No... not completely. The basic assumptions that were built into USB and FireWire at the beginning are still true when the conversation changes to USB 2.
USB is CPU centric. That means that all traffic over the "bus" (its not technically a bus) has to go to the CPU, this changes the signaling significantly. Because it was designed with devices such as mice in mind, which wil have small bursts of data at random times, it was also made so that no device can grab above a certain amount of the bandwidth, but devices do have to duke it out to get up to that amount. This is fine for mice, but sucks for drives and video applications. They are bandwidth choked because of protocol limitations, not bandwidth.
FireWire on the other hand is peer-to-peer, more often than not you have a CPU, but it is not a special case. In fact the protocol is setup so that you can transfer information into a computer without the processor doing much work at all (direct to memory dumps). The peer-to-peer aspect does add a little overhead, but not nearly as much as the USB 1.x legacy in USB 2. FireWire also supports dedicated streams so that a device can get gaurenteed latency and bandwidth. No contention for bandwidth, you either get it or you don't. There is some set aside for asyncronus transfer (the sort of signaling that mice do), so this is not a big issue, but it is rarely used because asynch devices are cheaper with a USB 1.x port...
So... USB 2.0 is faster according to the overview specs... but FireWire 400 is faster in real life for most of the applications that actually need that sort of speed.
Places where USB 2.0 is better: USB Speaker (except mLAN/HAVI devices... those send compressed signals), Printers (not much difference here), and possibly ethernet adaptors (cheaper?... I am reaching here).
Places where FireWire 400 is better: Hard Drives (bus powered!), Video, CamCorders, computer-to-computer links (requires major fudging in USB), high end scanners (the ones that can push a lot of information very fast), RAID systems.
Places where there is little difference: CD/CD-R/CD-RW (except bus-powered devices.. there FireWire wins hands down), USB-style web-cams (there is enough power on either bus), etc...
While ARD is cool, and it's predisesor "Apple Network Assistant" was cool, it is not setup to be what is envisioned here.
However, you could get a much better system if you simply had an Active Directory/Macintosh Manager system. Or one like Sun has where you take smart-card and plug them into not-so-thin clients.
You are saying that one of the reasons you are using WMP is privacy concerns? Then have I got news for you; WMP keeps a log of all the video's that you have played, and teh liscence agreement that you agreed to could be interpreted to say that Microsoft has the right to use this information in any way they choose.
Actually, there were a lot of improvements in going to Java. Number one for me is that all databases have to be accessed over JDBC. This brought mySQL and PorstreSQL into the fold.
There were some rough spots in 5.0, but 5.1 really rocks, and the move to EJB is really a nice direction to be going in in my opinion! WebObjects goes from being proprietary to being the best way of using a EJB server/EJB development environment.
Now Apache just has to start integrating better with a free EJB server (meaning that it would compile and configure out of the box together), and this could be a great turn-key solution.
Actually, since there is a command line way of running osascripts, you can do almost everything in Perl on MacOS X that you cna do in MacPerl, just a slightly different call. And you cna even get around that by using a wrapper class what someone has mad into a module... (consult versiontracker.com)
What you say is true, but not relevant to the conversation. The Power series of processors is a high end workstation/server processor with a big emphasis on things like database and modeling performance. Thus it needs to be a 64 bit chip in order to handle that amount of memory.
The G4 is a desktop class chip, and this means that a lot fo video work needs to be done on it (something that AltiVec works nicely with). It has no need to be 64bit at this point (wouldn't hurt necessarily, but wouldn't help). The lower power, die size, hear, and cost all are nice thing for a consumer level product.
In other words, both chips work great for their intended audiences. And the article in question is only talking about the PowerPC family, so the Power4 is not included.
As both a MacOS X user, and someone who has hitchhiked in a Trabant, I think you are wrong here.
I am not sure what exactly you are complaining about in your UI rant, but I guess that it has something to do with the users/groups permission idea. If this is what is bothering you, then you need to realize that this sort of thing is required in a multi-user system in order to make things work. Just because you are unfamiliar with it does not make it bad... And if you think that Window's doesn't have the same complications... then you are right until you move onto an NT kernel, and then you are right back in the think of things. It does it a bit differently, but it is the same idea wrapped in a different cloak.
And I have been using MacOS since before version 1 (0.9.4 if memory serves), and feel that MacOS X is in the line of progression from that venerable OS. It is about as big a jump as 6 to 7 was in many ways. People complained then, as they do now, but it is all for the best.
NeXT, and it's OS failed because of market and pricing issues, not technical or ascetic ones, and I am not sure what there is to compare to NetInfo on MacOS 9 or Windows, unless you want to talk about Macintosh Manager or Active Directory, but those are just as arcane as NetInfo, and are not what "users are used to these days". I think you were trying something above your head, and feeling dumb because of it.
And Apple was trying things on their own, it was called Rhapsody (and Pink before that), and never went anywhere. Whithout Steve Jobs (or someone with equal vision) to hold the whip the project was going no-where, as was Apple in general. In buying NeXT apple got a injection of new talent, code, and vision.
I am not sure what it is you want in a UI.. and I think neither do you, but I am happy with where MacOS X is now, and happy with where is see it going.
Well.. you were right for the very first version of MacOS X, but all subsequent version have come with a button to enable SSH, while telnet requires some (minor) fiddling with config files. However, all versions have come installed with all services turned off (a bit more secure than Windows that way... *chuckle*).
Small point, but newer Mac's running MacOS X can actually be made more secure, as the OS is made for this and the Firmware can be locked and set to disalow booting off of any other media, and then if you have a kensington lock on the back, there is no way you can get at the protected files without either the password or damaging the computer extensively, while still being able to use the computer normally. This makes the most securable computer I have seen in a lab environment.
I believe the new name for this is HAVI (Home Audio-Video Interface), and there are a few devices on the market with it now.
I saw this technology during its first 'public' demonstration at Apple's WWDC two years ago, demoed speakers. The really nice parts about it are that you can have dedicated bandwidth on FireWire, and that you can also have other sorts of traffic on the same wire (ie video, control signals, other sources, etc). The thing that the recording studio guys where really excited about is that you can use this protocol for all components in a recording studio.
Apparently recoding studio's are a mess of different sorts of cables, all propritory, and all completely different. With HAVI your microphone could be plugged in to a hub (which could also power it) into which your mixer, DAT tape deck (or FireWire RAID-NAS device), headphones, etc, could all be connected with some sort of a computer arranging the traffic (it could also work without a computer, but that would require each piece to be more intelligent than i think is practical... what sort of display would fit on a microphone?).
Well.. the QuickTime format is freely available, it is the codecs that are not. In fact codecs are the most difficult part of the whole process, the most expensive to develop, and the parts that make the most sense to sell in a capitalistic (or better said monetary reward based system). The Ogg video codec is a neat idea, and I am waiting to see if they have any real success.
Interesting statisics... wonder where you pulled them from:
30% slower than OS 9 In what? This is a nonsense statistic. For audio MacOS X offers real time mode, which will blow past any GUI calculations.
And I think you are more than a little confused about what hardware is avalible on what platform:
All macs and PC's (other than a very few servers that don't even count in this discussion), use a 33Mhz PCI buss. Apple offers 4 64Bit slots in their towers, which are relatively unheard of on the PC side (which uses 32Bit PCI). There is no such thing as 133Mhz PCI.
The memory bus (so-called front-side bus), on the G4 towers is 133Mhz, as it is with many PC's. The 400Mhz that you site is for RamBus, and if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that the deficiencies in this technology make it equivalent to the 133Mhz SDRAM that Apple uses (at a fraction of the cost). If you want to, you could site DDR-DRAM which is faster than what Apple uses, and has started to make its why into new PC's.
On the Hard Drive Front, Apple uses ATA100 on desktops, and ATA66 on laptops. No difference there, they are even the same drives. Hardware RAID (SCSI, FireWire, iBic, or ATA) options exist, and MacOS 10.1 offers software RAID for non-booting volumes. Once again, no difference (same solutions in most cases).
Oh.. and ATA is not a 'form factor'. You are thinking of the AT Motherboard, which has nothing to do with Hard Drives, and has nothing you can measure in Mhz.
And you are really gullible if you think that any upgrade is going to be 50% faster. besides, one has to ask, "faster at what"...
Actually, the GUI gets exactly as much priority as everything else in 10.0.4, the kernel priority manager was not tied into the bsd priority scheduler until later kernel. I am guessing that this general oversight has been fixed, but don't hink it has much to do with the GUI speedup. My bets are on good old fashioned optimization.
The 800mBps connectors will be exactly the same as the current ones found on desktop computers. In fact you will can plug existing 100, 200, or 400 connectors in to them (assuming you are not going from Sony's iLink connector, then you need the cheap adaptor cord). There will be no optical cabling involved. The 3.2 version however requires an optical connection (rf gets nasty at that speed), and uses a connector similar (identical?) to a g-bic interface (why re-invent a perfectly good wheel... especially when it is already running a SCSI family protocol).
Apple already has the solutions mapped out on their G4, and has now for 2 product revisions. The Gigabit Etherenet port is on the Uni-North Bridge chip (approximates a North bridge Chip in the standard PC layout), and if that were not enough, they have 64Bit PCI slots on the motherboard. Sounds like you can go either way with that one...
Re:Could these have been used before?
on
Robots Go To War
·
· Score: 2
True, but the real power of this sort of platform is that it can stay 'on task' for long periods of time (24+ hours). In Bosnia one of the big uses (of the DarkStar system) was to follow armored vehicles back to their base, and only then call in the cavalry. Going there, snapping a picture, and then going home is better accomplished by maned reconasence vehicles, be they an F-15 with a reconasence pod or a SR-71.
While they are rather expensive, Techline's offerings are really nice. I bought myself a wrap-around desk for about $1,300 (I spend 8 hours a day here... it is worth it). Everything is so strong that you can walk on any part of it without a second thought, and I have a 17" flatscreen (very worth it) and a !9" monitor in two of the corners, and there is a lot of open space left over.
You can customize the design to your heart's (and pocketbook's) content. And best of all, you can take it all apart and set it up somewhere else! It is not like the cheap Sauder-esk stuff that you build once, and then throw away. I will be able to take this desk with me when I move, even overseas if I want to.
Here is the url: http://www.techlineusa.com/
Re:Rogue DHCP Server
on
Dorm Storm?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
While I was in the tech support department of a large university we had the same thing happen, but the culprit was an Apple AirPort base station that apparently got hit by a power surge and went rouge. My box happened to go through a lease renewal after that, and somehow the network sleuths tracked me down as the culprit. It took some fast talking to calm them down and help them find the rouge box.
As a former exchange student to Austria from the USA, I can vouch for the fact that few Americans know the difference between Austria (small mountainous European country) and Australia (large continent sized country in the southern hemisphere). Before I left many of my (reasonably intelligent) friends honestly asked if I would bring them back pictures of Kangaroos...
So... I came back with a t-shirt saying: "There are no Kangaroos in Austria". Whenever I wear it I get random people telling me that there, "are too Kangaroos in Australia". They usually have to read the shirt three or four times to see their mistake...
To my knowledge, the G-series of chips has never needed a fan mounted directly on the processor. In dual (or more) processor configs there is often a fan that leads to the CPUs' heat sink (one mamouth one), so that gets close, but it is not like what is needed for the Intel/AMD processors.
Once again... not a fair comparison. Gcc is heavily optimized for Intel, and the optimization for PPC are only in their infancy going into gcc 3.1. It is really hard to compare the two platforms in any real way unless you start to be very specific about what you are doing, ie transactions on a specific database, Photoshop, etc...
Re:Lack of real of innovations was the real proble
on
Apple Dumps the Cube
·
· Score: 1
And longer cords all around... I want more separation between the speakers, and don't have a ADC display so I have to use the Cube's USB port...
The PowerMac G4's are rather quite when you compare them to most other computers, but haveing had both a 533MP Powermac, and a 450 Cube side by side for a month, they are still far noisier than a Cube. I decided to stay with the cube and give up the Dual 533 (much faster) for home use because after using the Cube for a while I found it too noisy.
In a couple of years when I will replace the cube I am going to be hard pressed if Apple doesn't re-introduce something like the Cube, I never want to use noisy computers again!
Yes, MacOS X does use a lot of memory for double buffering all windows, but this does not really impact performance when you go to a lot of windows (assuming you are not memory thrashing). The backing stores are static so long as nothing changes in the window. Actually it turns out that this is a less processor intensive setup than other approaches, especially when you consider lots of windows. Now, when you consider all all the other features of Quartz, this advantage is eroded. This is another case of Apple being ahead of the curve and suffering for it.
Slashdot Mirror
No... not completely. The basic assumptions that were built into USB and FireWire at the beginning are still true when the conversation changes to USB 2.
USB is CPU centric. That means that all traffic over the "bus" (its not technically a bus) has to go to the CPU, this changes the signaling significantly. Because it was designed with devices such as mice in mind, which wil have small bursts of data at random times, it was also made so that no device can grab above a certain amount of the bandwidth, but devices do have to duke it out to get up to that amount. This is fine for mice, but sucks for drives and video applications. They are bandwidth choked because of protocol limitations, not bandwidth.
FireWire on the other hand is peer-to-peer, more often than not you have a CPU, but it is not a special case. In fact the protocol is setup so that you can transfer information into a computer without the processor doing much work at all (direct to memory dumps). The peer-to-peer aspect does add a little overhead, but not nearly as much as the USB 1.x legacy in USB 2. FireWire also supports dedicated streams so that a device can get gaurenteed latency and bandwidth. No contention for bandwidth, you either get it or you don't. There is some set aside for asyncronus transfer (the sort of signaling that mice do), so this is not a big issue, but it is rarely used because asynch devices are cheaper with a USB 1.x port...
So... USB 2.0 is faster according to the overview specs... but FireWire 400 is faster in real life for most of the applications that actually need that sort of speed.
Places where USB 2.0 is better: USB Speaker (except mLAN/HAVI devices... those send compressed signals), Printers (not much difference here), and possibly ethernet adaptors (cheaper?... I am reaching here).
Places where FireWire 400 is better: Hard Drives (bus powered!), Video, CamCorders, computer-to-computer links (requires major fudging in USB), high end scanners (the ones that can push a lot of information very fast), RAID systems.
Places where there is little difference: CD/CD-R/CD-RW (except bus-powered devices.. there FireWire wins hands down), USB-style web-cams (there is enough power on either bus), etc...
While ARD is cool, and it's predisesor "Apple Network Assistant" was cool, it is not setup to be what is envisioned here.
However, you could get a much better system if you simply had an Active Directory/Macintosh Manager system. Or one like Sun has where you take smart-card and plug them into not-so-thin clients.
You are saying that one of the reasons you are using WMP is privacy concerns? Then have I got news for you; WMP keeps a log of all the video's that you have played, and teh liscence agreement that you agreed to could be interpreted to say that Microsoft has the right to use this information in any way they choose.
Pick another reason for using WMP, please.
Actually, there were a lot of improvements in going to Java. Number one for me is that all databases have to be accessed over JDBC. This brought mySQL and PorstreSQL into the fold.
There were some rough spots in 5.0, but 5.1 really rocks, and the move to EJB is really a nice direction to be going in in my opinion! WebObjects goes from being proprietary to being the best way of using a EJB server/EJB development environment.
Now Apache just has to start integrating better with a free EJB server (meaning that it would compile and configure out of the box together), and this could be a great turn-key solution.
Actually, since there is a command line way of running osascripts, you can do almost everything in Perl on MacOS X that you cna do in MacPerl, just a slightly different call. And you cna even get around that by using a wrapper class what someone has mad into a module... (consult versiontracker.com)
What you say is true, but not relevant to the conversation. The Power series of processors is a high end workstation/server processor with a big emphasis on things like database and modeling performance. Thus it needs to be a 64 bit chip in order to handle that amount of memory.
The G4 is a desktop class chip, and this means that a lot fo video work needs to be done on it (something that AltiVec works nicely with). It has no need to be 64bit at this point (wouldn't hurt necessarily, but wouldn't help). The lower power, die size, hear, and cost all are nice thing for a consumer level product.
In other words, both chips work great for their intended audiences. And the article in question is only talking about the PowerPC family, so the Power4 is not included.
As both a MacOS X user, and someone who has hitchhiked in a Trabant, I think you are wrong here.
I am not sure what exactly you are complaining about in your UI rant, but I guess that it has something to do with the users/groups permission idea. If this is what is bothering you, then you need to realize that this sort of thing is required in a multi-user system in order to make things work. Just because you are unfamiliar with it does not make it bad... And if you think that Window's doesn't have the same complications... then you are right until you move onto an NT kernel, and then you are right back in the think of things. It does it a bit differently, but it is the same idea wrapped in a different cloak.
And I have been using MacOS since before version 1 (0.9.4 if memory serves), and feel that MacOS X is in the line of progression from that venerable OS. It is about as big a jump as 6 to 7 was in many ways. People complained then, as they do now, but it is all for the best.
NeXT, and it's OS failed because of market and pricing issues, not technical or ascetic ones, and I am not sure what there is to compare to NetInfo on MacOS 9 or Windows, unless you want to talk about Macintosh Manager or Active Directory, but those are just as arcane as NetInfo, and are not what "users are used to these days". I think you were trying something above your head, and feeling dumb because of it.
And Apple was trying things on their own, it was called Rhapsody (and Pink before that), and never went anywhere. Whithout Steve Jobs (or someone with equal vision) to hold the whip the project was going no-where, as was Apple in general. In buying NeXT apple got a injection of new talent, code, and vision.
I am not sure what it is you want in a UI.. and I think neither do you, but I am happy with where MacOS X is now, and happy with where is see it going.
I think you mean an X-11 client? Then, no, not out of the box, and you cannot export the display on Aqua applications, but you can install XFree86.
Well.. you were right for the very first version of MacOS X, but all subsequent version have come with a button to enable SSH, while telnet requires some (minor) fiddling with config files. However, all versions have come installed with all services turned off (a bit more secure than Windows that way... *chuckle*).
Small point, but newer Mac's running MacOS X can actually be made more secure, as the OS is made for this and the Firmware can be locked and set to disalow booting off of any other media, and then if you have a kensington lock on the back, there is no way you can get at the protected files without either the password or damaging the computer extensively, while still being able to use the computer normally. This makes the most securable computer I have seen in a lab environment.
I believe the new name for this is HAVI (Home Audio-Video Interface), and there are a few devices on the market with it now.
I saw this technology during its first 'public' demonstration at Apple's WWDC two years ago, demoed speakers. The really nice parts about it are that you can have dedicated bandwidth on FireWire, and that you can also have other sorts of traffic on the same wire (ie video, control signals, other sources, etc). The thing that the recording studio guys where really excited about is that you can use this protocol for all components in a recording studio.
Apparently recoding studio's are a mess of different sorts of cables, all propritory, and all completely different. With HAVI your microphone could be plugged in to a hub (which could also power it) into which your mixer, DAT tape deck (or FireWire RAID-NAS device), headphones, etc, could all be connected with some sort of a computer arranging the traffic (it could also work without a computer, but that would require each piece to be more intelligent than i think is practical... what sort of display would fit on a microphone?).
Well.. the QuickTime format is freely available, it is the codecs that are not. In fact codecs are the most difficult part of the whole process, the most expensive to develop, and the parts that make the most sense to sell in a capitalistic (or better said monetary reward based system). The Ogg video codec is a neat idea, and I am waiting to see if they have any real success.
Interesting statisics... wonder where you pulled them from:
30% slower than OS 9
In what? This is a nonsense statistic. For audio MacOS X offers real time mode, which will blow past any GUI calculations.
And I think you are more than a little confused about what hardware is avalible on what platform:
All macs and PC's (other than a very few servers that don't even count in this discussion), use a 33Mhz PCI buss. Apple offers 4 64Bit slots in their towers, which are relatively unheard of on the PC side (which uses 32Bit PCI). There is no such thing as 133Mhz PCI.
The memory bus (so-called front-side bus), on the G4 towers is 133Mhz, as it is with many PC's. The 400Mhz that you site is for RamBus, and if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that the deficiencies in this technology make it equivalent to the 133Mhz SDRAM that Apple uses (at a fraction of the cost). If you want to, you could site DDR-DRAM which is faster than what Apple uses, and has started to make its why into new PC's.
On the Hard Drive Front, Apple uses ATA100 on desktops, and ATA66 on laptops. No difference there, they are even the same drives. Hardware RAID (SCSI, FireWire, iBic, or ATA) options exist, and MacOS 10.1 offers software RAID for non-booting volumes. Once again, no difference (same solutions in most cases).
Oh.. and ATA is not a 'form factor'. You are thinking of the AT Motherboard, which has nothing to do with Hard Drives, and has nothing you can measure in Mhz.
And you are really gullible if you think that any upgrade is going to be 50% faster. besides, one has to ask, "faster at what"...
Actually, the GUI gets exactly as much priority as everything else in 10.0.4, the kernel priority manager was not tied into the bsd priority scheduler until later kernel. I am guessing that this general oversight has been fixed, but don't hink it has much to do with the GUI speedup. My bets are on good old fashioned optimization.
The 800mBps connectors will be exactly the same as the current ones found on desktop computers. In fact you will can plug existing 100, 200, or 400 connectors in to them (assuming you are not going from Sony's iLink connector, then you need the cheap adaptor cord). There will be no optical cabling involved. The 3.2 version however requires an optical connection (rf gets nasty at that speed), and uses a connector similar (identical?) to a g-bic interface (why re-invent a perfectly good wheel... especially when it is already running a SCSI family protocol).
Apple already has the solutions mapped out on their G4, and has now for 2 product revisions. The Gigabit Etherenet port is on the Uni-North Bridge chip (approximates a North bridge Chip in the standard PC layout), and if that were not enough, they have 64Bit PCI slots on the motherboard. Sounds like you can go either way with that one...
True, but the real power of this sort of platform is that it can stay 'on task' for long periods of time (24+ hours). In Bosnia one of the big uses (of the DarkStar system) was to follow armored vehicles back to their base, and only then call in the cavalry. Going there, snapping a picture, and then going home is better accomplished by maned reconasence vehicles, be they an F-15 with a reconasence pod or a SR-71.
While they are rather expensive, Techline's offerings are really nice. I bought myself a wrap-around desk for about $1,300 (I spend 8 hours a day here... it is worth it). Everything is so strong that you can walk on any part of it without a second thought, and I have a 17" flatscreen (very worth it) and a !9" monitor in two of the corners, and there is a lot of open space left over. You can customize the design to your heart's (and pocketbook's) content. And best of all, you can take it all apart and set it up somewhere else! It is not like the cheap Sauder-esk stuff that you build once, and then throw away. I will be able to take this desk with me when I move, even overseas if I want to. Here is the url: http://www.techlineusa.com/
While I was in the tech support department of a large university we had the same thing happen, but the culprit was an Apple AirPort base station that apparently got hit by a power surge and went rouge. My box happened to go through a lease renewal after that, and somehow the network sleuths tracked me down as the culprit. It took some fast talking to calm them down and help them find the rouge box.
As a former exchange student to Austria from the USA, I can vouch for the fact that few Americans know the difference between Austria (small mountainous European country) and Australia (large continent sized country in the southern hemisphere). Before I left many of my (reasonably intelligent) friends honestly asked if I would bring them back pictures of Kangaroos...
So... I came back with a t-shirt saying: "There are no Kangaroos in Austria". Whenever I wear it I get random people telling me that there, "are too Kangaroos in Australia". They usually have to read the shirt three or four times to see their mistake...
To my knowledge, the G-series of chips has never needed a fan mounted directly on the processor. In dual (or more) processor configs there is often a fan that leads to the CPUs' heat sink (one mamouth one), so that gets close, but it is not like what is needed for the Intel/AMD processors.
Once again... not a fair comparison. Gcc is heavily optimized for Intel, and the optimization for PPC are only in their infancy going into gcc 3.1. It is really hard to compare the two platforms in any real way unless you start to be very specific about what you are doing, ie transactions on a specific database, Photoshop, etc...
And longer cords all around... I want more separation between the speakers, and don't have a ADC display so I have to use the Cube's USB port...
The PowerMac G4's are rather quite when you compare them to most other computers, but haveing had both a 533MP Powermac, and a 450 Cube side by side for a month, they are still far noisier than a Cube. I decided to stay with the cube and give up the Dual 533 (much faster) for home use because after using the Cube for a while I found it too noisy.
In a couple of years when I will replace the cube I am going to be hard pressed if Apple doesn't re-introduce something like the Cube, I never want to use noisy computers again!
Yes, MacOS X does use a lot of memory for double buffering all windows, but this does not really impact performance when you go to a lot of windows (assuming you are not memory thrashing). The backing stores are static so long as nothing changes in the window. Actually it turns out that this is a less processor intensive setup than other approaches, especially when you consider lots of windows. Now, when you consider all all the other features of Quartz, this advantage is eroded. This is another case of Apple being ahead of the curve and suffering for it.