And who exactly stays tied to their consoles? Pretty much first-party and second-party developers. The ones owned by the manufacturer of their respective consoles. That is why most Third-party developers are going multi-platform. They don't want to limit their available target audience to one group.
Would you market your game to 10 million, or a 100 million?
I suppose you haven't noticed that most of their exclusive developers are OWNED (in full or partially) by those companies. Look at how many third-party developers are going multi-platform to try and recuperate their absurd production costs. You know what continues to be one of the biggest hinderances of most of them as they go multi-platform? The change in APIs and having to relearn chunks of programming habits in order to make effective code.
Now where did I say that any other company should not be held to the same standard? I never said Xbox/Microsoft/Windows developers were the only ones being a part of the problem.
Valve Says Choice to Make DX10 Vista-Only Hurt PC Gaming
What should be said:
Gamers say Developer's choice to use DirectX over OpenGL only hurts PC gaming.
I mean seriously, if they thought it out completely, does it make sense to lock your product to another product that is controlled completely by one company? Yeah some will cite some shortsided reasons to use DirectX and ignore the major disadvantage.
As an owner of the first edition, it is a must own title for anyone into webdesign and programming. If only Microsoft started to adhere to the W3C specification, the world would be a better place.
-The camera feature on my phone is activated by a single large, marked button, and can't be used while making a call. If you have to worry about hitting it accidentally, you must have very fat fingers.
Most cellphone makers put their camera buttons either near the volume adjust settings or within the contextual keys. Just because yours does not, does not mean they all have the same design. My father has a phone from LG, the camera buttons are mixed in with the contextual keys. He never, ever, uses the camera despite the fact that he constantly hits the buttons for it.
-AFAIK it doesn't draw power unless in use.
Even if the camera is off, it still draws power. It is just like any other electronic device. Have you ever put a set of batteries in a calculator that you don't use, only to find out later the batteries are dead later on? The cameras share the same logicboards as the rest of the phone and still have power passing through the parts.
-Yes, I too have been in places that disallow cameras, but I guess I've never needed a phone in those situations
I thought the entire point of owning a cellphone is to be available to anyone, at any time. I have been in many situations where camera phones weren't allowed. Most often when I go to the labs.
Anyway, I used to think it was a stupid features... until I got one. Now it'd be hard to go back.
Well that is you, that is not everyone else. As I stated before, my father never uses the camera on his phone. I never use my PVR's movie service, or most of its functions outside of record and playback functions. I have a multi-function Canon Pixma, I rarely use its fax or SD-to-print functions.
The same with my cellphone. I don't need a camera, I already have two (one JB-1* and Canon PowerShot).
As for car stereo remote... changing the volume/station/track without having to look down is very convenient and much safer. I'm not going to pull off the freeway just so I can look down safely. Again, once you have one, you realize how useful it is. Otherwise you just think it's stupid.
You're still distracted and looking away from the road. I rarely listen to radio, instead I listen to podcasts and music off my iPod. My purchasing of an iPod was partially influenced by the fact that it didn't have features that I found unnecessary. I didn't, and still don't need a FM-tuner, or Wifi support. Because it lacks those two functions, it has better battery life.
I have some friends that do use the cameras on their phones, most of the time they are useless photos that I could of gone without.
Why would I need a cellphone with "Vcast" or "MP3 Player" functions? Too drop actual battery talk time to near nothing? I have an iPod that is dedicated to playing all my media and have a dedicated 10-12 hours of battery time. Which would you be rather be stranded at the side of the road? A cellphone with no charge left, or a cellphone with a charge because you didn't waste it all on playing music?
Don't assume just because your situation and behaviors warrant those features, that the rest of us don't need, makes them a justifiable pro to a con.
*JB-1: That novelty James Bond camera (@ThinkGeek) it is the size of a lighter, and it holds more photos than most camera phones offer.
You're definitely not the only one. The problem with the cell phone industry is that it's going the way of most media, to the lowest-common-denominator. Luckily Motorola seems to be offering something for those of us that want just a basic phone: http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/17663/
ZW: Hello, I'm looking to get a cell phone. Salesperson: Wonderful, let me show you our latest models. *Salesperson tries showing off cell phones with various camera, gaming, music, and video functions* ZW: I was looking for something with actual battery life and making calls from. I have absolutely no interest in those other functions. *Salesperson looks puzzled* Salesperson:...what? ZW: I don't want any of those extra functions, just phone service. *Salesperson exchanges bewildered glances with his fellow worker at the cellphone case section* Salesperson: I don't follow... what do you want?
But seriously, I've got about half of my female friends playing WoW. Personally I've never enjoyed Warcraft that much, and prefered Myth by far. WoW seems to be some sort of drug to female gamers.
I remember back when it was before 1.0, Firefox was quick and small. But it seems to be on the path of many pieces of bloatware. It just seems to get bigger and bigger, and slower and slower. Back then it was a tiny little app, now its almost 50MB expanded on my machine. Cripes. I think Firefox might be in need of a remake and return to its roots.
This poll is horribly flawed, it was obviously taken from a select group that was not diverse enough. No one I know believes in creationism, and I can't find a person here where I live who would believe it.
Personally I don't believe this at all. I have a friend who runs a website that is 300,000 members strong, with about 1500 users online (both members and leeching guests) and his servers are almost never down because of Debian. The only time the site goes down is when MySQL crashes (last year it only happened twice, and we recovered within hours).
I know my servers, and all of my friends servers will remain *nix based.
And just by chance anyone want to donate to my Intel Xserve fund? Get myself some creamy OS X Server loving.
I just don't know. I've never had a problem with keeping track or accuracy of any of my spreadsheets. But then again I use Subversion to keep backups and logs on who uses what and when. Anyways back to waiting for my $2.1 billion tax return.
Recent study done by Microsoft employees shows a link between all known cancers and using non-Microsoft software. One spokesperson was quoted as having said "Macs? Yeah you can use them, if you want football sized tumors in your brain."
> I always laugh at people who say things like this. Apple is out to make money, and they have been successful in carving out a niche market where they sell an OS tied to their hardware, so that's the way it's going to continue. But if tomorrow the winds changed and it would be more profitable to license their OS to other vendors, they would do it. Just like how they switched from PPC to x86.
Quit acting as if Apple was like every other business out there. Its not. They have always done things their way. If Apple was really out for the money they would of raised prices on the iTMS, which might I add, makes barely anything. If they were in it for the money they wouldn't be offering free replacements or upgrades to hardware and software like they do now.
What do you mean "if it were more profitable to license their OS to other vendors, they would do it? It already would be. Look at Microsoft, thats all they do and look how filthy stinking rich they are for doing it, along with pulling unethical business tactics. Of course Apple would make an arse load of money through licensing. But they aren't doing that now.
The switch from PPC to x86 has not made them any profit. I don't know where you got the idea that they did. They moved to x86 because they were sick and tired of IBM's tired and overused excuses as to why they can't get the G5 to that target GHz that was originally promised. How many years is it now that they've missed that 3GHz mark?
Stop trying to label Apple as "any other business."
> Besides, if they didn't want their OS running on "ugly ass" hardware, how do you explain the eMac?
Ugly by whose definition? Just yours? I think the eMac is still a nice looking and well developed educational machine.
1. The eMac is not dead. Apple still sells it, but only to educational institutes.
2. eMacs practically last forever. One of my old roommates bought one over 4 years ago, it still runs without a hitch.
Re:Will it cost more than a Dell running Windows?
on
Intel PowerBook Rumor Mill
·
· Score: 4, Informative
> Why does Apple still want to control the hardware? Why don't they just port to Intel and let vendors sell Intel machinces with licensed versions of Mac OS. It'll be cheaper.
1. Because Apple is a Hardware and Software Business, unlike Microsoft. 80% of Apple's profits come from their hardware.
2. Increased development and debugging time to try and make it run on a vast selection of hardware which in turns makes it buggier, slower, and more driver failure prone.
3. Apple doesn't like the idea of Mac OS X, which is beautiful, running on ugly ass hardware.
4. Apple doesn't want to have to try and support everything under the sun, which is what Microsoft tries to do, but often never goes well.
5. Apple doesn't have any form of anti-piracy software in any of their current builds of the consumer level OS. Only the Server editions get that.
6. People would pirate OS X and take a huge chunk out of that measily 20% of their profit intake, take into consideration that already 80% of their profits would be gone, because of supporting other computers.
> I've often heard it said that Apple has priced itself out of the market. If they want a bigger market share they'll need to take advantage of cheaper prices that come through competition. My guess is that if Apple is allowing only specific hardware to run their OS it'll envitably be more expensive.
And those people that say such stuff are about as bright as a lightbulb in a closed fridge. Steve has repeatly said they have no interest in garnering a huge marketshare. They are happy with what they want. Take into consideration what would happen if all of a sudden they had a huge marketshare.
1. Suddenly troubleshooting and technical help services would have to multiply in their size exponentially to keep up with the market mass.
2. Suddenly they'd have to start supporting every piece of hardware under the sun that Windows does, because customers will whine.
3. Suddenly the OS will have a lot more attention from the cracker community, yeah cracker, not hacker. While OS X and all *nix systems are far superior in their security model than Windows, its still not crackproof.
I'd also like to point out if you looked at any of Sony, VoodooPC, Alienware, or other vendors... outside of that discount bargin crap stuff like Dell. You'll see that Apple's hardware is more than reasonable pricing.
I doubt that prices will rise. One of the biggest reasons Apple went with Intel is because Intel is the 800lb gorilla of the market. They can give HUGE discounts on their CPUs that AMD and IBM/MOTOROLA/FREESCALE just can't match. Not because of some "performance lead on the competition." Anyone that can put 1 and 1 together knows AMD clobbers Intel in the gaming, 64-bit, server, and price market.
Right now there is virtually no difference in hardware between OS X and the average run of the mill PC. Outside of the processor and motherboard, which will soon not be there at all. I'm pretty confident that the prices will either stay at their current level or drop down a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
And who exactly stays tied to their consoles? Pretty much first-party and second-party developers. The ones owned by the manufacturer of their respective consoles. That is why most Third-party developers are going multi-platform. They don't want to limit their available target audience to one group.
Would you market your game to 10 million, or a 100 million?
I suppose you haven't noticed that most of their exclusive developers are OWNED (in full or partially) by those companies. Look at how many third-party developers are going multi-platform to try and recuperate their absurd production costs. You know what continues to be one of the biggest hinderances of most of them as they go multi-platform? The change in APIs and having to relearn chunks of programming habits in order to make effective code.
Now where did I say that any other company should not be held to the same standard? I never said Xbox/Microsoft/Windows developers were the only ones being a part of the problem.
Valve Says Choice to Make DX10 Vista-Only Hurt PC Gaming What should be said: Gamers say Developer's choice to use DirectX over OpenGL only hurts PC gaming. I mean seriously, if they thought it out completely, does it make sense to lock your product to another product that is controlled completely by one company? Yeah some will cite some shortsided reasons to use DirectX and ignore the major disadvantage.
Your joke left us cold. *ripshot*
As an owner of the first edition, it is a must own title for anyone into webdesign and programming. If only Microsoft started to adhere to the W3C specification, the world would be a better place.
Even if the camera is off, it still draws power. It is just like any other electronic device. Have you ever put a set of batteries in a calculator that you don't use, only to find out later the batteries are dead later on? The cameras share the same logicboards as the rest of the phone and still have power passing through the parts.
I thought the entire point of owning a cellphone is to be available to anyone, at any time. I have been in many situations where camera phones weren't allowed. Most often when I go to the labs.
Well that is you, that is not everyone else. As I stated before, my father never uses the camera on his phone. I never use my PVR's movie service, or most of its functions outside of record and playback functions. I have a multi-function Canon Pixma, I rarely use its fax or SD-to-print functions.
The same with my cellphone. I don't need a camera, I already have two (one JB-1* and Canon PowerShot).
You're still distracted and looking away from the road. I rarely listen to radio, instead I listen to podcasts and music off my iPod. My purchasing of an iPod was partially influenced by the fact that it didn't have features that I found unnecessary. I didn't, and still don't need a FM-tuner, or Wifi support. Because it lacks those two functions, it has better battery life.
I have some friends that do use the cameras on their phones, most of the time they are useless photos that I could of gone without.
Why would I need a cellphone with "Vcast" or "MP3 Player" functions? Too drop actual battery talk time to near nothing? I have an iPod that is dedicated to playing all my media and have a dedicated 10-12 hours of battery time. Which would you be rather be stranded at the side of the road? A cellphone with no charge left, or a cellphone with a charge because you didn't waste it all on playing music?
Don't assume just because your situation and behaviors warrant those features, that the rest of us don't need, makes them a justifiable pro to a con.
*JB-1: That novelty James Bond camera (@ThinkGeek) it is the size of a lighter, and it holds more photos than most camera phones offer.
You're definitely not the only one. The problem with the cell phone industry is that it's going the way of most media, to the lowest-common-denominator. Luckily Motorola seems to be offering something for those of us that want just a basic phone: http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/17663/
ZW: Hello, I'm looking to get a cell phone. ...what?
Salesperson: Wonderful, let me show you our latest models.
*Salesperson tries showing off cell phones with various camera, gaming, music, and video functions*
ZW: I was looking for something with actual battery life and making calls from. I have absolutely no interest in those other functions.
*Salesperson looks puzzled*
Salesperson:
ZW: I don't want any of those extra functions, just phone service.
*Salesperson exchanges bewildered glances with his fellow worker at the cellphone case section*
Salesperson: I don't follow... what do you want?
"Most secure ever."
Then about 10 minutes later there about 30 pieces of malware, and 120 holes in the system.
But seriously, I've got about half of my female friends playing WoW. Personally I've never enjoyed Warcraft that much, and prefered Myth by far. WoW seems to be some sort of drug to female gamers.
I remember back when it was before 1.0, Firefox was quick and small. But it seems to be on the path of many pieces of bloatware. It just seems to get bigger and bigger, and slower and slower. Back then it was a tiny little app, now its almost 50MB expanded on my machine. Cripes. I think Firefox might be in need of a remake and return to its roots.
Detroit, Michigan.
This poll is horribly flawed, it was obviously taken from a select group that was not diverse enough. No one I know believes in creationism, and I can't find a person here where I live who would believe it.
"Its a me, Steve Jobs."
The question is, who is more enjoyable to play a gravity defying fat plumber or a man in jeans and a black turtleneck?
Personally I don't believe this at all. I have a friend who runs a website that is 300,000 members strong, with about 1500 users online (both members and leeching guests) and his servers are almost never down because of Debian. The only time the site goes down is when MySQL crashes (last year it only happened twice, and we recovered within hours).
I know my servers, and all of my friends servers will remain *nix based.
And just by chance anyone want to donate to my Intel Xserve fund? Get myself some creamy OS X Server loving.
I just don't know. I've never had a problem with keeping track or accuracy of any of my spreadsheets. But then again I use Subversion to keep backups and logs on who uses what and when. Anyways back to waiting for my $2.1 billion tax return.
Obviously Jonathan Murray has never used Windows, especially if he thinks is reliable or dependable.
I'm going to be sueing the universe. It is full of things that can potientially hurt me. That'll teach em.
*wanders off to ponder what to buy with the money from the 'suit*
You don't know the USA. Give em a few years, soon you won't have a choice where to live.
Are they even sure Vista will be out by 2008?
Recent study done by Microsoft employees shows a link between all known cancers and using non-Microsoft software. One spokesperson was quoted as having said "Macs? Yeah you can use them, if you want football sized tumors in your brain."
> I always laugh at people who say things like this. Apple is out to make money, and they have been successful in carving out a niche market where they sell an OS tied to their hardware, so that's the way it's going to continue. But if tomorrow the winds changed and it would be more profitable to license their OS to other vendors, they would do it. Just like how they switched from PPC to x86.
Quit acting as if Apple was like every other business out there. Its not. They have always done things their way. If Apple was really out for the money they would of raised prices on the iTMS, which might I add, makes barely anything. If they were in it for the money they wouldn't be offering free replacements or upgrades to hardware and software like they do now.
What do you mean "if it were more profitable to license their OS to other vendors, they would do it? It already would be. Look at Microsoft, thats all they do and look how filthy stinking rich they are for doing it, along with pulling unethical business tactics. Of course Apple would make an arse load of money through licensing. But they aren't doing that now. The switch from PPC to x86 has not made them any profit. I don't know where you got the idea that they did. They moved to x86 because they were sick and tired of IBM's tired and overused excuses as to why they can't get the G5 to that target GHz that was originally promised. How many years is it now that they've missed that 3GHz mark?
Stop trying to label Apple as "any other business."
> Besides, if they didn't want their OS running on "ugly ass" hardware, how do you explain the eMac?
Ugly by whose definition? Just yours? I think the eMac is still a nice looking and well developed educational machine.
1. The eMac is not dead. Apple still sells it, but only to educational institutes.
2. eMacs practically last forever. One of my old roommates bought one over 4 years ago, it still runs without a hitch.
> Why does Apple still want to control the hardware? Why don't they just port to Intel and let vendors sell Intel machinces with licensed versions of Mac OS. It'll be cheaper.
1. Because Apple is a Hardware and Software Business, unlike Microsoft. 80% of Apple's profits come from their hardware.
2. Increased development and debugging time to try and make it run on a vast selection of hardware which in turns makes it buggier, slower, and more driver failure prone.
3. Apple doesn't like the idea of Mac OS X, which is beautiful, running on ugly ass hardware.
4. Apple doesn't want to have to try and support everything under the sun, which is what Microsoft tries to do, but often never goes well.
5. Apple doesn't have any form of anti-piracy software in any of their current builds of the consumer level OS. Only the Server editions get that.
6. People would pirate OS X and take a huge chunk out of that measily 20% of their profit intake, take into consideration that already 80% of their profits would be gone, because of supporting other computers.
> I've often heard it said that Apple has priced itself out of the market. If they want a bigger market share they'll need to take advantage of cheaper prices that come through competition. My guess is that if Apple is allowing only specific hardware to run their OS it'll envitably be more expensive.
And those people that say such stuff are about as bright as a lightbulb in a closed fridge. Steve has repeatly said they have no interest in garnering a huge marketshare. They are happy with what they want. Take into consideration what would happen if all of a sudden they had a huge marketshare.
1. Suddenly troubleshooting and technical help services would have to multiply in their size exponentially to keep up with the market mass.
2. Suddenly they'd have to start supporting every piece of hardware under the sun that Windows does, because customers will whine.
3. Suddenly the OS will have a lot more attention from the cracker community, yeah cracker, not hacker. While OS X and all *nix systems are far superior in their security model than Windows, its still not crackproof.
I'd also like to point out if you looked at any of Sony, VoodooPC, Alienware, or other vendors... outside of that discount bargin crap stuff like Dell. You'll see that Apple's hardware is more than reasonable pricing.
I doubt that prices will rise. One of the biggest reasons Apple went with Intel is because Intel is the 800lb gorilla of the market. They can give HUGE discounts on their CPUs that AMD and IBM/MOTOROLA/FREESCALE just can't match. Not because of some "performance lead on the competition." Anyone that can put 1 and 1 together knows AMD clobbers Intel in the gaming, 64-bit, server, and price market.
Right now there is virtually no difference in hardware between OS X and the average run of the mill PC. Outside of the processor and motherboard, which will soon not be there at all. I'm pretty confident that the prices will either stay at their current level or drop down a bit.
Maybe someone needs to stop watching so much pr0n.