No, but I don't want anyone to prohibit me from modding it.
But your intention isn't to mod it. Because you don't want to mod it and run it in the same machine in came with, you want to mod it and stick it in a different car.
I don't believe Apple is giving us a Ford. I saw the Intel-system in action, and you certainly can't tell the difference on the outside. I think we'll all be pleasantly surprised with what Apple will do with Intel-inside. Fact is that the PPC hasn't lived up to its potential. Apple has suffered many setbacks because of that (product delays, Mhz ceilings).
I don't believe Apple has any plans to license their OS for many, many years to come. I recall hearing that software sales (including OS sales) represent 10% of Apple's income.
Combine that with the NIGHTMARE of trying to support some of those skanky PC motherboards and all their configurations and the cost of support goes through the roof, not to mention that Apple ends up looking like another OS-wannabe.
Funny, I don't see calls to have BMW or Mercedes be able to drop their engines in a GM or Chrysler. Nor is there any real benefit to BMW or Mercedes to even do this. But apparently, Apple should be looking at selling its engines to GM for mass distribution. Never mind that GMs don't compare to BMW or Mercedes.
It all comes down to this? Don't like what Apple charges for their machine/OS combo? Then don't buy it. And stop bitchin' about it.
Apple isn't grossly overcharging for most of its hardware. This is a myth. Yes, it is more expensive, and you can dig and find some dirt cheap-ass PC to compare it to argue how horrible the pricing is, but the reality is that Apple's prices are fairly competitive, when you factor in not just a barebones system, but the software and additional functionality.. especially in the mid-to-high end of the market.
And if you don't like their prices -- don't buy a Mac. What? You want the full Mac experience but don't want to pay for it? So you want the full BMW M6 driving experience, but want to pay the cost of a Ford Focus? That's your problem, not Apple's (or BMW).
As for the broadcast flag.... the last thing I want my providers mucking around with is having to write code to accommodate the frigging broadcast flag. How many of you have the Comcast HD PVR box? In the last week it has "claimed" to record more than three shows that never showed up in the play list. It created an entry in the play list that had no title, claimed it was recorded in 1998, and was unplayable, and once I tried to play it, locked the machine up solid and only a power cycle recovered it.
Welcome to the world of crappy DVRs pawned by your local Cable Company. I tried TimeWarner's DVR and had close to the same results. The software is buggy as all can be, horrible user interface and more hassle than benefit.
Ultimately I took it back, told them to shove their DVR where the sun don't shine -- I bought a second TiVo (with DVD Burning) and will put up with the lack of dual tuner recording (luckily most TV is all reality shows -- which are pure contrived crap, so very little overlap ever occurs).
While this would be fun, beware of the police powers that Homeland Security has.
A TSA Administrator admitted publicly that they put certain names (in this case people that had banned items) in a "secret" database (ie. you don't know what information they're keeping or even if you are in it) for an indefinite period of time.
They even use "attitude towards screeners" as one of their criteria for fines and entry in the database. Nice!! Disagree!! We'll make your life miserable. Now, who else wants to disagree?
That will then be used against you in the future (more secondary screenings and who knows what else yet). You'll essentially be black-listed, you know -- unless you rat out your other "commie" friends.
You liked 50s McCarthy-era right? Because they're back!!
Same name, different guy -- I looked it up. Although if I were Mr. Chopra (Self Help) I'd see if I could find a way to sue him -- that IS the American way!!
But of course, you are right, all this security thing is a conspiracy by air flight companies.
Not a conspiracy -- but a cost/benefit analysis. It's bad business when your planes are hijacked. Most of the security measures are simply to make us "feel" safer so that we'll fly. But we're at that threshold where people are weary of yet another invasion of privacy for this "appearance of safety". I avoid flying because it has become such a hassle now and I'm tired of being treated like a potential terrorist just because I need to fly somewhere.
Sure, Mr. Online Expert, the anti-missile equipment on the Israeli plane that was almost shot down over Kenya had nothing to do with the passengers safety.
And an X-ray of people has nothing to do with outside missiles that may be fired at a plane. Your argument is simply irrelevant.
I wonder where do you get these amazing insights from. Not from history, that's for sure.
Actually, he's probably just using his brain a bit. Terrorism is a TACTIC and it's been around for a while. Sadly, the reaction to it is usually exactly what the party wanted. Bin Laden hoped to curtail our freedoms and he succeeded. US Citizens are not as free today as they were before 9/11. We have more police watching everything we do. More invasion of privacy all for the hope of "security".
The fact that passengers now realize that sitting back and doing nothing -- which is what we were told to do in these situations in the past -- won't keep them alive, they will fight back. Will in prevent any possible attack in the future? Can't say for sure because the fact is it is impossible to stop every person that is willing to kill themselves in the process of killing others. If they don't do it by plane, they'll find trains, buses or any place that has a crowd.
How to "protect" every crowd of more than 100 people in the United States? Oh, and by the way -- we're still "supposed" to have our freedoms too in all this. And then what if they simply target crowds of 20 people?
While they may pick people at random, I think All Representatives and Senators should be REQUIRED to go through these devices.
Let's see how they feel being exposed every time they go on a trip. It's the least they could do if they claim to be representing us.
I wish the President and this immediate family would be forced to endure this. Of course, he gets his own private plane, so he is totally isolated from this (and given that most Ex-Presidents fly private, will never be exposed to this)
Sadly, until the Congress is forced to give up their own freedoms, they'll do nothing.
It's not illegal to smoke a hand-rolled cigarettes or to talk to a known prostitute.
Not YET anyway. However, it is plausible that they could use this information against you at a later time. Even blackmail you, especially if you have a public-image.
I don't reallly have problems with police being able to see public roads with cameras. That's what they do when they go on patrol - now there's a more cost efficient way.
Well, I do. Because that is only beginning. Washington D.C. is a great example. They have cameras that take pictures of red light runners. Well, Actually they take pictures of the car -- then the owner (or registered user) is sent a fine in the mail 2 months later. If you don't respond -- your assume guilt and will be assessed additional late-penalties. And it doesn't matter if they sent it to the wrong address -- you're assumed guilty anyway.
How do I know this? Because I accidently opened a letter in my mailbox which turned out to be for a neighbor (although the address was WRONG).
We are nothing more than a source of revenue. In the past year, the TSA issued 10,000 fines for bringing banned items to the airport. So they confiscate the item and then fine you an arbitrary amount ($250-$10,000). Oh, and then they put you in their secret database (Ms. Lauren Stover of the TSA admitted this publicly to the local news).
Israel actually spends the money to protect each and every flight, since they're actually interested in security, not just the appearance of doing something.
And you can tell that is true because they don't make a big stink about how "safe" they're making everyone.
Here here!! I only wish there were more people that were interested in their rights over the illusion of safety.
Come on, nail clippers "banned"? Because you might threaten to clip somebody's nails on the plain? (They're not sharp enough for anything else).
Four matches is OK, but FIVE!! OH NO, that's a potential terror risk!!
And as a bonus, I saw on the news that they're now arbitrarily fining people when they find something on their "do not bring list" with a minimum $250 fine (because the law allows them to). The amount of the fine is based on what you had confiscated and "your attitude toward the screeners". Then your name is put in a secret database and you may be subjected to more security searches indefinitely (in other words, persecuted). And no, you are not allowed to know if you are in the database or what information is stored about you in that database.
TSA is doing exactly what many of us have feared, they're flexing their muscle in the name of "better security" and stealing away our rights in the process. The x-rated x-ray machine is yet another example of this.
Of course, the only reason we're "safer" right now is because the terrorists haven't decided to strike. So what will happen when they do? Just start writing down your rights so you can remember what you used to have!!
While there are a lot of apps written in Cocoa, all the big guys are still Carbon based (iTunes, Adobe products, Dreamweaver, MS Office, Quark Xpress).
What's their incentive? They'd just tell Apple to write a Windows API compatible layer and then run their Windows programs on it. SO much for the Mac OS X software advantage.
There is also an issue of dealing with big vs. little endian differences. Most Cocoa developers have not considered that issue in their development (no reason to).
If the idea of moving to commodity hardware was so good, why wasn't NeXT more successful with its x86-based OS?
As a developer, this would be a pain in my ass. I've got enough to do without having to add yet another freakin' transition (YAFT). If I'm going eat precious development time doing a transition, I'd want to see a compelling reason. Cheaper hardware is not a compelling reason (I'd just write Windows software if I was after that).
Along with many others here, I think these discussions are likely related to one of many, many hardware projects that are under development, but likely not the Macs.
Actually, Apple is just playing that Dell game a bit. Yeah, you can start at $399, but when you get a machine that's truly usable, you find out it costs a lot more (I know, I've been looking at "cheap" PCs for my sister).
Of course, Apple also did what it does best -- add a little style to the whole game. We can strip out things like Display and accessories, but we'll still make it cool.
The reason the iPod is so successful is because it specifically doesn't try to be all things to all people.
Ultimately, until they can offer 2 weeks of standby time, 10 hours of talk time and 40 hours of music time -- your "both" phone will spend most of its time getting its battery charged.
Evenutally, that hack becomes a trouble to maintain and I'd bet my bottom dollar that it then takes more time to remove the hack and rework it properly that it would have taken to fix it properly in the first place.
This is always the case with software -- no matter how cleanly you design it, it will degrade over time. To deny this aspect of software development reality is silly
Apple has to maintain WebCore -- so I'm betting "hacking in bug fixes" may be overstated.
Of important note -- these are all relative terms.
Your 'good' may differ from my 'good'. That seems to be the case here. The KHTML guys say Apple's 'good' is not good enough.
Apple doesn't want to create code that is impossible to maintain either. They have to maintain WebCore for their own future (they can't rely on Internet Explorer or even FireFox for a true Mac browsing experience).
I don't think there is any real evidence that Safari's WebCore engine is "hacked together" by Apple.
The patches submitted back to KHTML may be harder to integrated more because the changes made to Safari are greater and in a different direction than KHTML.
I think there is a bit of arrogance on the KHTML side to not even consider the aspect of WebCore.
The holier than thou attitude seems very pervasive in the Open Source Community. It's not unlike the Not Invented Here syndrome that many corporations suffer from.
Apple is offering up their changes but seem to have said "We've made major improvements that can't easily be patched in to the existing base. We offer the opportunity to use this new code as a basis for the future."
I shouldn't harp on DirecTV too much, they are certainly not as bad as the Cable or Phone companies -- although supposedly they have kept the Series-2 HMO out of DirecTivos.
I didn't see the discount for current owners, but did indicate that would be acceptable. I don't think it would be fair to ask for another $500 or $1000 for the receiver.
I had to switch off DirecTV for the time being (due to location, not service), so it's more a frustration with TWC, which is a horrible entity when it comes to customer service.
Regardless, I think DirecTV's move is the right step to push HDTV into the mainstream. I refuse to get HDTV simply for the fact that there are so few channels (and at least with TWC, standard channels look like crap when you go HDTV). So you get 5 channels that sometimes work (my box would get the pic/sound out of synch) and the rest of the lineup looks like crap (very snowy). So no HDTV for me, for now.
Well there is some competition, but all of the players treat their customers like crap -- I guess that's close to the "Oligopoly" definition.
In the end, however, it simply drives me away from their products altogether. They may not care if one person does it, but I would hope there are more that would follow. Or have we just turned into sheep, automatons for Corporate America -- makes the Matrix and Max Headroom seem quite prophetic.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but I don't want anyone to prohibit me from modding it.
But your intention isn't to mod it. Because you don't want to mod it and run it in the same machine in came with, you want to mod it and stick it in a different car.
I don't believe Apple is giving us a Ford. I saw the Intel-system in action, and you certainly can't tell the difference on the outside. I think we'll all be pleasantly surprised with what Apple will do with Intel-inside. Fact is that the PPC hasn't lived up to its potential. Apple has suffered many setbacks because of that (product delays, Mhz ceilings).
Stranglehold? That's just plain trolling..
I don't believe Apple has any plans to license their OS for many, many years to come. I recall hearing that software sales (including OS sales) represent 10% of Apple's income.
Combine that with the NIGHTMARE of trying to support some of those skanky PC motherboards and all their configurations and the cost of support goes through the roof, not to mention that Apple ends up looking like another OS-wannabe.
Funny, I don't see calls to have BMW or Mercedes be able to drop their engines in a GM or Chrysler. Nor is there any real benefit to BMW or Mercedes to even do this. But apparently, Apple should be looking at selling its engines to GM for mass distribution. Never mind that GMs don't compare to BMW or Mercedes.
It all comes down to this? Don't like what Apple charges for their machine/OS combo? Then don't buy it. And stop bitchin' about it.
Apple isn't grossly overcharging for most of its hardware. This is a myth. Yes, it is more expensive, and you can dig and find some dirt cheap-ass PC to compare it to argue how horrible the pricing is, but the reality is that Apple's prices are fairly competitive, when you factor in not just a barebones system, but the software and additional functionality .. especially in the mid-to-high end of the market.
And if you don't like their prices -- don't buy a Mac. What? You want the full Mac experience but don't want to pay for it? So you want the full BMW M6 driving experience, but want to pay the cost of a Ford Focus? That's your problem, not Apple's (or BMW).
As for the broadcast flag.... the last thing I want my providers mucking around with is having to write code to accommodate the frigging broadcast flag. How many of you have the Comcast HD PVR box? In the last week it has "claimed" to record more than three shows that never showed up in the play list. It created an entry in the play list that had no title, claimed it was recorded in 1998, and was unplayable, and once I tried to play it, locked the machine up solid and only a power cycle recovered it.
Welcome to the world of crappy DVRs pawned by your local Cable Company. I tried TimeWarner's DVR and had close to the same results. The software is buggy as all can be, horrible user interface and more hassle than benefit.
Ultimately I took it back, told them to shove their DVR where the sun don't shine -- I bought a second TiVo (with DVD Burning) and will put up with the lack of dual tuner recording (luckily most TV is all reality shows -- which are pure contrived crap, so very little overlap ever occurs).It seems consumers' needs are no longer an issue.
While this would be fun, beware of the police powers that Homeland Security has.
A TSA Administrator admitted publicly that they put certain names (in this case people that had banned items) in a "secret" database (ie. you don't know what information they're keeping or even if you are in it) for an indefinite period of time.
They even use "attitude towards screeners" as one of their criteria for fines and entry in the database. Nice!! Disagree!! We'll make your life miserable. Now, who else wants to disagree?
That will then be used against you in the future (more secondary screenings and who knows what else yet). You'll essentially be black-listed, you know -- unless you rat out your other "commie" friends.
You liked 50s McCarthy-era right? Because they're back!!
Same name, different guy -- I looked it up. Although if I were Mr. Chopra (Self Help) I'd see if I could find a way to sue him -- that IS the American way!!
But of course, you are right, all this security thing is a conspiracy by air flight companies.
Not a conspiracy -- but a cost/benefit analysis. It's bad business when your planes are hijacked. Most of the security measures are simply to make us "feel" safer so that we'll fly. But we're at that threshold where people are weary of yet another invasion of privacy for this "appearance of safety". I avoid flying because it has become such a hassle now and I'm tired of being treated like a potential terrorist just because I need to fly somewhere.
Sure, Mr. Online Expert, the anti-missile equipment on the Israeli plane that was almost shot down over Kenya had nothing to do with the passengers safety.
And an X-ray of people has nothing to do with outside missiles that may be fired at a plane. Your argument is simply irrelevant.
I wonder where do you get these amazing insights from. Not from history, that's for sure.
Actually, he's probably just using his brain a bit. Terrorism is a TACTIC and it's been around for a while. Sadly, the reaction to it is usually exactly what the party wanted. Bin Laden hoped to curtail our freedoms and he succeeded. US Citizens are not as free today as they were before 9/11. We have more police watching everything we do. More invasion of privacy all for the hope of "security".
The fact that passengers now realize that sitting back and doing nothing -- which is what we were told to do in these situations in the past -- won't keep them alive, they will fight back. Will in prevent any possible attack in the future? Can't say for sure because the fact is it is impossible to stop every person that is willing to kill themselves in the process of killing others. If they don't do it by plane, they'll find trains, buses or any place that has a crowd.
How to "protect" every crowd of more than 100 people in the United States? Oh, and by the way -- we're still "supposed" to have our freedoms too in all this. And then what if they simply target crowds of 20 people?
That wasn't always the case (part of the problem is that rules keep changing -- that document you linked to was updated 5-16-2005).
While they may pick people at random, I think All Representatives and Senators should be REQUIRED to go through these devices.
Let's see how they feel being exposed every time they go on a trip. It's the least they could do if they claim to be representing us.
I wish the President and this immediate family would be forced to endure this. Of course, he gets his own private plane, so he is totally isolated from this (and given that most Ex-Presidents fly private, will never be exposed to this)
Sadly, until the Congress is forced to give up their own freedoms, they'll do nothing.
It's not illegal to smoke a hand-rolled cigarettes or to talk to a known prostitute.
Not YET anyway. However, it is plausible that they could use this information against you at a later time. Even blackmail you, especially if you have a public-image.
I don't reallly have problems with police being able to see public roads with cameras. That's what they do when they go on patrol - now there's a more cost efficient way.
Well, I do. Because that is only beginning. Washington D.C. is a great example. They have cameras that take pictures of red light runners. Well, Actually they take pictures of the car -- then the owner (or registered user) is sent a fine in the mail 2 months later. If you don't respond -- your assume guilt and will be assessed additional late-penalties. And it doesn't matter if they sent it to the wrong address -- you're assumed guilty anyway.
How do I know this? Because I accidently opened a letter in my mailbox which turned out to be for a neighbor (although the address was WRONG).
We are nothing more than a source of revenue. In the past year, the TSA issued 10,000 fines for bringing banned items to the airport. So they confiscate the item and then fine you an arbitrary amount ($250-$10,000). Oh, and then they put you in their secret database (Ms. Lauren Stover of the TSA admitted this publicly to the local news).
FREEDOM ROCKS!!
Israel actually spends the money to protect each and every flight, since they're actually interested in security, not just the appearance of doing something.
And you can tell that is true because they don't make a big stink about how "safe" they're making everyone.
We are all about the "show."
Here here!! I only wish there were more people that were interested in their rights over the illusion of safety.
Come on, nail clippers "banned"? Because you might threaten to clip somebody's nails on the plain? (They're not sharp enough for anything else).
Four matches is OK, but FIVE!! OH NO, that's a potential terror risk!!
And as a bonus, I saw on the news that they're now arbitrarily fining people when they find something on their "do not bring list" with a minimum $250 fine (because the law allows them to). The amount of the fine is based on what you had confiscated and "your attitude toward the screeners". Then your name is put in a secret database and you may be subjected to more security searches indefinitely (in other words, persecuted). And no, you are not allowed to know if you are in the database or what information is stored about you in that database.
TSA is doing exactly what many of us have feared, they're flexing their muscle in the name of "better security" and stealing away our rights in the process. The x-rated x-ray machine is yet another example of this.
Of course, the only reason we're "safer" right now is because the terrorists haven't decided to strike. So what will happen when they do? Just start writing down your rights so you can remember what you used to have!!
Welcome to Germany, 1943! Enjoy your flight!
you mean I should stop searching for my pr0n using Google?
While there are a lot of apps written in Cocoa, all the big guys are still Carbon based (iTunes, Adobe products, Dreamweaver, MS Office, Quark Xpress).
What's their incentive? They'd just tell Apple to write a Windows API compatible layer and then run their Windows programs on it. SO much for the Mac OS X software advantage.
There is also an issue of dealing with big vs. little endian differences. Most Cocoa developers have not considered that issue in their development (no reason to).
If the idea of moving to commodity hardware was so good, why wasn't NeXT more successful with its x86-based OS?
As a developer, this would be a pain in my ass. I've got enough to do without having to add yet another freakin' transition (YAFT). If I'm going eat precious development time doing a transition, I'd want to see a compelling reason. Cheaper hardware is not a compelling reason (I'd just write Windows software if I was after that).
Along with many others here, I think these discussions are likely related to one of many, many hardware projects that are under development, but likely not the Macs.
Actually, Apple is just playing that Dell game a bit. Yeah, you can start at $399, but when you get a machine that's truly usable, you find out it costs a lot more (I know, I've been looking at "cheap" PCs for my sister).
Of course, Apple also did what it does best -- add a little style to the whole game. We can strip out things like Display and accessories, but we'll still make it cool.
They make all that money because virtually EVERY PC comes with a Microsoft Tax. It's guaranteed profit.
Jack of all trades, master of None.
The reason the iPod is so successful is because it specifically doesn't try to be all things to all people.
Ultimately, until they can offer 2 weeks of standby time, 10 hours of talk time and 40 hours of music time -- your "both" phone will spend most of its time getting its battery charged.
Evenutally, that hack becomes a trouble to maintain and I'd bet my bottom dollar that it then takes more time to remove the hack and rework it properly that it would have taken to fix it properly in the first place.
This is always the case with software -- no matter how cleanly you design it, it will degrade over time. To deny this aspect of software development reality is silly
Apple has to maintain WebCore -- so I'm betting "hacking in bug fixes" may be overstated.
Of important note -- these are all relative terms.
Your 'good' may differ from my 'good'. That seems to be the case here. The KHTML guys say Apple's 'good' is not good enough.
Apple doesn't want to create code that is impossible to maintain either. They have to maintain WebCore for their own future (they can't rely on Internet Explorer or even FireFox for a true Mac browsing experience).
There is no such thing as real nice clean, well documented codebase, at least not forever.
These attributes naturally go away as you add functionality to any code. That is a fact of software development.
I don't think there is any real evidence that Safari's WebCore engine is "hacked together" by Apple.
The patches submitted back to KHTML may be harder to integrated more because the changes made to Safari are greater and in a different direction than KHTML.
I think there is a bit of arrogance on the KHTML side to not even consider the aspect of WebCore.
The holier than thou attitude seems very pervasive in the Open Source Community. It's not unlike the Not Invented Here syndrome that many corporations suffer from.
Apple is offering up their changes but seem to have said "We've made major improvements that can't easily be patched in to the existing base. We offer the opportunity to use this new code as a basis for the future."
I shouldn't harp on DirecTV too much, they are certainly not as bad as the Cable or Phone companies -- although supposedly they have kept the Series-2 HMO out of DirecTivos.
I didn't see the discount for current owners, but did indicate that would be acceptable. I don't think it would be fair to ask for another $500 or $1000 for the receiver.
I had to switch off DirecTV for the time being (due to location, not service), so it's more a frustration with TWC, which is a horrible entity when it comes to customer service.
Regardless, I think DirecTV's move is the right step to push HDTV into the mainstream. I refuse to get HDTV simply for the fact that there are so few channels (and at least with TWC, standard channels look like crap when you go HDTV). So you get 5 channels that sometimes work (my box would get the pic/sound out of synch) and the rest of the lineup looks like crap (very snowy). So no HDTV for me, for now.
Well there is some competition, but all of the players treat their customers like crap -- I guess that's close to the "Oligopoly" definition.
In the end, however, it simply drives me away from their products altogether. They may not care if one person does it, but I would hope there are more that would follow. Or have we just turned into sheep, automatons for Corporate America -- makes the Matrix and Max Headroom seem quite prophetic.
If it is anything like TimeWarner's offering, it will suck in a major way!!
TimeWarner's DVR makes my exact point:
1. set top box is horrible buggy (I found a dozen major bugs without trying in less than 30 minutes)
2. the interface is so bad that you want exactly who the user is supposed to be
3. No help from TimeWarner (assuming you can get through) on the matter
It was so bad I took the DVR back and told them to shove it. Not that they cared.