally well on their competitors' products?
Not disclosing that it doesn't work as well on Intel's competitors' products may be a sneaky trick, but it seems like there should be due diligence on the part of the people using the compiler. Intel does not have a monopoly on compilers. Last I heard, people use Intel compilers because they produce very good code. Cry me a river if Intel would like to produce good code for Intel processors and not others.
Don't get me wrong: I think Intel is being sneaky and underhanded. But I don't see it having done anything illegal, and I don't see how anything it has done should be illegal.
Intel's compiler is not just used by Intel. Because of Intel's dominant position in the hardware market, and the intimate knowledge of said hardware, their compiler is pretty good for 80% of the CPUs out there. Because of the resources at their disposal, the same compiler is good for the other 20% of CPUs as well. Software vendors use the compiler to compile executables. Software vendors have little to zero interest in shipping multiple binaries to support CPUs that should be binary compatible. So, they will ship binaries that perform better on Intel's hardware regardless of the fact that some of AMDs hardware can run the software as well if not better. This is anticompetitive because until AMD achieves parity with Intel in install base, then vendors have an incentive to use Intel's broken compiler because in the short term, it delivers a better outcome for most customers, but in the long term, it cripples competition and customers suffer.
How about a system in which the loser has to pay out 50% of his attorney fees to the winner of the case. So, if say, Microsoft pay lawyers $10m to sue a little guy, and they lose, they pay him $5m plus other awards and if the little guy loses, he pays them say 50% of $3,000, i.e., $1,500, and any other awards subject to a minimum (to prevent frivolous lawsuits by little guys under no win no fee). This way, big companies are discouraged from spending too much in lawyer fees to screw over the little guy. Or alternatively, companies should be forced to share their lawyer budgets with the little guys they are suing. It's supposed to be a fair fight right?
The tactile feedback is in you actually feeling the touch. You don't press, you touch. You don't need confirmation that you have touched hard enough. With buttons, you need feedback because you have to press them hard enough for the button press to register. So the feedback lets you know that you have pressed hard enough.
Seriously I agree with this fellow. In most countries, secret ballot was/is useful because people could be persecuted by the government for voting for the other fellow. If open voting is the norm, where there is a running total on the screen, and at the end of the day, all we do is total the running scores, then we have security by openness. You would actually have the public checking, millions of time as their votes are cast, that nothing strange was happening with their votes. Of course, this requires that people voting choices be respected, which is something law enforcement can probably guarante nowadays.
Apple could, but their brand is built on the simplicity and reliability of their products. They could license Mac OS X, but they would probably have such exacting hardware requirements that most builders would not want to touch it.
Well, yes, because the 5800 is considered a smartphone, and buyers aren't exactly choosing between the iPhone and the 5800. Apple is competing at the very high end.
Probably all possible. But that is not the point. The iPhone makes is something you would actually want to do on a phone for the first time. I have had phones that had some capabilities that were not on the original iPhone. 3G, check. Web browser that allowed flash, check. Java environment, check.
The iPhone was the first to make these things usable enough without tearing my hair out. it's not enough to make something possible on a phone. That's easy. Non geeks _require_ ease of use.
It's not a monopoly. Does Apple have sufficient control over music to determine the price at which all individuals (including those not buying on iTunes) can access music? I think not. Apple is _not_ a monopoly.
Microsoft is a monopoly. They can, and pretty much do determine the prices for computer software. Apple does not, by any stretch, determine prices for music. They have a lot of influence, but they are far from a monopoly. They are dominant, but that is not the same as being a monopoly. The two are not interchangeable, although a monopoly is almost by definition, dominant. Dominance is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for one to be a monopoly.
And HMV will only sell me a CD if I go into their store.
Boo freaking hoo.
Apple is not preventing any interoperability. It's just ensuring that its iPod owners get a better sync experience than competitors. And if competitors want their customers to get a better sync experience, they should spend the money to give them a similar or better experience. Apple is rewarding its iPod customers.
Besides, competition is encourage because it results in progress. So Palm should be trying to outdo Apple, rather than being a pale imitation.
Apple does not prevent anyone from syncing their iTunes music purchases with a device of their choice. Any device that play m4a files can use those file. Apple does not hide them in some unrecognisable location. They actually put them in the bog standard Windows My Music folder, in a separate subfolder of course. In fact, they make it a point to tell you where the files are.
Apple will sell music to anyone, in a standard non DRM format too. They just won't let third parties sync with their software. It's part of their fair competitive advantage, something which you are allowed to have the last I checked. They put in the money, and took the risks, now they are reaping the rewards. And that is what capitalism is about.
It's very different from Microsoft achieving a dominant position in operating systems and then using that to threaten PC builders with withdrawing the rights to sell Windows, or to raise the price of Windows to force them to not sell competing software. Being a monopoly is not a bad thing. Abusing a monopoly position is. Apple is only catering to its iPod/iPhone customers, as they are allowed to do. They are selling a unique experience. Palm needs to best that, or stay out of the kitchen.
One could also argue that scientists learning about Galaxies that are millions of light years away are also engaging in useless trivia. We will never reach them, and whatever knowledge we gain is less likely to be of use to them that knowing about Lindsay Lohan's personal life. I mean, they have a better chance of getting in on with Lindsay than of ever finding anything useful about a Galaxy a million light years away.
The iPhone multitasks very well actually. Apple just won't let other apps multitask. For example, if you are on a call, you can be checking your email, and still receive sms'es. It would kill the battery though, so they won't let other apps multitask. Besides, I have used a Windows mobile phone, and hated the multitasking feature because it meant a lot of programs in the background using precious battery. Besides, Windows mobile sucks. Loads. Horrible example to compare with iPhoneOS.
It can. Apple just won't let you write apps that take advantage of it. How do you think you can be playing music, whilst writing an email when you receive a call. Multitasking can be really bad for a resource (as in battery) limited device. It's called making a trade off.
Slashdot Mirror
Intel does not have to optimise for AMD. Intel should not use its dominant position in the hardware market to influence other software to be slower on AMDs processors. Because software vendors are going to be using the same compiler to compile software that should run on AMDs processors, then they have a duty to play fair. Imagine if Microsoft purchased AMD, and "optimised" Windows to run better on AMD CPUs by ignoring instructions that are present on Intel CPUs whilst using the very same instructions on AMD CPUs. There would be an almighty uproar. It's pretty much the same thing Intel is doing here.
No, not its own product. It's sabotaging the software that other vendors create to not run as fast on AMD CPUs thus making them seem slower than they really are, and discouraging customer from buying them, or forcing AMD to sell them at lower prices, which hurts AMD unfairly. If Intel can't play fair, they should get out of the compiler business, because the compiler are used to run compile software that run on both companies' CPUs, and so they have to play fair.
There is a difference between not optimising for a competitors processor and deliberately making performance worse for a competitors processor.
Is there? No seriously, is there?
In a sense, everything that I do that gives me competitive advantage impacts my competitors' businesses negatively. Like the earlier commenter said, why is it incumbent upon Intel to write a compiler that works equally well on their competitors' products?
Not disclosing that it doesn't work as well on Intel's competitors' products may be a sneaky trick, but it seems like there should be due diligence on the part of the people using the compiler. Intel does not have a monopoly on compilers. Last I heard, people use Intel compilers because they produce very good code. Cry me a river if Intel would like to produce good code for Intel processors and not others.
Don't get me wrong: I think Intel is being sneaky and underhanded. But I don't see it having done anything illegal, and I don't see how anything it has done should be illegal.
Intel's compiler is not just used by Intel. Because of Intel's dominant position in the hardware market, and the intimate knowledge of said hardware, their compiler is pretty good for 80% of the CPUs out there. Because of the resources at their disposal, the same compiler is good for the other 20% of CPUs as well. Software vendors use the compiler to compile executables. Software vendors have little to zero interest in shipping multiple binaries to support CPUs that should be binary compatible . So, they will ship binaries that perform better on Intel's hardware regardless of the fact that some of AMDs hardware can run the software as well if not better. This is anticompetitive because until AMD achieves parity with Intel in install base, then vendors have an incentive to use Intel's broken compiler because in the short term, it delivers a better outcome for most customers, but in the long term, it cripples competition and customers suffer.
How about a system in which the loser has to pay out 50% of his attorney fees to the winner of the case. So, if say, Microsoft pay lawyers $10m to sue a little guy, and they lose, they pay him $5m plus other awards and if the little guy loses, he pays them say 50% of $3,000, i.e., $1,500, and any other awards subject to a minimum (to prevent frivolous lawsuits by little guys under no win no fee). This way, big companies are discouraged from spending too much in lawyer fees to screw over the little guy. Or alternatively, companies should be forced to share their lawyer budgets with the little guys they are suing. It's supposed to be a fair fight right?
Presumed...Doesn't mean you actually are innocent, well, except legally.
Like what feature?
And it was still rubbish! Seriously, the iPhone was that good when it came out, interface wise.
The tactile feedback is in you actually feeling the touch. You don't press, you touch. You don't need confirmation that you have touched hard enough. With buttons, you need feedback because you have to press them hard enough for the button press to register. So the feedback lets you know that you have pressed hard enough.
Seriously I agree with this fellow. In most countries, secret ballot was/is useful because people could be persecuted by the government for voting for the other fellow. If open voting is the norm, where there is a running total on the screen, and at the end of the day, all we do is total the running scores, then we have security by openness. You would actually have the public checking, millions of time as their votes are cast, that nothing strange was happening with their votes. Of course, this requires that people voting choices be respected, which is something law enforcement can probably guarante nowadays.
Apple could, but their brand is built on the simplicity and reliability of their products. They could license Mac OS X, but they would probably have such exacting hardware requirements that most builders would not want to touch it.
At what point did you think we didn't have an oligopoly?
I don't know what could be a more inalienable right than to insist on terms for your own work.
Just checked. Not true.
Overpriced?...Maybe. Cumbersome?.....Are you kidding me?
Well, yes, because the 5800 is considered a smartphone, and buyers aren't exactly choosing between the iPhone and the 5800. Apple is competing at the very high end.
Probably all possible. But that is not the point. The iPhone makes is something you would actually want to do on a phone for the first time. I have had phones that had some capabilities that were not on the original iPhone. 3G, check. Web browser that allowed flash, check. Java environment, check. The iPhone was the first to make these things usable enough without tearing my hair out. it's not enough to make something possible on a phone. That's easy. Non geeks _require_ ease of use.
It's not a monopoly. Does Apple have sufficient control over music to determine the price at which all individuals (including those not buying on iTunes) can access music? I think not. Apple is _not_ a monopoly.
Microsoft is a monopoly. They can, and pretty much do determine the prices for computer software. Apple does not, by any stretch, determine prices for music. They have a lot of influence, but they are far from a monopoly. They are dominant, but that is not the same as being a monopoly. The two are not interchangeable, although a monopoly is almost by definition, dominant. Dominance is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for one to be a monopoly.
And HMV will only sell me a CD if I go into their store.
Boo freaking hoo.
Apple is not preventing any interoperability. It's just ensuring that its iPod owners get a better sync experience than competitors. And if competitors want their customers to get a better sync experience, they should spend the money to give them a similar or better experience. Apple is rewarding its iPod customers.
Besides, competition is encourage because it results in progress. So Palm should be trying to outdo Apple, rather than being a pale imitation.
Apple does not prevent anyone from syncing their iTunes music purchases with a device of their choice. Any device that play m4a files can use those file. Apple does not hide them in some unrecognisable location. They actually put them in the bog standard Windows My Music folder, in a separate subfolder of course. In fact, they make it a point to tell you where the files are.
Apple will sell music to anyone, in a standard non DRM format too. They just won't let third parties sync with their software. It's part of their fair competitive advantage, something which you are allowed to have the last I checked. They put in the money, and took the risks, now they are reaping the rewards. And that is what capitalism is about.
It's very different from Microsoft achieving a dominant position in operating systems and then using that to threaten PC builders with withdrawing the rights to sell Windows, or to raise the price of Windows to force them to not sell competing software. Being a monopoly is not a bad thing. Abusing a monopoly position is. Apple is only catering to its iPod/iPhone customers, as they are allowed to do. They are selling a unique experience. Palm needs to best that, or stay out of the kitchen.
Besides, biometrics make people the target. Instead of looking for your password, they might be looking for you. No thanks!
One could also argue that scientists learning about Galaxies that are millions of light years away are also engaging in useless trivia. We will never reach them, and whatever knowledge we gain is less likely to be of use to them that knowing about Lindsay Lohan's personal life. I mean, they have a better chance of getting in on with Lindsay than of ever finding anything useful about a Galaxy a million light years away.
Who said anything about taking the laptop to the landfill. At one year, it is probably still very sellable.
The iPhone multitasks very well actually. Apple just won't let other apps multitask. For example, if you are on a call, you can be checking your email, and still receive sms'es. It would kill the battery though, so they won't let other apps multitask. Besides, I have used a Windows mobile phone, and hated the multitasking feature because it meant a lot of programs in the background using precious battery. Besides, Windows mobile sucks. Loads. Horrible example to compare with iPhoneOS.
It can. Apple just won't let you write apps that take advantage of it. How do you think you can be playing music, whilst writing an email when you receive a call. Multitasking can be really bad for a resource (as in battery) limited device. It's called making a trade off.