IMHO, you make a very valid point (grandma playing pop-cap games and checking her email once a week pays the same as a 24/7 bittorrent user).
BUT - the sale of pseudo-unlimited bandwidth is a practice that began because the public, essentially, demanded it. Home and small business users made it quite clear that they didn't want to feel like they were "on the clock", being metered as they upload and download anything. At the same time, what they want for their $20-50 a month or so is the ability to *usually* achieve good net speeds whenever they use it.
The most popular compromise was selling plans that don't monitor your personal usage at all, but come with the "catch" that the network may get congested and slow down without warning.
Will this screw things up for people who suddenly expect to do all of their work from home via VPN tunnel in the case of a big disaster? Well, YES! But all things considered, that's just as it should be. If the ability to work from home was important enough to you, you could always pay for dedicated bandwidth with a guaranteed min. level of service. 99% of people didn't ever opt to do so, so they're left with net connections that aren't designed to handle huge surges in usage due to natural disasters.
And as a side note, the "power users" you refer to do already help subsidize the network for everyone else - because they're the only ones willing to pay more for higher-tier plans from the cable companies or telcos. The general public says "Huh? Pay $79.95 a month for 10mbit cable broadband? What the hell would I need something THAT fast for? I like that 3mbit plan for $29.95 a month, thanks."
IMHO, it's silly to contribute a portable computer's CPU cycles to these types of projects anyway. They usually run when your machine is *idle*. Portables are usually shut off or put into a sleep mode and disconnected from the Internet when they're not actually being used.
However, I will very likely set up my Mac Pro for this project when I get home tonight. It runs 24 hours/7 days since I have a small ftp server on it. It may as well be doing something else useful for other people while it's using the electricity anyway.
I realize that Microsoft doesn't sell as much hardware to their customers as Apple does (though they've moved an awful lot of keyboards and mice over the years)... but I don't think it invalidates my point completely.
While Apple does get to sell you a copy of OS X, bundled in the price of a new Mac, it doesn't mean they "don't care where you get your OS X versions" after that! Every major OS X upgrade has been a little over $100 per copy, so I'm sure they don't just say "Sure, we charged $129 for you to go from Panther to Tiger... but that's just a number we thew out there. Since you bought a Mac from us before, you can just download a free copy instead and that's just fine with us too!"
Nonetheless, you don't see Apple embracing software activation systems and limitations on the number of times you can re-install a given product with you key code. They don't play these games because they know their machines are supposed to make computing "easier". All of these extra activation steps work against that goal. Buy Apple's iWork '06 suite, or iLife '06, or even Aperture or Motion - and they don't have those products phoning home to Apple to activate your key before they run..... Microsoft, however, does do this with all of their Office products.
Steve Jobs and Apple have repeatedly shown that they aren't "just like Microsoft" in their actions.
1. Compare Apple's software registration/installation process to Microsoft's. With OS X, you install and optionally provide your name, address, and phone number. Done. With Microsoft? Type in a lengthy product key that must be validated by Microsoft to activate your installation. Change enough hardware in your system, or dump it in favor of a new one, and you have to re-activate.
2. Microsoft's business plan centers around buying up promising new technologies of others, and re-branding them with the Microsoft logo. (MS couldn't even write their own pinball game for Windows, for crying out loud! They bought it from Maxis!) Apple's plan centers around Q&A, plus designers kept on staff like Mr. Ives, to design stylish, yet functional enclosures for the hardware products.
3. What "treatment of Woz" are you referring to? The guy still remains in regular contact with Steve Jobs, and in fact, I recall he was instrumental in Apple doing a new revision of the aluminum Powerbook G4 motherboard, after he discovered a flaw causing problems with it not properly using all of the RAM when you upgraded to the max. allowable memory. Woz said he's not really interested in being a salesman or in dealing with all the hassles of running a big business like Apple. He was never a big fan of the direction Jobs wanted Apple to go when they moved from the//e to the Macintosh - so it makes sense he was let go to do other things.
4. It seems obvious to me that Apple is not nearly as "pro DRM" as Microsoft is. They only agreed to it (as watered-down as they could get record companies to go for) so they could get their music store off the ground with digital downloads. Now, Jobs is coming out against DRM - since he feels the digitial download marketplace has proven itself. Microsoft, by contrast, added much MORE DRM in Vista.
5. No argument on Apple's legal action against the bloggers being bad. But, at least they did come to their senses and drop those charges.
I purchased one of their MX1000 laser mice when it was a brand new item, and while it was excellent - my 4 year old dropped it on the floor one too many times. The center rocker button surrounding the scroll wheel started sticking occasionally, causing things to scroll, out of control, in web browsers, MS Word, etc.
Seeing it was under Logitech's warranty, I figured it couldn't hurt to give them a call - to see if they might be able to sell me a used/refurbished replacement mouse inexpensively or something, given the circumstances.
Instead, the sales rep. looked up its serial number to confirm it was under warranty, and simply said "A brand new replacement is on its way." I asked if they needed the old mouse back, and I was told "No. You may as well keep it to have a spare charging base or something." Within a week, a new mouse was at my doorstep, in the retail packaging!
That comment about CDs being an "incredibly good value" because of all the times you can be re-entertained by it is a joke!
I can say the same thing about any number of paperback books that still have a retail price FAR lower than a music CD. (And I wonder what it says about the "value" of the plastic hula-hoop my mom had as a kid and passed on so my kid could play with it? Heck - with all the re-entertainment value it held over the years, a hula-hoop should easily sell for upwards of $150, right!?!)
There's no doubt that Apple prefers to tie their products and software together, whenever possible. But I fail to see why some people (assuming you included, from the tone of your message post) see this as inherently "bad/evil"?
*All* computer manufacturers did things this way from day 1, until IBM's personal computer design got ripped off/cloned left and right by everybody under the sun, bringing it to the forefront as a new "standard".
Apple has wandered in that same general direction whenever it becomes obvious it provides a concrete business advantage. (Today's Macs let you use industry-standard SATA hard drives, and pretty much anyone's peripherals that support standard USB ports, for example. They also migrated to Intel's CPUs across their entire product line, and even allow/sanction the use of Windows on them!)
But in general, I think Apple's products work so well precisely BECAUSE they believe in providing the "whole package" to the customer. This model is used by all the console game systems out there, and it works just fine for them too.
I'm lost on your comment that Apple is a company that "tries to make you buy hardware you do not want, to get software or tunes you do"? If this were really true, they wouldn't have developed the Windows version of iTunes at all. (EG. "Too bad, buddy. If you want to participate in one of the most friendly and more complete online music stores, you need to buy a Mac first!")
No... More and more, I think Apple is proving to be a media company. If anything, they see themselves in a market-space more like Sony. Sony makes computers (usually stylish ones at that), but they're also a media company, in the music and movie business, as well as offering consumer electronics goods that tie in with those areas. Apple in the past has sold digital cameras (the Apple Quicktake series), has a set-top "Apple TV" box going on the market, and a growing interest in selling movies AND music content via iTunes. Soon, they're going to offer cellphones too.
They certainly want you to LIKE and WANT their hardware -- and people who do buy their hardware rarely seem to regret it. Most of the negative comments I hear about Apple hardware come from people who haven't ever purchased any yet!
If you really look into the "religion" of Scientology, you see they've got a pretty scary agenda. As far as I can gather, the real shame is that our nation continues to offer these cultists legal protection under the guise of "religious freedom".
I mean, for starters, the whole thing is based on the writings of a science-fiction author (and a controversial one at that - who at least some folks claim was a compulsive liar, etc.). But even that aside, you quickly realize that they place an increasing financial value on these "teachings". Becoming and staying a member of this "religion" involves a considerable expenditure! Their teachings even include the concept that you're either "one of them" or you're basically worthless, and should eventually just be killed off. The non-Scientologists are primarily useful for extorting money from, to further the group's cause.
We're at *war* with people of a much more "legitimate" religion, with a MUCH longer heritage, for similar beliefs!
It won't help. That's the unfortunate fact. If PS3 sales completely tank and the product is declared a "dud", Sony won't see a single thing about how that related to installing a root-kit on some music CDs.
It seems like every few months, someone starts up with the grand idea of "boycotting" a large company, out of furor over some move they've made. And every single time, it amounts to zilch. Why? Mostly because it's far too broad a stroke. The same company that does a particular, perceived "evil" in one area is probably doing 20 other perceived "good" things too.
Take Microsoft, for example. Despite all the professed hatred for them (monopolistic business practices, vendor lock-in, draconian copy-protection schemes, etc.), they just got ranked #1 most respected company in a recent survey (beating out Johnson & Johnson). Much of that was due to Bill Gates donating so much money to charities and worthy causes.
The only thing that's effective is rewarding production of good products, and the offering of good, quality services, by supporting them as you find them - regardless of the "name badge" affixed to them.
I actually think it's probably somewhere in the middle.... Without advertising, SOME consumers would purchase goods more in line with their actual needs and desires. BUT - other consumers would wind up making "non-optimal" purchasing decisions, because the lack of advertising made them unaware of the existence of a product or service better-suited to their needs.
In an absolute sense, education always trumps marketing.
But we don't live in a perfect world. Sometimes, a potential buyer is only made aware of a new offering through commercial advertising. He/she doesn't have time to research the "best choice" for *everything* he or she needs. In other cases, the advertising is what prompts him/her to start doing more research. He/she may not end up with the advertised product at all, but he/she used the advertising as a starting point.
Ok, but the idea that a seller is "willing to sell an item at $1" because they started the auction at that price is questionable from the get-go. eBay even suggests/recommends to new subscribers that they try listing their auction items at very low starting bids, like 1 cent or 99 cents, because it tends to generate more bidding/interest.
I think most sellers aren't really thinking "I'd be fine with it if I only got $1.00 for this brand new laptop." or whatever the item is. They're simply counting on eBay to live up to their promise of being the world's largest marketplace, and the fact that anyone with common sense would buy their item for more than such a small price.
If it becomes apparent that the system is failing them, and nobody is bidding anything remotely reasonable on their item after they let it sit out there for 5 or 7 days, they might resort to shill bidding as a last-minute safeguard.
The *buyer* really has nothing at risk, by comparison. (Remember, it's the *seller* who had to pay money for the initial listing, and will pay a percentage of the sale price on top of that if/when the item sells.) The only 2 outcomes a buyer is going to have are; 1. He/she wins the auction, getting the item for the price he/she stated he/she would pay, or 2. He/she loses the auction. The seller is still legally obligated to sell the item after the auction ends, for whatever price it ends up at. Shill bidding or not, nothing changes in that regard.
I tend to agree with the people saying "Who cares?" about this practice. When placing bids on eBay, you should know from the start how much you're willing to pay for the product you're interested in. If you think "Cool! I'm winning this radio for only $5.00 and it's easily worth $200!" and then the seller enters a number of shill bids, bumping the price up to $150 - fine. He/she is *really* saying "Sorry pal! I'm not letting go of this $200 radio for only $5.00!" Fair enough. The auction hasn't ended yet. The worst he/she really did to you was get your attention with the artificially low starting price and make you think for a little while you were getting a "steal" on the radio.
Now, you have to make a decision. Will you pay a "fair price" for this radio, or will you duck out, saying "Oh well, I don't want one THAT bad. I was just hoping the seller was going to lose his/her ass on the sale." ? It's still completely up to you. And if you bail out, the seller has a real good chance of not getting a buyer at all, causing him/her to pay the listing and re-listing fees for nothing.
I see what you're saying, but I don't think it really negates my original point. The examples you cite are mostly ones where the particular service in question has been "outsourced" as a matter of course for ALL business "players". (You could say "What's more important to your company's operations than having electricity? Yet you rely on your local power company to provide it, instead of building your own power plant!") But as with your UPS shipping example, or the example of letting someone else rent you the office building you operate from, these are considered "standards" of operation. The cost justifications have already been done, and practically everyone accepts as fact that these are cases where it makes more sense to let someone else do those things for you.
However, "outsourcing" jobs is different. You're talking about the value of hiring an employee, vs. letting someone else handle the work you would otherwise ask the new employee to do for you. When I need electricity, it's not as easy as hiring an "electricity guy" who can stand around and give off kilowatts. When I need UPS shipping, I can't just hire a guy to fly all over the world on overnight flights to get my packages delivered.
In the end, "outsourcing" only makes sense when the firm you outsource to provides a service (or product) that requires a LARGE investment in BOTH manpower and physical resources.
So sure, you and I would be best served by "outsourcing" our grocery needs to the local grocery chains, BUT large enough complexes can see advantages by operating their own greenhouses and/or gardens and being more self-sufficient.
My question to you would be, what do these outsourcing firms typically charge a company, vs. hiring a person (or multiple people) to do those roles themselves?
As a general rule, with every extra layer "in the middle", you add cost. (EG. A given firm performing H.R. duties will still have to pay market-rate salaries to their employees performing those duties. That means, to turn a profit, they have to charge YOU over and above that salary they're paying out.)
I can see the advantages of scale, in that one firm providing outsourced H.R. for many smaller businesses can get insurance and other benefits usually only attainable by a large company. But if the the yearly expenses a small firm puts out for this are too high, it doesn't add enough value to justify outsourcing them.
Things like janitorial work are usually outsourced because it's unskilled/low skilled labor, which comes relatively cheap - and it's a job that only takes someone maybe 45 minutes to 2 hours a night to do for you. (It's not often cost-effective to ask a much higher-paid person to do these tasks at their pay-rate, vs. bringing in janitors to do them -- and it makes no sense to hire a full-time or even part-time, 4 hour per day, employee for 45 mins. of actual work.)
But as your tasks get more critical to the operation of your business, outsourcing them makes less sense. (IMHO, this is even true for some relatively low-paying positions, if such positions involve direct contact with your customers... like phone support, or even your receptionists.) People employed directly by you have much more motivation to put forward a positive image of your business to your clients or customers. If they're outsourced, you're at least 1 level removed from them. (If your firm fires the outsourcing company, those employees may well go on to work for another customer of that outsourcing firm, vs. definitely being out of a job.)
I disagree. If you can make a gadget more durable without adding too much to the price, that's a win-win situation. Even if you only want to use the item for a year or two before upgrading to something else, you're probably going to either resell it, or hand it down to somebody else who can make use of it, right? That is, unless it's so beat up that nobody wants it anymore, or it quit working completely and became trash.
Instead of your purchase becoming garbage just because the casing is all cracked/damaged, you'll have a much better chance of recouping a little resale value out of it if it's built more durably.
Right now, you're correct -- but I predict the time is coming soon when more and more "Joe Sixpacks" will get interested in streaming their TV from the Internet. Look at "Democracy Player", for example. It's just "geek stuff" right now, yet people are making some decent media content to watch on their network, and some of them don't fit the profile of the stereotypical computer geeks you might expect. (I saw one channel up there with people covering the local hip-hop music scene in my city, for example.)
Network and cable television largely crank out formula sitcoms and game shows. The local networks usually rely on their local newscast as the "cornerstone" differentiating themselves from the competition, and use pro sports coverage to help boost their viewership. There's not much room there for items of special interest, or a little more "off the beaten path".
Cable usually offers one "public access channel" as a half-hearted attempt to fill this gap - but how many people pay for cable mainly for the public access channel's programming? With Internet TV, it's like having instant access to *all* the public access channels for every city in the nation, but now, the content is even organized by channel for you!
The very real threat with DRM enabled operating systems and media players is that they'll get leveraged to provide mainstream, commercialized content to the masses again - while ignoring or downplaying the "free/independent" content which may well be as good for better.
Seriously, we had a number of eccentric, brilliant individuals like Draper in the late 1800's and early 1900's, but in that era, the people with drive and vision (but lacking in "people skills") typically became inventors - building prototypes of new products that changed the world. Think Thomas Edison, or Tesla, or the Wright brothers....
Nowdays, we're much more focused on the "intangible"... The era of the "personal computer" meant many young people who would have traditionally developed an interest in tinkering with physical objects found an outlet for their creativity in the virtual world instead.
Unfortunately, it's looking more and more like going the "virtual" route gives less options for financial success. It's still *possible*, of course, to code the "next great thing" that everyone with a personal computer wants to pay for. But frankly, it's pretty darn unlikely. On today's computers, if you can think of a task, there's probably already a product or three available to get that task done. People like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates got in on things early, and were able to sell the world enough of their goods to establish them as "standards" for computers. Draper wasn't in the "right place at the right time" when that particular window of opportunity was still wide open.
Most of the "more interesting" applications I've seen for PCs in recent years involved a synchronizing of BOTH hardware and software. A physical device has to be built, with accompanying/supporting software, to bring a new "ability" to a computer. (Think everything from the laser mice that evolved from the rolling ball types to inexpensive webcams to LCD flat panel monitors to Apple's new iPhone.) Draper would be in a far better position if he leveraged an ability to develop new hardware than by trying to code software. Just my 2 cents worth.
Yeah, I'm with you 100% on ditching Norton, if you're still using that on a Mac. It SUCKS! As far as my RAM comment went though, I was more worried he might have only 256MB in his Mini. Many of them came with that, standard, on the first production run - and 256MB is *not* enough to do anything useful with OS X. The OS gets loaded up and there's no RAM free to run the applications without a bunch of hard disk swapping... so boom, no performance.
Mac Mini G4's only have 1 RAM slot, by the way. You can put a 256MB, a 512MB or a 1GB stick in it, and that's it.
This whole discussion is pretty much a "who cares".... But still, OS X on a G4 Mac Mini was "so slow it was almost unusable"?? Sounds to me like the machine in question was severely RAM starved then, or you were trying to do things on it that were far beyond its abilities? I owned a Mac Mini G4 for a little while, and while it was no "speed demon" - it was more than adequate for the types of basic home/office tasks you'd expect to use one for. I had Quicken 2007, Quickbooks, MS Office, a few smaller games like Mahjongg, and Apple's iLife '06 suite installed on it, and all ran at perfectly acceptable speeds for me. I did, however, have 1GB of RAM in it - which is a very sensible $100 or so to spend on one as an upgrade.....
Yeah.... ok. The *real* problem here is that Apple is starting to move away from a focus on computers/computing, and now sees themselves as a "media company" (a la Sony). Heck, wouldn't be all that shocking to eventually see Pixar merge in under the new "Apple, Inc." name... so their motion pictures get released as "Apple Entertainment Group" or whatever.
Businesses with a focus on computing have a vested interest in allowing software development to occur for their platforms from outside sources. Consumer electronics/media companies generally do not. (How many 3rd. party applets have you been able to install onto your Tivo? It runs open-source Linux, you know? Surely you can go online and grab some neat plug-ins that add new menu options to it, right? Oh, wait....)
I think this raises a rather interesting, larger question. What is the requirement to become a recognized, independent nation nowdays? Historically, it required bloodshed and force - but wouldn't you think that today's supposedly "more civilized" 1st. world countries could handle something like this with some diplomacy instead?
I mean, realistically, I think most people consider Sealand a joke, mainly because it doesn't even exist on any natural soil. It's just a man-made structure (initially built and paid for by a neighboring country, no less), out at sea - and is far too small to really be self-sustaining.
But if something similar took place on an actual island, recognized on maps and charts - what, then?
The thing with cellphones are, up till now, most of the frequent customers have been younger people concerned about their phone as a "fashion accessory" as much as anything. They don't really have the disposable income required to plunk down $500 or more for a phone they'll probably end up losing or dropping on the pavement and breaking in a year or so... but they will kick in that extra $149 or even $249 for something perceived as "trendy" or "cool", along with a new service contract. (Then they'll buy those $10 designer faceplates and antennas with blinking LED lights on the tips, etc. etc.)
This helped sell an awful lot of low to mid-priced Nokia phones (remember when everyone wanted one that looked just like the model Fox Mulder carried around in X-Files TV episodes, for example?), and is helping move quite a few Motorola Razr phones most recently. (Hey, look how THIN it is? Cool!)
Apple is bucking the trend here, and asking people to consider paying a lot more for a device that converges several devices people have already been buying. (Think of it as 1 part iPod, 1 part cellphone, and 1 part hand-held PC.) Sure, it has all the "trendiness" and "flash" that the stylish crowd demands - but this isn't going to be an "impulse buy" that all the teens can afford.
Rather than this ending up like another iPod, where it seems like *everybody* owns one (or even 2!), this could be more of a Blackberry/Treo killer. The corporate CEOs and traveling salespeople who keep loads of contacts and schedules in their phones will think nothing of moving to one of these - especially if it's a business tax write-off anyway. If integration with Mac OS X is tight enough, it will also tend to sell to Mac "power users" who have traditionally been frustrated with phones lacking good sync capabilities with a Mac. Of course, it'll catch the "early adopters" and generic "gadget freaks" in its net too... but that's more of a side-effect. I think I see where Apple is going to end up with this - and it's not a bad place really. It's going to secure them a spot in "high end cellphone sales", for the small percentage of users who demand more.
I know *plenty* of people who applied for positions they knew full-well they weren't at all qualified for. They were, however, good talkers and experienced in telling the H.R. "gatekeepers" all the standard things they like to hear, in order to move them forward to the interview.
When you're out of work and grasping at straws to find a way to get your next paycheck, you'll sometimes try things like this - just to see if a potential employer is clueless enough to hire you anyway. (Or in some cases, you may REALLY want a completely different position with that company that you think you won't have much chance of getting without having a foot in their door.)
Sometimes, it actually works. (Years ago, I knew a guy who did 48 hours of crash-course studying on Oracle database administration, in order to try for a tech. support job with Oracle. He really just wanted the job because they were located in Colorado, and he loved skiing.... He got it, and managed to learn enough while he was there to fool most people into thinking he knew the stuff all along. Last I heard, he still worked for them a few years later.)
I think you might have misunderstood my original message. I wasn't suggesting charging for a "lite" version of the product. Rather, you'd maintain your free product with bug/security fixes and maybe the occasional small update - but put most of your innovative work into developing a "for pay" version of the same product. That way, the free product serves as advertising for your commercial version (with the help of an initial advertising "push" you'd do to make people aware of your new, superior commercial offering). And people who just want a free program to use can still do so with your original product.
Someone asked if I could point to any instances where this type of business plan was effective? AVG Anti-Virus from Grisoft comes to mind, for one.
Amen! I was *so* anxious to see this phone released, until they revealed Cingular as the *exclusive* provider (for years, they said). I realize this is largely because they want it to work on a GSM network, and that rules out many U.S. CDMA based carriers (like US Cellular).... but damn. I just paid hundreds to break a contract with Verizon for this very reason. The costs of their unlimited data plans, plus the price of their plans with decent numbers of monthly voice minutes are just TOO HIGH.
Combine that with forking out a huge chunk of change on the phone and initial 2 year contract, and it's cost-prohibitive.
The sad thing is, about 10 years ago, I was using my Motorola analog flip phone on a service plan that gave me free unlimited nights and weekends (that started at 7PM), for a base price of $18.95 per month. Back then, I remember being upset that I only got a 200-300 "peak" minutes at that price, and had to be careful not to go over, or else I'd be paying nearly 25 cents/min. (But I managed, because I mainly used the phone on weekends or after work in the evening anyway. It was a phone for personal, not business use, after all.) I kept thinking "Oh well, in another 5 years, prices of service for cellphones will surely plummet and we'll all get unlimited usage at ANY time of day for like $15 a month total!) Instead, it's gone up and up and up!
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO, you make a very valid point (grandma playing pop-cap games and checking her email once a week pays the same as a 24/7 bittorrent user).
BUT - the sale of pseudo-unlimited bandwidth is a practice that began because the public, essentially, demanded it. Home and small business users made it quite clear that they didn't want to feel like they were "on the clock", being metered as they upload and download anything. At the same time, what they want for their $20-50 a month or so is the ability to *usually* achieve good net speeds whenever they use it.
The most popular compromise was selling plans that don't monitor your personal usage at all, but come with the "catch" that the network may get congested and slow down without warning.
Will this screw things up for people who suddenly expect to do all of their work from home via VPN tunnel in the case of a big disaster? Well, YES! But all things considered, that's just as it should be. If the ability to work from home was important enough to you, you could always pay for dedicated bandwidth with a guaranteed min. level of service. 99% of people didn't ever opt to do so, so they're left with net connections that aren't designed to handle huge surges in usage due to natural disasters.
And as a side note, the "power users" you refer to do already help subsidize the network for everyone else - because they're the only ones willing to pay more for higher-tier plans from the cable companies or telcos. The general public says "Huh? Pay $79.95 a month for 10mbit cable broadband? What the hell would I need something THAT fast for? I like that 3mbit plan for $29.95 a month, thanks."
IMHO, it's silly to contribute a portable computer's CPU cycles to these types of projects anyway. They usually run when your machine is *idle*. Portables are usually shut off or put into a sleep mode and disconnected from the Internet when they're not actually being used.
However, I will very likely set up my Mac Pro for this project when I get home tonight. It runs 24 hours/7 days since I have a small ftp server on it. It may as well be doing something else useful for other people while it's using the electricity anyway.
I realize that Microsoft doesn't sell as much hardware to their customers as Apple does (though they've moved an awful lot of keyboards and mice over the years)... but I don't think it invalidates my point completely.
... but that's just a number we thew out there. Since you bought a Mac from us before, you can just download a free copy instead and that's just fine with us too!"
While Apple does get to sell you a copy of OS X, bundled in the price of a new Mac, it doesn't mean they "don't care where you get your OS X versions" after that! Every major OS X upgrade has been a little over $100 per copy, so I'm sure they don't just say "Sure, we charged $129 for you to go from Panther to Tiger
Nonetheless, you don't see Apple embracing software activation systems and limitations on the number of times you can re-install a given product with you key code. They don't play these games because they know their machines are supposed to make computing "easier". All of these extra activation steps work against that goal. Buy Apple's iWork '06 suite, or iLife '06, or even Aperture or Motion - and they don't have those products phoning home to Apple to activate your key before they run..... Microsoft, however, does do this with all of their Office products.
Steve Jobs and Apple have repeatedly shown that they aren't "just like Microsoft" in their actions.
//e to the Macintosh - so it makes sense he was let go to do other things.
1. Compare Apple's software registration/installation process to Microsoft's. With OS X, you install and optionally provide your name, address, and phone number. Done. With Microsoft? Type in a lengthy product key that must be validated by Microsoft to activate your installation. Change enough hardware in your system, or dump it in favor of a new one, and you have to re-activate.
2. Microsoft's business plan centers around buying up promising new technologies of others, and re-branding them with the Microsoft logo. (MS couldn't even write their own pinball game for Windows, for crying out loud! They bought it from Maxis!) Apple's plan centers around Q&A, plus designers kept on staff like Mr. Ives, to design stylish, yet functional enclosures for the hardware products.
3. What "treatment of Woz" are you referring to? The guy still remains in regular contact with Steve Jobs, and in fact, I recall he was instrumental in Apple doing a new revision of the aluminum Powerbook G4 motherboard, after he discovered a flaw causing problems with it not properly using all of the RAM when you upgraded to the max. allowable memory. Woz said he's not really interested in being a salesman or in dealing with all the hassles of running a big business like Apple. He was never a big fan of the direction Jobs wanted Apple to go when they moved from the
4. It seems obvious to me that Apple is not nearly as "pro DRM" as Microsoft is. They only agreed to it (as watered-down as they could get record companies to go for) so they could get their music store off the ground with digital downloads. Now, Jobs is coming out against DRM - since he feels the digitial download marketplace has proven itself. Microsoft, by contrast, added much MORE DRM in Vista.
5. No argument on Apple's legal action against the bloggers being bad. But, at least they did come to their senses and drop those charges.
I'd like to submit Logitech to the list!
I purchased one of their MX1000 laser mice when it was a brand new item, and while it was excellent - my 4 year old dropped it on the floor one too many times. The center rocker button surrounding the scroll wheel started sticking occasionally, causing things to scroll, out of control, in web browsers, MS Word, etc.
Seeing it was under Logitech's warranty, I figured it couldn't hurt to give them a call - to see if they might be able to sell me a used/refurbished replacement mouse inexpensively or something, given the circumstances.
Instead, the sales rep. looked up its serial number to confirm it was under warranty, and simply said "A brand new replacement is on its way." I asked if they needed the old mouse back, and I was told "No. You may as well keep it to have a spare charging base or something." Within a week, a new mouse was at my doorstep, in the retail packaging!
That comment about CDs being an "incredibly good value" because of all the times you can be re-entertained by it is a joke!
I can say the same thing about any number of paperback books that still have a retail price FAR lower than a music CD. (And I wonder what it says about the "value" of the plastic hula-hoop my mom had as a kid and passed on so my kid could play with it? Heck - with all the re-entertainment value it held over the years, a hula-hoop should easily sell for upwards of $150, right!?!)
There's no doubt that Apple prefers to tie their products and software together, whenever possible. But I fail to see why some people (assuming you included, from the tone of your message post) see this as inherently "bad/evil"?
*All* computer manufacturers did things this way from day 1, until IBM's personal computer design got ripped off/cloned left and right by everybody under the sun, bringing it to the forefront as a new "standard".
Apple has wandered in that same general direction whenever it becomes obvious it provides a concrete business advantage. (Today's Macs let you use industry-standard SATA hard drives, and pretty much anyone's peripherals that support standard USB ports, for example. They also migrated to Intel's CPUs across their entire product line, and even allow/sanction the use of Windows on them!)
But in general, I think Apple's products work so well precisely BECAUSE they believe in providing the "whole package" to the customer. This model is used by all the console game systems out there, and it works just fine for them too.
I'm lost on your comment that Apple is a company that "tries to make you buy hardware you do not want, to get software or tunes you do"? If this were really true, they wouldn't have developed the Windows version of iTunes at all. (EG. "Too bad, buddy. If you want to participate in one of the most friendly and more complete online music stores, you need to buy a Mac first!")
No... More and more, I think Apple is proving to be a media company. If anything, they see themselves in a market-space more like Sony. Sony makes computers (usually stylish ones at that), but they're also a media company, in the music and movie business, as well as offering consumer electronics goods that tie in with those areas. Apple in the past has sold digital cameras (the Apple Quicktake series), has a set-top "Apple TV" box going on the market, and a growing interest in selling movies AND music content via iTunes. Soon, they're going to offer cellphones too.
They certainly want you to LIKE and WANT their hardware -- and people who do buy their hardware rarely seem to regret it. Most of the negative comments I hear about Apple hardware come from people who haven't ever purchased any yet!
If you really look into the "religion" of Scientology, you see they've got a pretty scary agenda. As far as I can gather, the real shame is that our nation continues to offer these cultists legal protection under the guise of "religious freedom".
I mean, for starters, the whole thing is based on the writings of a science-fiction author (and a controversial one at that - who at least some folks claim was a compulsive liar, etc.). But even that aside, you quickly realize that they place an increasing financial value on these "teachings". Becoming and staying a member of this "religion" involves a considerable expenditure! Their teachings even include the concept that you're either "one of them" or you're basically worthless, and should eventually just be killed off. The non-Scientologists are primarily useful for extorting money from, to further the group's cause.
We're at *war* with people of a much more "legitimate" religion, with a MUCH longer heritage, for similar beliefs!
It won't help. That's the unfortunate fact. If PS3 sales completely tank and the product is declared a "dud", Sony won't see a single thing about how that related to installing a root-kit on some music CDs.
It seems like every few months, someone starts up with the grand idea of "boycotting" a large company, out of furor over some move they've made. And every single time, it amounts to zilch. Why? Mostly because it's far too broad a stroke. The same company that does a particular, perceived "evil" in one area is probably doing 20 other perceived "good" things too.
Take Microsoft, for example. Despite all the professed hatred for them (monopolistic business practices, vendor lock-in, draconian copy-protection schemes, etc.), they just got ranked #1 most respected company in a recent survey (beating out Johnson & Johnson). Much of that was due to Bill Gates donating so much money to charities and worthy causes.
The only thing that's effective is rewarding production of good products, and the offering of good, quality services, by supporting them as you find them - regardless of the "name badge" affixed to them.
I actually think it's probably somewhere in the middle.... Without advertising, SOME consumers would purchase goods more in line with their actual needs and desires. BUT - other consumers would wind up making "non-optimal" purchasing decisions, because the lack of advertising made them unaware of the existence of a product or service better-suited to their needs.
In an absolute sense, education always trumps marketing.
But we don't live in a perfect world. Sometimes, a potential buyer is only made aware of a new offering through commercial advertising. He/she doesn't have time to research the "best choice" for *everything* he or she needs. In other cases, the advertising is what prompts him/her to start doing more research. He/she may not end up with the advertised product at all, but he/she used the advertising as a starting point.
Ok, but the idea that a seller is "willing to sell an item at $1" because they started the auction at that price is questionable from the get-go. eBay even suggests/recommends to new subscribers that they try listing their auction items at very low starting bids, like 1 cent or 99 cents, because it tends to generate more bidding/interest.
I think most sellers aren't really thinking "I'd be fine with it if I only got $1.00 for this brand new laptop." or whatever the item is. They're simply counting on eBay to live up to their promise of being the world's largest marketplace, and the fact that anyone with common sense would buy their item for more than such a small price.
If it becomes apparent that the system is failing them, and nobody is bidding anything remotely reasonable on their item after they let it sit out there for 5 or 7 days, they might resort to shill bidding as a last-minute safeguard.
The *buyer* really has nothing at risk, by comparison. (Remember, it's the *seller* who had to pay money for the initial listing, and will pay a percentage of the sale price on top of that if/when the item sells.) The only 2 outcomes a buyer is going to have are; 1. He/she wins the auction, getting the item for the price he/she stated he/she would pay, or 2. He/she loses the auction. The seller is still legally obligated to sell the item after the auction ends, for whatever price it ends up at. Shill bidding or not, nothing changes in that regard.
I tend to agree with the people saying "Who cares?" about this practice. When placing bids on eBay, you should know from the start how much you're willing to pay for the product you're interested in. If you think "Cool! I'm winning this radio for only $5.00 and it's easily worth $200!" and then the seller enters a number of shill bids, bumping the price up to $150 - fine. He/she is *really* saying "Sorry pal! I'm not letting go of this $200 radio for only $5.00!" Fair enough. The auction hasn't ended yet. The worst he/she really did to you was get your attention with the artificially low starting price and make you think for a little while you were getting a "steal" on the radio.
Now, you have to make a decision. Will you pay a "fair price" for this radio, or will you duck out, saying "Oh well, I don't want one THAT bad. I was just hoping the seller was going to lose his/her ass on the sale." ? It's still completely up to you. And if you bail out, the seller has a real good chance of not getting a buyer at all, causing him/her to pay the listing and re-listing fees for nothing.
I see what you're saying, but I don't think it really negates my original point. The examples you cite are mostly ones where the particular service in question has been "outsourced" as a matter of course for ALL business "players". (You could say "What's more important to your company's operations than having electricity? Yet you rely on your local power company to provide it, instead of building your own power plant!") But as with your UPS shipping example, or the example of letting someone else rent you the office building you operate from, these are considered "standards" of operation. The cost justifications have already been done, and practically everyone accepts as fact that these are cases where it makes more sense to let someone else do those things for you.
However, "outsourcing" jobs is different. You're talking about the value of hiring an employee, vs. letting someone else handle the work you would otherwise ask the new employee to do for you. When I need electricity, it's not as easy as hiring an "electricity guy" who can stand around and give off kilowatts. When I need UPS shipping, I can't just hire a guy to fly all over the world on overnight flights to get my packages delivered.
In the end, "outsourcing" only makes sense when the firm you outsource to provides a service (or product) that requires a LARGE investment in BOTH manpower and physical resources.
So sure, you and I would be best served by "outsourcing" our grocery needs to the local grocery chains, BUT large enough complexes can see advantages by operating their own greenhouses and/or gardens and being more self-sufficient.
My question to you would be, what do these outsourcing firms typically charge a company, vs. hiring a person (or multiple people) to do those roles themselves?
... like phone support, or even your receptionists.) People employed directly by you have much more motivation to put forward a positive image of your business to your clients or customers. If they're outsourced, you're at least 1 level removed from them. (If your firm fires the outsourcing company, those employees may well go on to work for another customer of that outsourcing firm, vs. definitely being out of a job.)
As a general rule, with every extra layer "in the middle", you add cost. (EG. A given firm performing H.R. duties will still have to pay market-rate salaries to their employees performing those duties. That means, to turn a profit, they have to charge YOU over and above that salary they're paying out.)
I can see the advantages of scale, in that one firm providing outsourced H.R. for many smaller businesses can get insurance and other benefits usually only attainable by a large company. But if the the yearly expenses a small firm puts out for this are too high, it doesn't add enough value to justify outsourcing them.
Things like janitorial work are usually outsourced because it's unskilled/low skilled labor, which comes relatively cheap - and it's a job that only takes someone maybe 45 minutes to 2 hours a night to do for you. (It's not often cost-effective to ask a much higher-paid person to do these tasks at their pay-rate, vs. bringing in janitors to do them -- and it makes no sense to hire a full-time or even part-time, 4 hour per day, employee for 45 mins. of actual work.)
But as your tasks get more critical to the operation of your business, outsourcing them makes less sense. (IMHO, this is even true for some relatively low-paying positions, if such positions involve direct contact with your customers
I disagree. If you can make a gadget more durable without adding too much to the price, that's a win-win situation. Even if you only want to use the item for a year or two before upgrading to something else, you're probably going to either resell it, or hand it down to somebody else who can make use of it, right? That is, unless it's so beat up that nobody wants it anymore, or it quit working completely and became trash.
Instead of your purchase becoming garbage just because the casing is all cracked/damaged, you'll have a much better chance of recouping a little resale value out of it if it's built more durably.
Right now, you're correct -- but I predict the time is coming soon when more and more "Joe Sixpacks" will get interested in streaming their TV from the Internet. Look at "Democracy Player", for example. It's just "geek stuff" right now, yet people are making some decent media content to watch on their network, and some of them don't fit the profile of the stereotypical computer geeks you might expect. (I saw one channel up there with people covering the local hip-hop music scene in my city, for example.)
Network and cable television largely crank out formula sitcoms and game shows. The local networks usually rely on their local newscast as the "cornerstone" differentiating themselves from the competition, and use pro sports coverage to help boost their viewership. There's not much room there for items of special interest, or a little more "off the beaten path".
Cable usually offers one "public access channel" as a half-hearted attempt to fill this gap - but how many people pay for cable mainly for the public access channel's programming? With Internet TV, it's like having instant access to *all* the public access channels for every city in the nation, but now, the content is even organized by channel for you!
The very real threat with DRM enabled operating systems and media players is that they'll get leveraged to provide mainstream, commercialized content to the masses again - while ignoring or downplaying the "free/independent" content which may well be as good for better.
Seriously, we had a number of eccentric, brilliant individuals like Draper in the late 1800's and early 1900's, but in that era, the people with drive and vision (but lacking in "people skills") typically became inventors - building prototypes of new products that changed the world. Think Thomas Edison, or Tesla, or the Wright brothers....
... The era of the "personal computer" meant many young people who would have traditionally developed an interest in tinkering with physical objects found an outlet for their creativity in the virtual world instead.
Nowdays, we're much more focused on the "intangible"
Unfortunately, it's looking more and more like going the "virtual" route gives less options for financial success. It's still *possible*, of course, to code the "next great thing" that everyone with a personal computer wants to pay for. But frankly, it's pretty darn unlikely. On today's computers, if you can think of a task, there's probably already a product or three available to get that task done. People like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates got in on things early, and were able to sell the world enough of their goods to establish them as "standards" for computers. Draper wasn't in the "right place at the right time" when that particular window of opportunity was still wide open.
Most of the "more interesting" applications I've seen for PCs in recent years involved a synchronizing of BOTH hardware and software. A physical device has to be built, with accompanying/supporting software, to bring a new "ability" to a computer. (Think everything from the laser mice that evolved from the rolling ball types to inexpensive webcams to LCD flat panel monitors to Apple's new iPhone.) Draper would be in a far better position if he leveraged an ability to develop new hardware than by trying to code software. Just my 2 cents worth.
Yeah, I'm with you 100% on ditching Norton, if you're still using that on a Mac. It SUCKS! As far as my RAM comment went though, I was more worried he might have only 256MB in his Mini. Many of them came with that, standard, on the first production run - and 256MB is *not* enough to do anything useful with OS X. The OS gets loaded up and there's no RAM free to run the applications without a bunch of hard disk swapping ... so boom, no performance.
Mac Mini G4's only have 1 RAM slot, by the way. You can put a 256MB, a 512MB or a 1GB stick in it, and that's it.
This whole discussion is pretty much a "who cares" .... But still, OS X on a G4 Mac Mini was "so slow it was almost unusable"?? Sounds to me like the machine in question was severely RAM starved then, or you were trying to do things on it that were far beyond its abilities? I owned a Mac Mini G4 for a little while, and while it was no "speed demon" - it was more than adequate for the types of basic home/office tasks you'd expect to use one for. I had Quicken 2007, Quickbooks, MS Office, a few smaller games like Mahjongg, and Apple's iLife '06 suite installed on it, and all ran at perfectly acceptable speeds for me. I did, however, have 1GB of RAM in it - which is a very sensible $100 or so to spend on one as an upgrade.....
Yeah.... ok. The *real* problem here is that Apple is starting to move away from a focus on computers/computing, and now sees themselves as a "media company" (a la Sony). Heck, wouldn't be all that shocking to eventually see Pixar merge in under the new "Apple, Inc." name ... so their motion pictures get released as "Apple Entertainment Group" or whatever.
Businesses with a focus on computing have a vested interest in allowing software development to occur for their platforms from outside sources. Consumer electronics/media companies generally do not. (How many 3rd. party applets have you been able to install onto your Tivo? It runs open-source Linux, you know? Surely you can go online and grab some neat plug-ins that add new menu options to it, right? Oh, wait....)
I think this raises a rather interesting, larger question. What is the requirement to become a recognized, independent nation nowdays? Historically, it required bloodshed and force - but wouldn't you think that today's supposedly "more civilized" 1st. world countries could handle something like this with some diplomacy instead?
I mean, realistically, I think most people consider Sealand a joke, mainly because it doesn't even exist on any natural soil. It's just a man-made structure (initially built and paid for by a neighboring country, no less), out at sea - and is far too small to really be self-sustaining.
But if something similar took place on an actual island, recognized on maps and charts - what, then?
The thing with cellphones are, up till now, most of the frequent customers have been younger people concerned about their phone as a "fashion accessory" as much as anything. They don't really have the disposable income required to plunk down $500 or more for a phone they'll probably end up losing or dropping on the pavement and breaking in a year or so ... but they will kick in that extra $149 or even $249 for something perceived as "trendy" or "cool", along with a new service contract. (Then they'll buy those $10 designer faceplates and antennas with blinking LED lights on the tips, etc. etc.)
... but that's more of a side-effect. I think I see where Apple is going to end up with this - and it's not a bad place really. It's going to secure them a spot in "high end cellphone sales", for the small percentage of users who demand more.
This helped sell an awful lot of low to mid-priced Nokia phones (remember when everyone wanted one that looked just like the model Fox Mulder carried around in X-Files TV episodes, for example?), and is helping move quite a few Motorola Razr phones most recently. (Hey, look how THIN it is? Cool!)
Apple is bucking the trend here, and asking people to consider paying a lot more for a device that converges several devices people have already been buying. (Think of it as 1 part iPod, 1 part cellphone, and 1 part hand-held PC.) Sure, it has all the "trendiness" and "flash" that the stylish crowd demands - but this isn't going to be an "impulse buy" that all the teens can afford.
Rather than this ending up like another iPod, where it seems like *everybody* owns one (or even 2!), this could be more of a Blackberry/Treo killer. The corporate CEOs and traveling salespeople who keep loads of contacts and schedules in their phones will think nothing of moving to one of these - especially if it's a business tax write-off anyway. If integration with Mac OS X is tight enough, it will also tend to sell to Mac "power users" who have traditionally been frustrated with phones lacking good sync capabilities with a Mac. Of course, it'll catch the "early adopters" and generic "gadget freaks" in its net too
I know *plenty* of people who applied for positions they knew full-well they weren't at all qualified for. They were, however, good talkers and experienced in telling the H.R. "gatekeepers" all the standard things they like to hear, in order to move them forward to the interview.
When you're out of work and grasping at straws to find a way to get your next paycheck, you'll sometimes try things like this - just to see if a potential employer is clueless enough to hire you anyway. (Or in some cases, you may REALLY want a completely different position with that company that you think you won't have much chance of getting without having a foot in their door.)
Sometimes, it actually works. (Years ago, I knew a guy who did 48 hours of crash-course studying on Oracle database administration, in order to try for a tech. support job with Oracle. He really just wanted the job because they were located in Colorado, and he loved skiing.... He got it, and managed to learn enough while he was there to fool most people into thinking he knew the stuff all along. Last I heard, he still worked for them a few years later.)
I think you might have misunderstood my original message. I wasn't suggesting charging for a "lite" version of the product. Rather, you'd maintain your free product with bug/security fixes and maybe the occasional small update - but put most of your innovative work into developing a "for pay" version of the same product. That way, the free product serves as advertising for your commercial version (with the help of an initial advertising "push" you'd do to make people aware of your new, superior commercial offering). And people who just want a free program to use can still do so with your original product.
Someone asked if I could point to any instances where this type of business plan was effective? AVG Anti-Virus from Grisoft comes to mind, for one.
Amen! I was *so* anxious to see this phone released, until they revealed Cingular as the *exclusive* provider (for years, they said). I realize this is largely because they want it to work on a GSM network, and that rules out many U.S. CDMA based carriers (like US Cellular).... but damn. I just paid hundreds to break a contract with Verizon for this very reason. The costs of their unlimited data plans, plus the price of their plans with decent numbers of monthly voice minutes are just TOO HIGH.
Combine that with forking out a huge chunk of change on the phone and initial 2 year contract, and it's cost-prohibitive.
The sad thing is, about 10 years ago, I was using my Motorola analog flip phone on a service plan that gave me free unlimited nights and weekends (that started at 7PM), for a base price of $18.95 per month. Back then, I remember being upset that I only got a 200-300 "peak" minutes at that price, and had to be careful not to go over, or else I'd be paying nearly 25 cents/min. (But I managed, because I mainly used the phone on weekends or after work in the evening anyway. It was a phone for personal, not business use, after all.) I kept thinking "Oh well, in another 5 years, prices of service for cellphones will surely plummet and we'll all get unlimited usage at ANY time of day for like $15 a month total!) Instead, it's gone up and up and up!