Sound like apple is trying to take one big leap OVER wearable computing and get INSIDE us!
Actually this sounds like a pretty cool idea... Just think about it. With Apple inside of us, instead of just a walled garden, we could have a garden of pure ideology. We could be one people with one will, one resolve, one cause. This unification of thoughts could change the world; it would be a more powerful weapon than any fleet or army on earth! Our enemies shall talk themselves to death while we bury them with their own confusion!
Standard deviations go both ways; above & below the mean. "High end" on the other hand, is synonymous with "above average" - i.e. better than what most people use/need.
I'd say, IDEALLY it's better to build high end, but in reality we build according to requirements, financial constraints, time to market, return on investment, etc. Using the original topic as an example, you could build high end 4K Ultra High Definition monitors that would certainly work almost everyone. However, at this time, to make a profit you're probably going to have to sell your monitors at a price point that 2-3 standard deviations of the mean population can't afford.
Actually, history has proven just the opposite... When you build for the average person, you maximize the selling potential of your product. That's why everything from ramen noodles to cars are designed for an "average" person. Moreover, in many situations you're required to design & build products to conform to some regulation designed for an average person. Not meeting those requirements immediately dooms your product to failure.
Sure there's some variability to what is considered average, depending on your country and/or market, and even level of technology, but the point being, that by not designing products for the average person, you're designing for a niche or specialty market, or experimenting with new or novel technology.
Obligatory car analogy: That's why there's a whole lot more people driving Toyota Corollas then there are driving Bugatti Veyrons - even though side by side, most people would probably notice a clear difference and prefer a Veyron./Obligatory car analogy
'If all you see in your workday are your co-workers and all you see out your window is the green perimeter of your carefully tended property,' Mozingo writes, and you drive to and from work in the cocoon of your private car, 'the notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm is predictably distant."
So where did this guy get his geek credentials from anyway? I don't even have window... I get enough UV radiation from my wall o'monitors down here in the basement, thanks. The only scenery I look at is rendered through a pixel shader... And my commute is never lonely - since my mom does all the driving.
This guy really needs to get in touch with reality...
Just hand over your geek card now. You've become to jaded & cynical to deserve it. This is Slashdot after all. You know: "News for Nerds", and all that. OF COURSE IT MATTERS what OS the latest gadget is using, does it understand Mobile Web sites, does it render XHTML Mobile Profile, etc. etc. etc. That's why we're all here reading about it. Brand names mean nothing to us geeks - it's all about functionality! Who cares about all the rampant fanboyism over a particular manufacturer's product? What we're concerned most with is how will this company's next offering stack up against others in this highly competitive & fast evolving market.
Also, in this case let's not forget that Apple has had a history of forcing innovation on the public and taking (borrowing and even stealing) cutting edge technologies & making them practical, popular & even necessary. For instance, before the iPhone, I remember trying to decide if I should toss my Palm Treo & go with a Blackberry. Back then, there weren't really any other smart phone options for me. I remember people laughing at the idea of a touch screen phone and harping about all that was wrong with the iPhone's simplistic interface and wondering how successful they'd be by not allowing the iPhone to be carrier-branded
Now look at how far we've come. Almost every phone out there today has benefitted in some way from the iPhone - not to mention that there are alot more smart phones on the market today & they all resemble the basic iPhone design.
So come on, the iPhone saga has been a hot topic since its vaporware days, and even if you don't use an iPhone, you're inner geek has to be at least curious to see what the next version will have to offer.
And HP, Motorola, Samsung, RIM, Microsoft, Nokia, HTC... these are fly-by-night upstarts, new to the industry?
...No, but as far as iPad-style tablets go, they're all a little late to the party. I'm sure that they'll catch up eventually - just like they did with the iPhone, but it's gonna be more of an uphill battle than with the iPhone because the tablets aren't as closely tied to cell phone carriers.
Fair enough, in a general/abstract sense... But that's not my point. The point that I was trying to make is that online education is ripe for "gameification". This is because video games - especially online video games - are incredibly efficient mechanisms for learning, while online instruction is not - even though many of the high level patterns that you encounter in video game design are very similar to the patterns that you find in online instruction... In fact, the basic problem domain seems to be pretty much the same between the two.
I tend to believe that this doesn't have as much to do with content as it does with the fact that the technology used for online instruction is relatively primitive when compared to even simple online video games; in that online instruction generally doesn't implement many of the technologies that we would consider "normal" elements of online video games.
...and yes, the concepts behind those technologies are not necessarily specific to video games or even gaming in general, but the implementation that I'm referring to is.
In the education industry there's a lot of interest in the gamification of online courses. One thing that's often found lacking in an online class as compared to a face-to-face class is interaction. That is, online classes are either full of static text-based content, or one-way TV-style videos that require very little participation (communication & interaction) from students. However, one of the greatest strengths of online an online class is the ability to be asynchronous & self paced; allowing students to participate & learn on their own schedule. In a general sense, video games - even simple ones bridge these gaps by allowing people play when they want to play and interact with the game as much as is required to accomplish the goal of the game (i.e. they learn). The game keeps track of the player's progress and can often adjust to match the player's skill level - all automatically. Moreover, gaming can provide frameworks for communication, organization, and competition among individuals & groups can be well beyond the physical limitations of a traditional classroom.
Of course, probably the greatest challenge to bridging the two worlds is adapting various course materials to work as games. Although I've seen a lot of great "expert systems" that are good at introducing a concept, then following up with questions until it is determined that a student understands the concept, these are usually text-based and not very engaging. Not much better than the early text-based computer games from the back in the 80's.
As paper is becoming more & more obsolete, it would be nice to see textbook publishers think beyond e-books & online CMSs and get into game development. Then maybe we'd see some truly immersive, interactive games that can help students learn.
Failure in the PC marketspace doesn't mean that having great hardware gets you nowhere. It simply means that the Mac wasn't better than a Wintel PC by a large enough margin for people to consider switching.
Exactly! And the same was true of the iPod in the beginning... There just wasn't enough of a compelling reason to really separate it from the pack; at least until the iTunes Music Store - this was the true innovation of the iPod something that nobody else had been able to pull of (legally)
You're right in that what makes them successful is the ecosystem. But from their ecosystem, it is the end to end integration on the focus of the user experience that makes them successful, not from the consumer lockdown.
The way I see it, the "consumer lockdown" is responsible for the successful user experience. This is nothing new for Apple, of course. The've been doing business this way for a long time, providing locked down hardware that has really tightly integrated software - and in my opinion, a whole lot less bloatware.
Why do I say that?
Because when the iPod came out of nowhere and took over the market, there were three parts: The Mac (desktop), iTunes (the app), and the iPod (device).
Not exactly the way I remember it... iTunes was introduced for Mac OS 9, then The iPod came out later that year. Originally, the iPod only worked on Macs, it wasn't until the second generation iPod that Windows support was added (through third party software). Even then, the iPod was far from taking over the market. This didn't happen until iTunes 4 (with the iTunes Music Store) was released for Windows. This was when the rules of the game changed, and the iPod + iTunes Music Store created an entirely new market - an all-in-one ecosystem where for the first time buying, building and playing back your music library became a seamless experience.
What did it compete against? The Rio and the Creative Nomad. The Rio was over parallel port and limited to around 32MB. The Nomad devices were mostly USB1 and limited to around 256MB.
When I first tried iTunes, I used it on OS 9 with a portable CD player that could play MP3s - a great little gadget that allowed me to hold hundreds of songs on one CD. I later bought a Rio that did integrate nicely with iTunes on OS 9 (even had a custom icon in iTunes when you plugged it in). My Rio used USB 1 to connect. The slow transfer rate wasn't very noticeable because the Rio's memory modules were so small. I basically used it like a cassette player; keeping different songs on different memory modules. Still, the Rio memory was expensive and I eventually got rid of it in favor of some off-brand mp3 player that used standard flash memory and connected with USB 1.1. Although iTunes didn't recognize it, it wasn't to hard to drag & drop mp3s into it. This was the last stand alone mp3 player that I bought. To tell the truth, out of all of them, I liked the CD player the best - sure it was a little bit more bulky, but I could use those CD in just about any CD player or computer - even in my car.
The Rio had a great user interface and it was integrated with iTunes. Although the iPod promised "1000 songs in your pocked", I didn't like the fact that you couldn't upgrade the memory or change out the battery. I also avoided the Firewire interface - which was pretty much exclusive to Macs at that time
Thanks for the fun chat. I've enjoyed the trip down memory lane.
Yes, seriously. Little to do with hardware... Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that Apple's hasn't led the industry with innovative hardware (they always have and continue to), but where did all the cool hardware get them before the iPod? At best, only some marginal share of the consumer PC market.
There've been plenty of cool devices that have come & gone over the years (some were even Apple products). So, it's certainly not the hardware alone that makes great product, or makes a product great.
No, the success of the iPod & later iOS devices wasn't the hardware (not that having great hardware didn't help). It was Apple's ability to control the whole ecosystem: hardware, software *and services*. Love it or hate it, it's the success of the "walled garden" approach that's given these products such a lead on the competitors. Moreover, this strategy has been able to either create the entire market for these products, or at least redefine it to the point where everyone else is forced to play catch up.
I think there may be a misunderstanding here. If we're talking about open standards, we're not necessarily talking about training people to use different software, just different standards. You don't have to use Writer, just make sure that your people are saving their Word documents in ODT, XML, HTML or RTF.
I completely agree with your reasoning here. The original article claims that the BSA is getting all bent out of shape because of a new procurement policy note that recommends using Open Standards when "purchasing software, ICT infrastructure, ICT security and other ICT goods and services." For the most part, it seems that the note was well received & makes a lot of sense. However, the BSA seems to take issue with the part that states: "Government defines “open standards” as standards which... [among other items listed] have intellectual property made irrevocably available on a royalty free basis... "
Maybe, I'm having some difficulty parsing the meaning of this, but I interpret this as "any IP that you create using said product should remain viewable/usable in the future without having to pay additional money for another upgrade/version of said product." Maybe I'm wrong (I'm American and speak a different dialect of English)... Or maybe the BSA thinks that requiring customers to pay for upgrades in order to access their IP is important to their constituents...
Sure Apple's consumer software is all closed up & proprietary, but come on most of OS X is Open Source & relies on open standards - that's one of the reasons that my government employer bought into Apple's enterprise offerings. Heck, even the text editor that is built into OS X supports the OpenDocument Text format (.odt).
Considering all of the other BSA members, this seems to me like it should have been posted in a different category...
What Apple has done with iOS based devices has little to do with the actual hardware - it's all about the "walled garden". While I agree that Apple innovations with these products shouldn't be ignored, the real success that Apple has seen is due to the fact that no other hardware manufacturer has been as successful at making entire product ecosystems. That's what Apple's all about these days: Don't just sell an mp3 player, but sell the player, the software for the home computer *and* the music! Oh, and make everything works together seamlessly and don't be afraid to think outside the box when it comes to providing the highest quality user interface possible. This has been so successful with the iPod/Pad/Phone, they're even doing it with Macs now. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the rumors of a gaming app store for the Apple TV turn out to be true.
The "walled garden" concept is what has led Apple to dominate in most (if not all) of the areas of consumer electronics that they've chosen to compete in. I'd guess that's also the reason that they seem to be pulling out of other, more traditional markets.
For Mac OS X Server, "advanced" is one of several out-of-the-box configurations that you can chose from during or after the installation of the OS - no additional installation of software required. RTFM for more information. As for the Time Machine functionalty... Well, just consider my comments as a public service announcement and a mea culpa. When I first started administering Xserves, I thought Time Machine could do it all because it came bundled with the OS. However, I feel it's important to let folks know that although Time Machine is a great solution for backing up OS X Client, it has limitations with OS X Server that are not entirely obvious or publicized by Apple. I don't want people to have to get burned like I did.
It's not my stance, it's Apple's - read the Mac OS X Server Getting Started Guide, or call AppleCare Enterprise Support. That said, the Mail service in OS X Server (including postfix) is part of the basic "Standalone directory" config, so it will get backed up by Time Machine - at least in Snow Leopard (AFAIK Time Machine still doesn't back up the Mail service in Leopard).
Trust me, learn from my mistakes... If you're running OS X Server in any configuration other than the basic "Standalone directory" config, you don't want to rely on Time Machine. Time Machine backups are not supported by Apple for advanced server configurations & you WILL lose data.
Except that as mentioned in the Mac OS X Server Getting Started Guide, Time Machine is not supported for backup of an advanced server. That is, most of the services that OS X Server provides won't get backed up by TimeMachine.
Except that as mentioned in the Mac OS X Server Getting Started Guide, Time Machine is not supported for backup of an advanced server. That is, most of the services that OS X Server provides won't get backed up by TimeMachine.
I think that Apple is trying to tell us that there is no point to having an OS X "server"; that's why the Xserve is gone & with Lion there will no longer be a separate server version of OS X. Seems to me like Apple is officially pulling out of what we consider "The Enterprise" in favor of consumer technologies - which has so far made them way more money than anything that they've ever done in the enterprise market - or could hope to do.
No OS X Server? No big loss... Like any other *nix, most of the server software was either already built into the client OS or could be added with little trouble. Paying a bunch of extra $$$ for a couple of GUI server tools always seemed like a bit of a rip off.
No Xserve? Well, I have to agree with you there... With no 3rd party hardware able to legally run OS X Server, you have to wonder what's going to happen to all of those poor folks that bought Xserves. To be clear, I'm in that position now since I administer a few Xserves & Xsan's. With no hardware server to run a server OS on, it's hard to justify staying with OS X as a server platform.
Of course, the new MacBook specs show a system with more power than any of the Xserves that I work with & thundercat... thunderclap... (shit, whatever they're calling Light Peak now) has more throughput than a Fibre Channel Xsan. Maybe a cluster of Mac Minis with Light Peak built in?... No....
Since installing Ubuntu, my computer certainly looks a lot sexier... Now I curse at it for pleasure - not for pain! Yessss... That's just how daddy like it... Now post my comment you filthy little....
To be clear the announcement that the Xserve will only be available until Jan 31, 2011 should not be considered an indication of where Apple is going with respect with Mac OS X Server. While it's our policy not to discuss unannounced products I do have an official statement that I can share with you:
"Apple remains committed to the development of server products, services and technologies. Apple continues to offer Mac OS X Server software, Mac mini with Snow Leopard Server, and starting today a new configuration of Mac Pro with Snow Leopard Server."
OK, typical Apple response - but at least this holds out some hope that those of use with OS X Server infrastructures in place won't have to show up at our data centers with a bunch of consumer-grade Macs.
This is probably the best thing that Apple could do for Java developers... Originally Apple added Java to OS X to entice Java developers to come over to the new platform. Since that time, there have only been complaints about Apple's Java implementation - and as a result, we've seen Java get pushed further & further out of the core OS frameworks. Basically, the writing has been on the wall for a long time. The introduction of the iPhone (with no Java support) was the final nail in the coffin.
I'm not saying that Java on OS X is dead, but at least now it will be on a level playing field with other platforms. And now all of us Mac/Java developers can stop holding our breath waiting to see if Apple will commit to supporting Java or not.
"Today we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives.
We have created for the first time in all history a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory true thoughts.
Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth.
We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause.
Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion.
We shall prevail!
On January 24th Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like '1984.'"
Although I'm not an iPad developer and don't plan on purchasing an iPad, after seeing the Adobe video - I thought the app looked pretty "Flashy". However, after reading all of the mixed coverage about this app, I wonder if the app Adobe is showing off is the actual shipping app, or one that was built without the recent source code/compiler restrictions.
Slashdot Mirror
Sound like apple is trying to take one big leap OVER wearable computing and get INSIDE us! Actually this sounds like a pretty cool idea... Just think about it. With Apple inside of us, instead of just a walled garden, we could have a garden of pure ideology. We could be one people with one will, one resolve, one cause. This unification of thoughts could change the world; it would be a more powerful weapon than any fleet or army on earth! Our enemies shall talk themselves to death while we bury them with their own confusion!
Standard deviations go both ways; above & below the mean. "High end" on the other hand, is synonymous with "above average" - i.e. better than what most people use/need.
I'd say, IDEALLY it's better to build high end, but in reality we build according to requirements, financial constraints, time to market, return on investment, etc. Using the original topic as an example, you could build high end 4K Ultra High Definition monitors that would certainly work almost everyone. However, at this time, to make a profit you're probably going to have to sell your monitors at a price point that 2-3 standard deviations of the mean population can't afford.
Actually, history has proven just the opposite... When you build for the average person, you maximize the selling potential of your product. That's why everything from ramen noodles to cars are designed for an "average" person. Moreover, in many situations you're required to design & build products to conform to some regulation designed for an average person. Not meeting those requirements immediately dooms your product to failure.
Sure there's some variability to what is considered average, depending on your country and/or market, and even level of technology, but the point being, that by not designing products for the average person, you're designing for a niche or specialty market, or experimenting with new or novel technology.
Obligatory car analogy: That's why there's a whole lot more people driving Toyota Corollas then there are driving Bugatti Veyrons - even though side by side, most people would probably notice a clear difference and prefer a Veyron. /Obligatory car analogy
'If all you see in your workday are your co-workers and all you see out your window is the green perimeter of your carefully tended property,' Mozingo writes, and you drive to and from work in the cocoon of your private car, 'the notion of a shared responsibility in the collective metropolitan realm is predictably distant."
So where did this guy get his geek credentials from anyway? I don't even have window... I get enough UV radiation from my wall o'monitors down here in the basement, thanks. The only scenery I look at is rendered through a pixel shader... And my commute is never lonely - since my mom does all the driving.
This guy really needs to get in touch with reality...
Also, in this case let's not forget that Apple has had a history of forcing innovation on the public and taking (borrowing and even stealing) cutting edge technologies & making them practical, popular & even necessary. For instance, before the iPhone, I remember trying to decide if I should toss my Palm Treo & go with a Blackberry. Back then, there weren't really any other smart phone options for me. I remember people laughing at the idea of a touch screen phone and harping about all that was wrong with the iPhone's simplistic interface and wondering how successful they'd be by not allowing the iPhone to be carrier-branded
Now look at how far we've come. Almost every phone out there today has benefitted in some way from the iPhone - not to mention that there are alot more smart phones on the market today & they all resemble the basic iPhone design.
So come on, the iPhone saga has been a hot topic since its vaporware days, and even if you don't use an iPhone, you're inner geek has to be at least curious to see what the next version will have to offer.
Is that the Lion share?...
Imagine that... An app designed to catch people trying to break into your iPhone collects a bunch of common passwords...
And HP, Motorola, Samsung, RIM, Microsoft, Nokia, HTC... these are fly-by-night upstarts, new to the industry?
...No, but as far as iPad-style tablets go, they're all a little late to the party. I'm sure that they'll catch up eventually - just like they did with the iPhone, but it's gonna be more of an uphill battle than with the iPhone because the tablets aren't as closely tied to cell phone carriers.
Fair enough, in a general/abstract sense... But that's not my point. The point that I was trying to make is that online education is ripe for "gameification". This is because video games - especially online video games - are incredibly efficient mechanisms for learning, while online instruction is not - even though many of the high level patterns that you encounter in video game design are very similar to the patterns that you find in online instruction... In fact, the basic problem domain seems to be pretty much the same between the two.
I tend to believe that this doesn't have as much to do with content as it does with the fact that the technology used for online instruction is relatively primitive when compared to even simple online video games; in that online instruction generally doesn't implement many of the technologies that we would consider "normal" elements of online video games.
Of course, probably the greatest challenge to bridging the two worlds is adapting various course materials to work as games. Although I've seen a lot of great "expert systems" that are good at introducing a concept, then following up with questions until it is determined that a student understands the concept, these are usually text-based and not very engaging. Not much better than the early text-based computer games from the back in the 80's.
As paper is becoming more & more obsolete, it would be nice to see textbook publishers think beyond e-books & online CMSs and get into game development. Then maybe we'd see some truly immersive, interactive games that can help students learn.
Failure in the PC marketspace doesn't mean that having great hardware gets you nowhere. It simply means that the Mac wasn't better than a Wintel PC by a large enough margin for people to consider switching.
Exactly! And the same was true of the iPod in the beginning... There just wasn't enough of a compelling reason to really separate it from the pack; at least until the iTunes Music Store - this was the true innovation of the iPod something that nobody else had been able to pull of (legally)
You're right in that what makes them successful is the ecosystem. But from their ecosystem, it is the end to end integration on the focus of the user experience that makes them successful, not from the consumer lockdown.
The way I see it, the "consumer lockdown" is responsible for the successful user experience. This is nothing new for Apple, of course. The've been doing business this way for a long time, providing locked down hardware that has really tightly integrated software - and in my opinion, a whole lot less bloatware.
Why do I say that?
Because when the iPod came out of nowhere and took over the market, there were three parts: The Mac (desktop), iTunes (the app), and the iPod (device).
Not exactly the way I remember it... iTunes was introduced for Mac OS 9, then The iPod came out later that year. Originally, the iPod only worked on Macs, it wasn't until the second generation iPod that Windows support was added (through third party software). Even then, the iPod was far from taking over the market. This didn't happen until iTunes 4 (with the iTunes Music Store) was released for Windows. This was when the rules of the game changed, and the iPod + iTunes Music Store created an entirely new market - an all-in-one ecosystem where for the first time buying, building and playing back your music library became a seamless experience.
What did it compete against? The Rio and the Creative Nomad. The Rio was over parallel port and limited to around 32MB. The Nomad devices were mostly USB1 and limited to around 256MB.
When I first tried iTunes, I used it on OS 9 with a portable CD player that could play MP3s - a great little gadget that allowed me to hold hundreds of songs on one CD. I later bought a Rio that did integrate nicely with iTunes on OS 9 (even had a custom icon in iTunes when you plugged it in). My Rio used USB 1 to connect. The slow transfer rate wasn't very noticeable because the Rio's memory modules were so small. I basically used it like a cassette player; keeping different songs on different memory modules. Still, the Rio memory was expensive and I eventually got rid of it in favor of some off-brand mp3 player that used standard flash memory and connected with USB 1.1. Although iTunes didn't recognize it, it wasn't to hard to drag & drop mp3s into it. This was the last stand alone mp3 player that I bought. To tell the truth, out of all of them, I liked the CD player the best - sure it was a little bit more bulky, but I could use those CD in just about any CD player or computer - even in my car.
The Rio had a great user interface and it was integrated with iTunes. Although the iPod promised "1000 songs in your pocked", I didn't like the fact that you couldn't upgrade the memory or change out the battery. I also avoided the Firewire interface - which was pretty much exclusive to Macs at that time
Thanks for the fun chat. I've enjoyed the trip down memory lane.
Yes, seriously. Little to do with hardware... Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that Apple's hasn't led the industry with innovative hardware (they always have and continue to), but where did all the cool hardware get them before the iPod? At best, only some marginal share of the consumer PC market.
There've been plenty of cool devices that have come & gone over the years (some were even Apple products). So, it's certainly not the hardware alone that makes great product, or makes a product great.
No, the success of the iPod & later iOS devices wasn't the hardware (not that having great hardware didn't help). It was Apple's ability to control the whole ecosystem: hardware, software *and services*. Love it or hate it, it's the success of the "walled garden" approach that's given these products such a lead on the competitors. Moreover, this strategy has been able to either create the entire market for these products, or at least redefine it to the point where everyone else is forced to play catch up.
I think there may be a misunderstanding here. If we're talking about open standards, we're not necessarily talking about training people to use different software, just different standards. You don't have to use Writer, just make sure that your people are saving their Word documents in ODT, XML, HTML or RTF.
I completely agree with your reasoning here. The original article claims that the BSA is getting all bent out of shape because of a new procurement policy note that recommends using Open Standards when "purchasing software, ICT infrastructure, ICT security and other ICT goods and services." For the most part, it seems that the note was well received & makes a lot of sense. However, the BSA seems to take issue with the part that states: "Government defines “open standards” as standards which... [among other items listed] have intellectual property made irrevocably available on a royalty free basis... "
Maybe, I'm having some difficulty parsing the meaning of this, but I interpret this as "any IP that you create using said product should remain viewable/usable in the future without having to pay additional money for another upgrade/version of said product." Maybe I'm wrong (I'm American and speak a different dialect of English)... Or maybe the BSA thinks that requiring customers to pay for upgrades in order to access their IP is important to their constituents...
Sure Apple's consumer software is all closed up & proprietary, but come on most of OS X is Open Source & relies on open standards - that's one of the reasons that my government employer bought into Apple's enterprise offerings. Heck, even the text editor that is built into OS X supports the OpenDocument Text format (.odt).
Considering all of the other BSA members, this seems to me like it should have been posted in a different category...
What Apple has done with iOS based devices has little to do with the actual hardware - it's all about the "walled garden". While I agree that Apple innovations with these products shouldn't be ignored, the real success that Apple has seen is due to the fact that no other hardware manufacturer has been as successful at making entire product ecosystems. That's what Apple's all about these days: Don't just sell an mp3 player, but sell the player, the software for the home computer *and* the music! Oh, and make everything works together seamlessly and don't be afraid to think outside the box when it comes to providing the highest quality user interface possible. This has been so successful with the iPod/Pad/Phone, they're even doing it with Macs now. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the rumors of a gaming app store for the Apple TV turn out to be true.
The "walled garden" concept is what has led Apple to dominate in most (if not all) of the areas of consumer electronics that they've chosen to compete in. I'd guess that's also the reason that they seem to be pulling out of other, more traditional markets.
For Mac OS X Server, "advanced" is one of several out-of-the-box configurations that you can chose from during or after the installation of the OS - no additional installation of software required. RTFM for more information. As for the Time Machine functionalty... Well, just consider my comments as a public service announcement and a mea culpa. When I first started administering Xserves, I thought Time Machine could do it all because it came bundled with the OS. However, I feel it's important to let folks know that although Time Machine is a great solution for backing up OS X Client, it has limitations with OS X Server that are not entirely obvious or publicized by Apple. I don't want people to have to get burned like I did.
It's not my stance, it's Apple's - read the Mac OS X Server Getting Started Guide, or call AppleCare Enterprise Support. That said, the Mail service in OS X Server (including postfix) is part of the basic "Standalone directory" config, so it will get backed up by Time Machine - at least in Snow Leopard (AFAIK Time Machine still doesn't back up the Mail service in Leopard).
Trust me, learn from my mistakes... If you're running OS X Server in any configuration other than the basic "Standalone directory" config, you don't want to rely on Time Machine. Time Machine backups are not supported by Apple for advanced server configurations & you WILL lose data.
Except that as mentioned in the Mac OS X Server Getting Started Guide, Time Machine is not supported for backup of an advanced server. That is, most of the services that OS X Server provides won't get backed up by TimeMachine.
Except that as mentioned in the Mac OS X Server Getting Started Guide, Time Machine is not supported for backup of an advanced server. That is, most of the services that OS X Server provides won't get backed up by TimeMachine.
I think that Apple is trying to tell us that there is no point to having an OS X "server"; that's why the Xserve is gone & with Lion there will no longer be a separate server version of OS X. Seems to me like Apple is officially pulling out of what we consider "The Enterprise" in favor of consumer technologies - which has so far made them way more money than anything that they've ever done in the enterprise market - or could hope to do.
No OS X Server? No big loss... Like any other *nix, most of the server software was either already built into the client OS or could be added with little trouble. Paying a bunch of extra $$$ for a couple of GUI server tools always seemed like a bit of a rip off.
No Xserve? Well, I have to agree with you there... With no 3rd party hardware able to legally run OS X Server, you have to wonder what's going to happen to all of those poor folks that bought Xserves. To be clear, I'm in that position now since I administer a few Xserves & Xsan's. With no hardware server to run a server OS on, it's hard to justify staying with OS X as a server platform.
Of course, the new MacBook specs show a system with more power than any of the Xserves that I work with & thundercat... thunderclap... (shit, whatever they're calling Light Peak now) has more throughput than a Fibre Channel Xsan. Maybe a cluster of Mac Minis with Light Peak built in?... No....
Since installing Ubuntu, my computer certainly looks a lot sexier... Now I curse at it for pleasure - not for pain! Yessss... That's just how daddy like it... Now post my comment you filthy little....
To be clear the announcement that the Xserve will only be available until Jan 31, 2011 should not be considered an indication of where Apple is going with respect with Mac OS X Server. While it's our policy not to discuss unannounced products I do have an official statement that I can share with you:
"Apple remains committed to the development of server products, services and technologies. Apple continues to offer Mac OS X Server software, Mac mini with Snow Leopard Server, and starting today a new configuration of Mac Pro with Snow Leopard Server."
OK, typical Apple response - but at least this holds out some hope that those of use with OS X Server infrastructures in place won't have to show up at our data centers with a bunch of consumer-grade Macs.
This is probably the best thing that Apple could do for Java developers... Originally Apple added Java to OS X to entice Java developers to come over to the new platform. Since that time, there have only been complaints about Apple's Java implementation - and as a result, we've seen Java get pushed further & further out of the core OS frameworks. Basically, the writing has been on the wall for a long time. The introduction of the iPhone (with no Java support) was the final nail in the coffin.
I'm not saying that Java on OS X is dead, but at least now it will be on a level playing field with other platforms. And now all of us Mac/Java developers can stop holding our breath waiting to see if Apple will commit to supporting Java or not.
"Today we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives.
We have created for the first time in all history a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory true thoughts.
Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth.
We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause.
Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion.
We shall prevail!
On January 24th Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like '1984.'"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8
Who knew that 26 years later, Apple would be "Big Brother"...
After installing Adobe CS5, somehow I ended up on this page that supposedly shows the Wired app in action.
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/xd-inspire/introducing-wired-on-ipad/
Although I'm not an iPad developer and don't plan on purchasing an iPad, after seeing the Adobe video - I thought the app looked pretty "Flashy". However, after reading all of the mixed coverage about this app, I wonder if the app Adobe is showing off is the actual shipping app, or one that was built without the recent source code/compiler restrictions.
Any iPad + Wired app owners care to comment?