Interesting observation but there is a growing market out there of Linux geeks who wouldn't buy FCP anyway. Do you really think Apple would prefer to shun those users and send them over to Dell for their Linux box?
How about looking at it this way?
You might buy a "Linux" box from Apple. You then might then be tempted to have a "look" at OS X (hey you've got a copy right there!) You then might like it. Now you're in the market for FCP.
The thing about Apple is that they put just as much effort into their hardware as their software. If you buy a Mac and ditch OSX in favor of Linux, they have still made a sale of exactly the same value. If a bunch of Linux users started buying Macs to run Linux because Linus does (even though he got his for free!) I'm pretty sure they'd be happy with that.
This business of comparing Apple's success in the digital music market to Microsoft's business practices is drawing a long bow at best.
Apple have always presented a unified platform of software and hardware. That is now and has always been their approach. It is their right to not hold the concept of software and hardware separation as sacrosanct.
For many years this approach has been cited as the reason that they did not succeed in the OS wars with Microsoft. Possibly true too.
It would seem that the approach of "building the whole widget" does work well in the digital music market however.
Apple did not leverage a monopoly in the music player player market to build the success of the iTunes music store. Similarly the success of the iPod was not built on the strength of a monopoly in the download market. IF they are approaching a monopoly in those markets now then it is because the entire strategy has worked.
Fair-play is not new - it was used on day one of the iTunes music store. It was clear that the iPod was the only portable player this stuff would work with. What did the market say? "Gimme"
Apple have always wanted to build the whole widget and that is what they are doing in music. Apparently the users like it this time around.
This is a box with a clock glued on the front.
What do you think the clock-speed of this sucker is?
On the positive side, the most reliable OS with an Intel box yet.
Actually you can just right click or click-hold the dock icon of that application you want and it pops up a list of all windows open in that application. Just select the one you want.
Interesting you should bring up the CTRL-C/APPLE-C thing...
I know you are talking about X apps which is different but at least with the native stuff the distinction is fairly neat.
Open the Terminal and run something continuous like "top". You can mark some text and type "APPLE-C" to copy it to the clipboard. Type "CTRL-C" to terminate the session.
At the Windows command line marking and copying text is a kludge partly because CTRL-C is already used to "break" even though it's the standard for copying elsewhere in Windows.
Hmmm, I got "trolled" for this. Clearly I offended someone.
The point I was trying to make (badly apparently) was that there is this circular argument that pops up every time there is a study that shows Windows as "less secure" than another operating system.
The argument goes - "those other operating systems are only attacked less because there are less of them out there."
There are two points about that:
Firstly the argument should be taken to its logical conclusion: If security is all about market share then the number of successful attacks should represent market share. So do they? The original article stated 0 successful attacks against OS X. Now Apple's market share may be small but it is not 0.
Secondly, what if OS security actually is measurable by market share? I have not heard anyone seriously suggesting that OS X could even grab 10% market share. Therefore if it's true that OS security is tied to market share then you will probably always be 10 times better off with OS X.
The conclusion is that regardless of whether it's about technical superiority or smaller market share or the competing operating systems are more secure than Windows.
Indeed.
It makes users feel good though doesn't it? I have a "firewall" in front of my closed ports.
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no port open to log the event did it really even happen?
In reference to the Cisco support guy and not that I imagine this is the case here but there ARE layer-2 firewalls that could block traffic between two hosts on the same IP network. Not a PIX of course, but other firewalls:-)
On the other note the case for integrated silicon-based security solutions is very interesting. I can see your point about reducing complexity with a single box solution but I don't think the security solutions are quite "there yet" to support this.
Firstly not all of these security mechanisms do well in silicon. For example, almost anyone can make a pretty handy silicon based ethernet switch because what it is doing is well defined and understood. Security exploits are a little more variable than switching ethernet however. Firewalls are probably the oldest security device out there and so the path to silicon has been built on experience. By comparison IDP technology is not nearly so robust or mature. This has some time to go in the development cycle before we can start relying on silicon versions.
It is this lack of maturity in the security market that leads to the biggest problem for integrated solutions. No single vendor makes the best solution for every security mechanism. In fact some security analysts argue that no single vendor makes even a satisfactory solution for every security mechanism.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea. It's going to need some time though.
Even if you are going across town, you aren't going to listen to ALL 200 CDs but you may want to listen to any tune at any time. That's the point. All your music in your pocket.
Except "perhaps in terms of space"? It's ALL about space. Try taking 200 CDs in your backpack on the bus. The scroll wheel seems like a pretty simple interface by comparison.
Open the finder to your desired directory. Give the web browser focus. Drag and drop the image. works for non-finder windows like word documents too.
Don't get me wrong, I use right-click but drag and drop is done single button and is intuitive as well for this purpose.
Re:Apple stole the iMac Mini idea from ePC
on
Mac mini Dissection
·
· Score: 1
If you haven't studied the matter then I guess you wouldn't see any user-submitted patches.
For improvements that have "trickled down" from Darwin check http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/
There you will find things like streaming server, open directory, rendezvous and a bunch of other stuff that some people find "cool" and "useful".
Whether technologies are "key" or not depends on the user. If you want a stable OS to run as a streaming video server then quartz and quartz extreme are indeed "eye candy".
I do take your point - Linux is open source top-to-bottom but I really do think Apple have made huge strides in their open source efforts and are a valuable member of the open source community.
Re:Apple stole the iMac Mini idea from ePC
on
Mac mini Dissection
·
· Score: 1
I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you where saying. I thought you were saying Aqua was just "eye candy" but you are actually saying that's the "cool stuff".
The truth of the matter is you can run Darwin without Aqua and still have a fully functioning machine including X11 and a Window Manager. All open source. If this doesn't constitute a full open source operating system I'm not sure what you call Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting observation but there is a growing market out there of Linux geeks who wouldn't buy FCP anyway. Do you really think Apple would prefer to shun those users and send them over to Dell for their Linux box?
How about looking at it this way?
You might buy a "Linux" box from Apple. You then might then be tempted to have a "look" at OS X (hey you've got a copy right there!) You then might like it. Now you're in the market for FCP.
The thing about Apple is that they put just as much effort into their hardware as their software. If you buy a Mac and ditch OSX in favor of Linux, they have still made a sale of exactly the same value. If a bunch of Linux users started buying Macs to run Linux because Linus does (even though he got his for free!) I'm pretty sure they'd be happy with that.
See, this is where Australians are different. Just because he may actually be the right guy for the job, it's not going to stop you taking the piss...
I'm not sure about suicide but this image is compelling evidence for euthanasia if I've ever seen one...
I've always found it interesting that it is illegal to a) commit suicide or b) attempt to commit suicide.
a) What are they going to do to you when you are dead?
b) If you are going to do it, make sure you do it right.
Seems like b) is more about deterring you from taking up an expensive hospital bed.
The robots let her win.
Ahh, guilty until PROVEN innocent...
This business of comparing Apple's success in the digital music market to Microsoft's business practices is drawing a long bow at best.
Apple have always presented a unified platform of software and hardware. That is now and has always been their approach. It is their right to not hold the concept of software and hardware separation as sacrosanct.
For many years this approach has been cited as the reason that they did not succeed in the OS wars with Microsoft. Possibly true too.
It would seem that the approach of "building the whole widget" does work well in the digital music market however.
Apple did not leverage a monopoly in the music player player market to build the success of the iTunes music store. Similarly the success of the iPod was not built on the strength of a monopoly in the download market. IF they are approaching a monopoly in those markets now then it is because the entire strategy has worked.
Fair-play is not new - it was used on day one of the iTunes music store. It was clear that the iPod was the only portable player this stuff would work with. What did the market say? "Gimme"
Apple have always wanted to build the whole widget and that is what they are doing in music. Apparently the users like it this time around.
I'm pretty sure Wile E Coyote or at least someone at ACME has prior art on this...
Can you get another 5 points for funny? Very cool.
This is a box with a clock glued on the front. What do you think the clock-speed of this sucker is? On the positive side, the most reliable OS with an Intel box yet.
Actually you can just right click or click-hold the dock icon of that application you want and it pops up a list of all windows open in that application. Just select the one you want.
Pardon my ignorance but how is the windowing scheme "otherwise brain dead"?
Interesting you should bring up the CTRL-C/APPLE-C thing... I know you are talking about X apps which is different but at least with the native stuff the distinction is fairly neat. Open the Terminal and run something continuous like "top". You can mark some text and type "APPLE-C" to copy it to the clipboard. Type "CTRL-C" to terminate the session. At the Windows command line marking and copying text is a kludge partly because CTRL-C is already used to "break" even though it's the standard for copying elsewhere in Windows.
Hmmm, I got "trolled" for this. Clearly I offended someone.
The point I was trying to make (badly apparently) was that there is this circular argument that pops up every time there is a study that shows Windows as "less secure" than another operating system.
The argument goes - "those other operating systems are only attacked less because there are less of them out there."
There are two points about that:
Firstly the argument should be taken to its logical conclusion: If security is all about market share then the number of successful attacks should represent market share. So do they? The original article stated 0 successful attacks against OS X. Now Apple's market share may be small but it is not 0.
Secondly, what if OS security actually is measurable by market share? I have not heard anyone seriously suggesting that OS X could even grab 10% market share. Therefore if it's true that OS security is tied to market share then you will probably always be 10 times better off with OS X.
The conclusion is that regardless of whether it's about technical superiority or smaller market share or the competing operating systems are more secure than Windows.
I'm sorry, what do you mean?
"OSX is more secure"
"That's only because they have no market share and no one bothers to write viruses for them"
"So their market share is going to overtake Windows soon!"
"No chance, I don't care how many iPods they sell they'll be lucky to hit 4% in your lifetime"
"So... OSX is more secure"
Indeed. It makes users feel good though doesn't it? I have a "firewall" in front of my closed ports. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no port open to log the event did it really even happen?
Much better that "literature" is left unread by the great unwashed masses. He probably doesn't like "popular music" either.
In reference to the Cisco support guy and not that I imagine this is the case here but there ARE layer-2 firewalls that could block traffic between two hosts on the same IP network. Not a PIX of course, but other firewalls :-)
.
On the other note the case for integrated silicon-based security solutions is very interesting. I can see your point about reducing complexity with a single box solution but I don't think the security solutions are quite "there yet" to support this.
Firstly not all of these security mechanisms do well in silicon. For example, almost anyone can make a pretty handy silicon based ethernet switch because what it is doing is well defined and understood. Security exploits are a little more variable than switching ethernet however. Firewalls are probably the oldest security device out there and so the path to silicon has been built on experience. By comparison IDP technology is not nearly so robust or mature. This has some time to go in the development cycle before we can start relying on silicon versions
It is this lack of maturity in the security market that leads to the biggest problem for integrated solutions. No single vendor makes the best solution for every security mechanism. In fact some security analysts argue that no single vendor makes even a satisfactory solution for every security mechanism.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea. It's going to need some time though.
Even if you are going across town, you aren't going to listen to ALL 200 CDs but you may want to listen to any tune at any time. That's the point. All your music in your pocket.
Except "perhaps in terms of space"? It's ALL about space. Try taking 200 CDs in your backpack on the bus. The scroll wheel seems like a pretty simple interface by comparison.
Open the finder to your desired directory. Give the web browser focus. Drag and drop the image. works for non-finder windows like word documents too. Don't get me wrong, I use right-click but drag and drop is done single button and is intuitive as well for this purpose.
If you haven't studied the matter then I guess you wouldn't see any user-submitted patches.
For improvements that have "trickled down" from Darwin check http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/
There you will find things like streaming server, open directory, rendezvous and a bunch of other stuff that some people find "cool" and "useful".
Whether technologies are "key" or not depends on the user. If you want a stable OS to run as a streaming video server then quartz and quartz extreme are indeed "eye candy".
I do take your point - Linux is open source top-to-bottom but I really do think Apple have made huge strides in their open source efforts and are a valuable member of the open source community.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you where saying. I thought you were saying Aqua was just "eye candy" but you are actually saying that's the "cool stuff". The truth of the matter is you can run Darwin without Aqua and still have a fully functioning machine including X11 and a Window Manager. All open source. If this doesn't constitute a full open source operating system I'm not sure what you call Linux.