Apple *licenced* the UI elements from Xerox, who made quite a bit of money on the Apple stock they received.
Microsoft had no such agreement.
Apple also extended the UI from what Xerox had (have you ever seen a PARC in action? Clunky, horrible UI but with the germ of a good UI hidden within).
Apple does the whole fat binary thing - a single piece of software with both 32- and 64-bit code inside. A 32-bit machine will only see the 32-bit code. A 64-bit machine will see the 64-bit code.
It's not light on space, but since you're only doubling up on executable code (which is a small part of many applications) and drive space is cheap, it's a good solution.
Microsoft doesn't do this, although I'm not sure why not. Maybe they just want a 'cleaner' system, all 32-bit or all 64-bit and never the twain shall meet.... interestingly, Apple's fat binaries can be used as containers for any number of code variations. We could see a single fat binary that encloses 32-bit PPC code, 64-bit PPC code, 32-bit x86 code and 64-bit x86 code. There's no limit on this, and you end up with a single installable package for all versions.
It's just a "delete doesn't really mean delete" feature. Everybody's done that. I think email was the first thing to do it, but I'm not really sure.
No, it's more than that.
It's a "delete doesn't mean delete and you can track down any changes to your files, folders or anything at any level to restore back to that point in a really simple way that everyone can understand, even grandma. Plus there's an API for devs to add this functionality inside any apps and use the app's own UI to do this."
Anyone can restore a file. We've been doing that since the year dot. The trick is restoring the correct version of the file. But what about restoring a piece of data within a file? What about finding that piece of data from a large group of very similar pieces of data?
Watch the keynote, skip forward to about 26 minutes when they start demonstrating the features. I think this is the first one. Watch the demo and then think about what this could mean.
So Apple not releasing the source means that they've cancelled all efforts in that direction, but Apple releasing the source means that they've relented to user pressure?
Methinks you protest too much.
The simplest explanation is that Apple didn't release the source because they were working on other stuff. That reason requires the least extra entities and seems to satisfy Occam's Razor. In a logical sense, any other position requires actual evidence, and in the absence of such (and you provide none), this is the best position.
I remember that second 'confirmation' article, and reviewing it just now reminded me that there was no actual substance in it, just rumour and supposition.
Apple never stated a definite "no" to releasing the source for the Intel XNU, and pundits sort of went crazy over this issue.
I recall seeing people linking to a statement from the technical lead at Apple who said they would release the source, just not yet. I can't find the links now, unfortunately.
Perhaps the story was just another beat-up to get more links to blogs after all.
Also, I already explained why techies are worth marketing to. And I disagree. Look at population stats sometime, and breakdown by job. Techies are such a small group as to be almost irrelevant. Most people I know don't have a tame techie to help them with their computer problems. They have to work it out for themselves. Apple's marketing speaks to them.
The Mac market, on the other hand, is probably small enough not to market to. Oddly enough, Apple seems to disagree with you. Possibly because you're being ridiculous.
Those that don't care about politics often get the government they deserve.
I write this from Australia, where voting (or at least turning up) is compulsory. I believe this is a good thing, although a solid case can be made either way. Even people who don't care have to turn up and make a decision. Sure, they can donkey vote, but at least they make some decision.
So... Apple advertising making over-hyped claims is worse than Microsoft advertising making over-hyped claims.
And techies don't see through the Windows advertising tricks? After all these years? When we've seen the same claims of "the bestest security ever" in each revision since Win95?
I think techies are such a small proportion of the population that they're not worth marketing to. Why chase 99%?
Apple: lax DRM, allows the user to pretty much do what they want except copy their music to someone else's computer (although they could authenticate on up to five computers).
Microsoft: DRM specifically allows refusal of all copying and burning, secure video channels, secure audio channels and supports the upcoming HDMI fiasco.
Apple: No validation when you install the OS, or at any point afterwards. (There is a hardware validation, but the user is never presented with it.)
Microsoft: Key validation requiring the OS to call home periodically, certain hardware changes may trigger key de-authentication.
Apple: The user will be honest.
Microsoft: The user cannot be trusted.
Yep. Apple are *just* like Microsoft. Those last two are debatable, but sum up where I see both DRM camps coming from.
But hey! What do I know? I don't buy the Microsoft apologist fan-boy stuff either! Stand-by for overbearing reaction to each sentence I've written by a rabid Zune-rabbit-patting Microsoft zealot in 3... 2... 1...
I've got an idea for you - how about the *programmers* do the hard work to make it easier for their *users*?
Buying an Apple is no achievement whatsoever, but neither is spending your time getting Linux to do exactly what you want. I don't want to learn more useless crap about computers. I want to use them to do stuff and then get back to my life.
What am I going to use knowledge about arcane methods of getting a graphics tablet to work for, when I could be enjoying time with my wife instead? I know where my time's infinitely better spent.
It seems a lot of Linux advocates want users to suffer on their path to Nirvana. Why is that?
Using the right tool for the job, whatever it happens to be, is the achievement. Linux may be that tool, but then so can a Mac, Windows or a piece of paper.
That's absolutely not an insightful post. A bunch of poorly-thought theories does not constitute reality.
To attack your points: Are Apple about to close their doors? There's absolutely no sign of this, but apparently execs selling shares is your indication. Well, this happens in all companies. A quick Google search turns up a story on Google execs selling shares back in Nov-2004. That didn't indicate Google was failing then, and neither does Apple execs selling shares indicate Apple is failing now. You actually need some evidence for that. Got any?
Apple closed OSx86? As far as I can see, the Darwin x86 source is available (http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/). Is that what you mean? Can you be more specific as to what you allege Apple did?
Your post *deserves* to be modded down. Not because you're out there speaking the truth and people just don't want to hear it, but because it's completely biased, has no insight and attempts to cobble together a conspiracy theory out of smoke and air.
I don't think your options are correct. They should be:
1) Spend time learning an entirely new API. Spend time learning an entirely new set of development tools. Spend time/money supporting two different versions of your product/app.
2) Include a readme.txt that tells Mac owners to either use BootCamp or Parallels to run your product and expect them to buy a licence for Windows, install it, set it up to their requirements and then use your product.
When stated honestly, suddenly option 2 doesn't seem so hot now. Windows 'normal' licences are a few hundred dollars, which has to be *on top* of your product's cost. And Parallels is $79. Plus there's the anti-virus software.
Do you still think users will buy your product if you treat them so badly?
My point was that CEOs should live and die by the success of the company, not that they should get more money.
Are they purely responsible for the company's success? Of course not. No single person is, but they set the direction and make the big decisions. They have a larger impact that any other single worker.
Let's flip this around. Is the current system working well? I think it's failing - CEOs and high executives are getting rewarded handsomely when the company is going down the tubes. They should be more tied to the success and failure of their company.
So what's the answer? My suggestion is one possibility. Let's hear yours.
By the way - I disagree with using Enron as an example. The problem is that CEO allegedly cooked the numbers with the collusion of other senior executives, not how much he should have been paid. Under my suggestion, and with a solid, transparent accounting system, the CEO of Enron would have got no bonus that year, and would probably have worked for a lot less than many staff.
(And since the topic is "Worst CEOs Earn the Most Money", I think the whole point *is* to focus on the CEO here. If your going to criticise my comments, at least let them be on-topic!)
As others have stated, Steve Jobs is given gifts from the board to show their appreciation of his performance.
Which is exactly how it should be!
A CEO should be paid purely on his or her performance. If the company is soaring, reward them well! If the company is nosediving, the CEO gets nothing. The CEO should have the lowest wage in the company, but the highest performance bonus.
The gap between a CEOs wage and their company's average wage has grown dramatically in the last 10-20 years. That's a real issue when the company is performing poorly.
I'm (quite obviously) not an economist, so it's very possible there are gaping holes in my point. I like it as it stands though.
"The Windows message dispatching system has some REALLY GREAT issues that flow through to user HAPPINESS. A message can be created in one process, then dispatched to another, unrelated process. This is EXTREMELY GOOD for security, and can lead to all sorts of CHEERFULNESS.
"I have some code to demonstrate the issue BUT REMOVED IT BECAUSE I WANT TO COMMENT IT PROPERLY.
"I just can't imagine ANY OTHER WAY OF DOING THIS, IT'S PERFECT AND MAKES EVERYONE SO MUCH HAPPIER. LOOK! A FLUFFY BUNNY! OOH HOW CUTE! THINK OF THE FLUFFY BUNNIES NOW!"
The FTA came into force on Jan-1, 2005, and you can see the mean moving steadily downwards from around 76 cents to around 74 now.
Our government has shown time and again that protectionism is not part of their belief system, so I don't think we'll see tariffs coming in any time soon. In fact, when the opposition was in power ('83-'96) they stripped a lot of tariffs out and floated the dollar. Neither side will throw tariffs up these days, under the mantra of free trade and level playing fields.
Re:It's not ideal, but at least seems an improveme
on
Aussies Brace for DMCA
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
All that time we allowed sale of VCRs and iPods, but disallowed the use of them! Crazy guys!
The ruling elite here in Australia, the increasingly ironically named Liberal Party, solid the FTA on the basis of free and equal trade between Australia and the US. Because, you know, we have an equal seating at the bargaining table. Australia and the largest economy on the planet. Equal.
Yeah, that works.
After about a year we find that US imports have nearly tripled, while Australian exports to the US have dropped.
Amazing surprise to some of us who spoke out at the time but were silenced by the scream of 'free money' from the US that so many thought they'd see.
The FTA also included a number of hilarious provisions like "you can export beef to the US in 18 years, unless they veto it in the meantime" and "bend over for our DMCA."
So now we welcome our US overlords, and hope that they don't brutalise our nation too badly when we become a new vassal province (or dare we hope - a state!). The national anthem never really caught on anyway. It has the word "girt" in it, which was too much for most Aussies.
Go DMCA! It's a bloody bonza idea, you beauty! (just practicing for the re-education camps)
Maybe you're thinking of those cases of WGA reporting a valid copy as pirated. I'm yet to hear how many cases there are, and I suspect it's a tiny handful.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple *licenced* the UI elements from Xerox, who made quite a bit of money on the Apple stock they received.
Microsoft had no such agreement.
Apple also extended the UI from what Xerox had (have you ever seen a PARC in action? Clunky, horrible UI but with the germ of a good UI hidden within).
Amazing how, at the height of the cold war, the US managed to get the USSR on-side to agree to this. And every other nation with a radio facility.
Incredible how the entire planet worked together to convince a bunch of people in the US how they went to the Moon.
The US made it to the Moon, and there is absolutely *no* evidence to deny this. There is (in fact) a *massive* amount of evidence to support it.
Apple does the whole fat binary thing - a single piece of software with both 32- and 64-bit code inside. A 32-bit machine will only see the 32-bit code. A 64-bit machine will see the 64-bit code.
... interestingly, Apple's fat binaries can be used as containers for any number of code variations. We could see a single fat binary that encloses 32-bit PPC code, 64-bit PPC code, 32-bit x86 code and 64-bit x86 code. There's no limit on this, and you end up with a single installable package for all versions.
It's not light on space, but since you're only doubling up on executable code (which is a small part of many applications) and drive space is cheap, it's a good solution.
Microsoft doesn't do this, although I'm not sure why not. Maybe they just want a 'cleaner' system, all 32-bit or all 64-bit and never the twain shall meet.
It's just a "delete doesn't really mean delete" feature. Everybody's done that. I think email was the first thing to do it, but I'm not really sure.
No, it's more than that.
It's a "delete doesn't mean delete and you can track down any changes to your files, folders or anything at any level to restore back to that point in a really simple way that everyone can understand, even grandma. Plus there's an API for devs to add this functionality inside any apps and use the app's own UI to do this."
Anyone can restore a file. We've been doing that since the year dot. The trick is restoring the correct version of the file. But what about restoring a piece of data within a file? What about finding that piece of data from a large group of very similar pieces of data?
Watch the keynote, skip forward to about 26 minutes when they start demonstrating the features. I think this is the first one. Watch the demo and then think about what this could mean.
So Apple not releasing the source means that they've cancelled all efforts in that direction, but Apple releasing the source means that they've relented to user pressure?
Methinks you protest too much.
The simplest explanation is that Apple didn't release the source because they were working on other stuff. That reason requires the least extra entities and seems to satisfy Occam's Razor. In a logical sense, any other position requires actual evidence, and in the absence of such (and you provide none), this is the best position.
I remember that second 'confirmation' article, and reviewing it just now reminded me that there was no actual substance in it, just rumour and supposition.
Apple never stated a definite "no" to releasing the source for the Intel XNU, and pundits sort of went crazy over this issue.
I recall seeing people linking to a statement from the technical lead at Apple who said they would release the source, just not yet. I can't find the links now, unfortunately.
Perhaps the story was just another beat-up to get more links to blogs after all.
http://rubycocoa.cvs.sourceforge.net/rubycocoa/src /ChangeLog?revision=1.255.2.38&view=markup
Read the email addresses, and note that Laurent Sansonetti is one of the five RubyCocoa developers (lrz).
I guess you'll be wanting to apologise to the previous poster.
Also, I already explained why techies are worth marketing to.
And I disagree. Look at population stats sometime, and breakdown by job. Techies are such a small group as to be almost irrelevant. Most people I know don't have a tame techie to help them with their computer problems. They have to work it out for themselves. Apple's marketing speaks to them.
The Mac market, on the other hand, is probably small enough not to market to.
Oddly enough, Apple seems to disagree with you. Possibly because you're being ridiculous.
Those that don't care about politics often get the government they deserve.
I write this from Australia, where voting (or at least turning up) is compulsory. I believe this is a good thing, although a solid case can be made either way. Even people who don't care have to turn up and make a decision. Sure, they can donkey vote, but at least they make some decision.
So... Apple advertising making over-hyped claims is worse than Microsoft advertising making over-hyped claims.
And techies don't see through the Windows advertising tricks? After all these years? When we've seen the same claims of "the bestest security ever" in each revision since Win95?
I think techies are such a small proportion of the population that they're not worth marketing to. Why chase 99%?
Apple: lax DRM, allows the user to pretty much do what they want except copy their music to someone else's computer (although they could authenticate on up to five computers).
Microsoft: DRM specifically allows refusal of all copying and burning, secure video channels, secure audio channels and supports the upcoming HDMI fiasco.
Apple: No validation when you install the OS, or at any point afterwards. (There is a hardware validation, but the user is never presented with it.)
Microsoft: Key validation requiring the OS to call home periodically, certain hardware changes may trigger key de-authentication.
Apple: The user will be honest.
Microsoft: The user cannot be trusted.
Yep. Apple are *just* like Microsoft. Those last two are debatable, but sum up where I see both DRM camps coming from.
But hey! What do I know? I don't buy the Microsoft apologist fan-boy stuff either! Stand-by for overbearing reaction to each sentence I've written by a rabid Zune-rabbit-patting Microsoft zealot in 3... 2... 1...
I've got an idea for you - how about the *programmers* do the hard work to make it easier for their *users*?
Buying an Apple is no achievement whatsoever, but neither is spending your time getting Linux to do exactly what you want. I don't want to learn more useless crap about computers. I want to use them to do stuff and then get back to my life.
What am I going to use knowledge about arcane methods of getting a graphics tablet to work for, when I could be enjoying time with my wife instead? I know where my time's infinitely better spent.
It seems a lot of Linux advocates want users to suffer on their path to Nirvana. Why is that?
Using the right tool for the job, whatever it happens to be, is the achievement. Linux may be that tool, but then so can a Mac, Windows or a piece of paper.
That's absolutely not an insightful post. A bunch of poorly-thought theories does not constitute reality.
To attack your points: Are Apple about to close their doors? There's absolutely no sign of this, but apparently execs selling shares is your indication. Well, this happens in all companies. A quick Google search turns up a story on Google execs selling shares back in Nov-2004. That didn't indicate Google was failing then, and neither does Apple execs selling shares indicate Apple is failing now. You actually need some evidence for that. Got any?
Apple closed OSx86? As far as I can see, the Darwin x86 source is available (http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/). Is that what you mean? Can you be more specific as to what you allege Apple did?
Your post *deserves* to be modded down. Not because you're out there speaking the truth and people just don't want to hear it, but because it's completely biased, has no insight and attempts to cobble together a conspiracy theory out of smoke and air.
"You have to drag music into iTunes and create a playlist to copy your music onto the iPod, otherwise it won't be playable by the device."
Not on my Nano. I just drag songs over from my library to the Nano, and they're fine. I don't use playlists at all.
I don't think your options are correct. They should be:
1) Spend time learning an entirely new API. Spend time learning an entirely new set of development tools. Spend time/money supporting two different versions of your product/app.
2) Include a readme.txt that tells Mac owners to either use BootCamp or Parallels to run your product and expect them to buy a licence for Windows, install it, set it up to their requirements and then use your product.
When stated honestly, suddenly option 2 doesn't seem so hot now. Windows 'normal' licences are a few hundred dollars, which has to be *on top* of your product's cost. And Parallels is $79. Plus there's the anti-virus software.
Do you still think users will buy your product if you treat them so badly?
My point was that CEOs should live and die by the success of the company, not that they should get more money.
Are they purely responsible for the company's success? Of course not. No single person is, but they set the direction and make the big decisions. They have a larger impact that any other single worker.
Let's flip this around. Is the current system working well? I think it's failing - CEOs and high executives are getting rewarded handsomely when the company is going down the tubes. They should be more tied to the success and failure of their company.
So what's the answer? My suggestion is one possibility. Let's hear yours.
By the way - I disagree with using Enron as an example. The problem is that CEO allegedly cooked the numbers with the collusion of other senior executives, not how much he should have been paid. Under my suggestion, and with a solid, transparent accounting system, the CEO of Enron would have got no bonus that year, and would probably have worked for a lot less than many staff.
(And since the topic is "Worst CEOs Earn the Most Money", I think the whole point *is* to focus on the CEO here. If your going to criticise my comments, at least let them be on-topic!)
As others have stated, Steve Jobs is given gifts from the board to show their appreciation of his performance.
Which is exactly how it should be!
A CEO should be paid purely on his or her performance. If the company is soaring, reward them well! If the company is nosediving, the CEO gets nothing. The CEO should have the lowest wage in the company, but the highest performance bonus.
The gap between a CEOs wage and their company's average wage has grown dramatically in the last 10-20 years. That's a real issue when the company is performing poorly.
I'm (quite obviously) not an economist, so it's very possible there are gaping holes in my point. I like it as it stands though.
An upcoming blog entry...
"The Windows message dispatching system has some REALLY GREAT issues that flow through to user HAPPINESS. A message can be created in one process, then dispatched to another, unrelated process. This is EXTREMELY GOOD for security, and can lead to all sorts of CHEERFULNESS.
"I have some code to demonstrate the issue BUT REMOVED IT BECAUSE I WANT TO COMMENT IT PROPERLY.
"I just can't imagine ANY OTHER WAY OF DOING THIS, IT'S PERFECT AND MAKES EVERYONE SO MUCH HAPPIER. LOOK! A FLUFFY BUNNY! OOH HOW CUTE! THINK OF THE FLUFFY BUNNIES NOW!"
Isn't the point that the closed protocols don't allow an open market to exist?
Microsoft holds a monopoly, so they've got certain responsibilities - namely to use that monopoly power within the law.
That's a good explanation, but incorrect. Since the FTA the US dollar has risen against the Australian dollar.
D &to=USD&amt=1&t=2y
Yahoo shows it clearly:
http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=AU
The FTA came into force on Jan-1, 2005, and you can see the mean moving steadily downwards from around 76 cents to around 74 now.
Our government has shown time and again that protectionism is not part of their belief system, so I don't think we'll see tariffs coming in any time soon. In fact, when the opposition was in power ('83-'96) they stripped a lot of tariffs out and floated the dollar. Neither side will throw tariffs up these days, under the mantra of free trade and level playing fields.
All that time we allowed sale of VCRs and iPods, but disallowed the use of them! Crazy guys!
The ruling elite here in Australia, the increasingly ironically named Liberal Party, solid the FTA on the basis of free and equal trade between Australia and the US. Because, you know, we have an equal seating at the bargaining table. Australia and the largest economy on the planet. Equal.
Yeah, that works.
After about a year we find that US imports have nearly tripled, while Australian exports to the US have dropped.
Amazing surprise to some of us who spoke out at the time but were silenced by the scream of 'free money' from the US that so many thought they'd see.
The FTA also included a number of hilarious provisions like "you can export beef to the US in 18 years, unless they veto it in the meantime" and "bend over for our DMCA."
So now we welcome our US overlords, and hope that they don't brutalise our nation too badly when we become a new vassal province (or dare we hope - a state!). The national anthem never really caught on anyway. It has the word "girt" in it, which was too much for most Aussies.
Go DMCA! It's a bloody bonza idea, you beauty! (just practicing for the re-education camps)
Have you seen what those new laws entail?
After you record a show from TV, you are allowed to watch it exactly once, after which you must *by law* delete it.
Yes, we finally get some of the Fair Use rights enjoyed by our US friends but it's not yet sane or sensible.
All the article said is that someone in Microsoft marketing reported that 20% of the WGA failures were not due to stolen keys.
That could be 1, 1000, 1000000 or some other number. It could be a tiny handful after all.
I haven't heard many *actual* users complaining that they were personally hit by this. I've heard of a few, but it's a tiny fraction so far.
Maybe it's not really a big issue.
No it didn't.
We don't even *see* it.
Maybe you're thinking of those cases of WGA reporting a valid copy as pirated. I'm yet to hear how many cases there are, and I suspect it's a tiny handful.