"Also I'm not sure how you got OSX 'Tiger' to run a G3, unless you know of a trick I don't know of. I didn't think it would install, nor function properly without the altivec extensions."
Tiger will install on a PowerMac G3. But, like Vista, certain things will not be available in certain applications. For example, forget doing any video-conferencing in iChat. Bag the cute "water droplet" effect when you use Dashboard. Things like that.
Makes me think of my friend who worked at Wang Laboratories. He was quite emphatic that he did not work for Wang, he worked at Wang.
Also makes me think of the old Benny Hill joke. A child goes up to his parent and says, "Daddy! Daddy! I wanna go wee! I wanna go wee!" Since there are no public restrooms about, Daddy tells the kid to hold it. But the kid keeps repeating it over and over--"I wanna go wee! I wanna go wee!" Finally, Dad takes the kid behind some bushes and says, "Okay. You can go wee here." The kid promptly throws his arms up and yells "WHEEE!!"
I heard this one from someone who alleges he was involved in naming the 4Runner. I'm not sure I believe him--he is somewhat of a liar--but it's a fun story anyway. I don't know if it's true.
Originally, the 4Runner was to be called the 4Play. After all, it's a Sport Utility Vehicle. So it's for play, versus being for work. Supposedly, this is also somewhat akin to what it is called in Japan.
And, yes, they had to explain that they couldn't really call it that. Which is why it is the 4Runner.
Again, I can't speak for the veracity of the story. But it is amusing.
"I would like to hear an example that doesn't put down this idea based on your ability to break the law, or do something wrong, and get away with it."
Okay, here's a couple.
Example #1: You're a single guy who likes to go to adult bookstores. There's an attached strip club--not uncommon. They get robbed. The police are checking out everybody in the neighborhood. So they go to your office--they can do that, you know, because they know where your car is--and ask you whether you saw anything. Your boss, a born-again Puritan, is now concerned because there's some pervert working for him. Think you'll be getting that raise or promotion anytime soon?
You're not doing anything wrong or illegal. But you are behaving in a way that your boss doesn't approve of. Now, obviously, he can't fire you. But he can see to it that your career goes nowhere. It's nothing you can prove in a court of law, of course...
Example #2: You're a celebrity. Fame, fortune, millions of screaming fans who hang on your every action. You don't think the paparazzi wouldn't give good money to find out where you are? Imagine you're a politician. "The public has a right to know what you do every night." Exit your privacy.
"The 65 mph speed limit began as another temporary measure to reduce gas consumption during an oil embargo by Middle East producers in the 1970's."
If I remember correctly--I was pretty young back then--it was originally 70 MPH. During the oil crisis back in '74, it was lowered to 55. I think Reagan dropped the 55 MPH speed limit in the late 80s outside "centers of population" and instituted the 65 MPH speed limit. At some point in the 90s, I think Clinton gave the control to the states, so you have a myriad of different speed limits depending on what state you're in.
First, a warrant is not necessarily protection from government intrusion.
For example, it's a nice evening. You and an attractive young lady decide to visit a secluded area for some amorous pursuits. Meanwhile, about a mile away and unbeknownst to you, someone is murdered.
So the cops pull up the records--which cars were in the area around the time of the crime. My, your car was in the area. Perhaps the police should have a little talk with you because, after all, you were in the area--maybe you saw something. So the police show up at your door.
Now we can move to various entertaining scenarios:
The woman you were with was not your wife/girlfriend. The officer questioning you is your wife/girlfriend's older brother. You want to tell him you were cheating on his little sister?
The woman you were with was a prostitute. Well, you didn't murder anybody, but here's a ticket for hiring a prostitute.
The woman you were with will need to corroborate your story. She works for the mayor, so the police will be asking her at work...
And so on and so on.
Add to that the recent issues of not needing a warrant for such things as terrorist investigations. Again, the police have been known to stretch the laws which constrain them in order to get information. How quickly would your information become part of a terrorist investigation where it does not need a warrant?
Finally, if the information exists, it can be accessed. Tell me that if I slip a quick $1000 to somebody on the police force, they won't look up somebody's history and give me the information. They're not stealing anything, after all--they're just copying information. The worst they'll get is a slap on the wrist.
I might take off the tinfoil hat, but I'd consider keeping it handy depending on how open Microsoft is about it's encryption methods.
Will it be possible to write a driver for these encrypted file systems without having to reverse engineer the encryption? Or will Microsoft tell people their encryption algorithms so that competitors can write drivers? Or is Microsoft using some standard algorithm (DES, RSA, or whatever)?
If Microsoft does the, "Oh, sorry, we won't tell you how to decrypt the data because you're doing this for some other operating system," that tinfoil hat goes back on.
"For example, no matter how much the main characters are in jeopardy, we know they will survive to justify their existence later in history."
As a counter, the best example is Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. We knew Indy wasn't going to die--He's Indiana Jones! The fact that this was a prequel was beside the point because we know Indy is going to get out of it somehow.
We don't tune in to see whether the hero will escape. Of course the hero will escape! That's why he's the hero! We tune in to see how the hero will escape. And what he will learn in the process.
"They introduce things that no longer justifies what was established in the earlier movies. [...] For example, the appearance of Borg on Star Trek Enterprise before the time of Kirk."
I'll grant you that, though I like to point out that the Borg did exist on Earth before the time of Kirk. Ever see the movie, "Star Trek: First Contact"? So if you want to be snippy, blame that movie--not Enterprise.
It was never mentioned in Star Trek because Kirk never encountered them. And there might be good reason why Picard had never heard of them--the whole thing might have been classified.
Personally, I didn't have a problem with it except that it seemed a bit too gimmicky. "Ratings are down, let's have a Borg episode. Everybody likes Borg episodes."
"For example, some of the consoles and user interface screens used by the cast in Star Trek Enterprise looked more advanced than the ones on Star Trek : DS9."
Actually, I liked the sets for Enterprise and I thought they did an okay job of making it look "retro." But you're right in that it took place 100 years before Star Trek and yet some things looked "more modern" than Star Trek. My favorite example? The flat screen in Archer's quarters versus the CRT in Kirk's quarters. You'd also see the odd effect of things like bulky phase pistols and communicators next to sleek scanners.
You'll take my crack pipe when you pry it out of my cold dead hands.:^)
"Giving the telcos what they want will result in lower rates? I want to live in your universe! In the universe I live in, when a monopoly gets the chance to lock all competetors out of the market, prices go up, not down."
You can live in my universe if you want. Move to a medium-sized city. And buy a crack pipe, of course.:^)
Where I live, I have two choices for premium TV. One is Time Warner Cable. The other is some sort of satellite dish (and the ensuing installation hassles). Along comes competitor number 3--Verizon. Suddenly Time Warner drops it's prices because with one phone call, I can kick them out of the house.
"What people (who understand the issues) are complaining about is not that I get X Bandwidth for $X and 2X bandwidht for $2X."
Remember, most people aren't interested in "bandwidth." They're interested in what can be done with the bandwidth. It creates the proverbial chicken/egg scenario: No one is producing bandwidth-intensive services because the bandwidth isn't there for most people and no one is buying big bandwidth because there are no services which require it.
It's tough to convince people to spend $100/month so that they can download songs from iTunes in 5 seconds versus, say, 20 seconds for $20/month. On the other hand, come up with a great service that people want and you'll sell it. Of course, nobody is doing that (chicken/egg) so the telcos will do it themselves.
Personally, I'd have no problem with that. If Verizon wants to sell me HBO HD over my Internet connection, I'm all for it. The problem is that Verizon is trying to accomplish this by punishing everybody else except their favorites. For example, I can HBO HD over my Internet connection but iTunes takes 60 seconds to download a song (unless Apple pays Verizon) and that's bad.
So rather than giving everybody huge bandwidth, they're giving everybody 'okay' bandwidth and improving it based on who's doing the providing.
"Again, why would anyone [...] be against Net Neutraility?"
Well, here's the issue.
Essentially, the telcos are trying to sell services to the consumer, such as video (premium TV channels, etc.). The problem is that if you're watching a program in real time, the video stream may be adversely affected when your neighbor starts downloading volumes and volumes of porn or performs some other bandwidth-intensive action.
So what the telcos want to be able to do is "slow down" delivery of your neighbors packets so that your TV won't hiccup because the data isn't arriving fast enough. Because why should you pay for premium TV channels that stutter when their competitors--the cable companies--can deliver crystal clear channels (at least in theory).
Of course, the consequence of this action is to create a "tiered" network where certain packets have priority over other ones. These are packets which you have paid the telco for--things such as HBO or Showtime. Of course, if you pay random smut site for the "Naked Women with Aardvarks" live feed or download a movie from MovieLink, you might find your video stuttering. Unless, of course, either you pay the telcos more money for "guaranteed bandwidth" or MovieLink pays the telco to be added to the telco's "preferred" list.
So why would I be against Net Neutrality? I'm not, but there is an advantage in that it will promote competition among the leading providers of broadband to the home--Cable Companies and Telcos--which will amount to lower rates for premium TV.
"Gee, I didn't know that you could patent 'Buffering.'"
Thank you providing a place for me.
Re:The concept of "delivering on the promise..."
on
Viiv Falls Flat
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"Did nobody at HP or Intel ever try actually using the product even once? Does anything think they have responsibility for what the user finds when they take the product out of the box?"
I tend to doubt it.
First, Intel doesn't actually make the box. As the article says, Intel makes the standard. It's up to the OEMS (eg, HP, Sony, Gateway, Dell, etc.) to implement the standard from a hardware perspective. These people can dance around, cut pieces, change pieces, etc.
So, in theory, HP starts with a box that works. But then they need to add more software. Some of this is done to make life easier for the user--after all, I want my HP Camera to work seamlessly with my HP Computer, right? So HP's Imaging Group adds their software. Some of this is the same sort of thing that Microsoft has included with Windows Media Center Edition--software for doing slide shows, etc. So you now have two programs for managing your photos--the one in Windows and the one that the HP Imaging Group wrote. Next, the Business Development group comes along. They make a deal with Adobe, where Adobe will pay them 25 cents for each copy of Adobe Photoshop Elements Crippleware (works with up-to 75 photos--send $40 to Adobe to get the full version) that they put on a computer. HP also might have a deal with Symantec, for example, to include Norton Internet Security. HP includes it for free and gets, say, $25 when the user signs up with Symantec for product updates. Internet Security is a good thing, right?
So even if some employee does use it and comes back and says, "This is a complete mess," who do you get rid of? Well, you can't get rid of Microsoft's software because it's "part of the operating system" or because Microsoft will raise the price of Windows unless you include it. The HP Imaging Group will remind you that all HP products should work together, so you can't get rid of their software. And Business Development will tell you that they make money off of every copy of some crappy sampleware that they stick on the machine, so you can't get rid of any of that stuff.
So there isn't really a solution, other than build your own or go to a smaller company that will build one for you...
Re:What do they want it to do?
on
Viiv Falls Flat
·
· Score: 1
"[...] built in wireless (On a desktop, not that useful!) [...]"
Minor grouse.
The advantage of the built-in wireless is that I can put the device where I want it to be. All I need is a place to plug it in.
For example, my cable connection comes in on one side of the room and I had to run this wire around the baseboard of my apartment's living room to get it to the other side of the room, where I want my computer. With wireless, I'd just put the modem and the base station over there and my computer over here and be done.
That said...
It does seem kind of silly for a media center. After all, I would assume that I want the computer somewhere around where the TV is, unless Intel has some sort of magical wireless TV interface. And since not all of my content will be coming in over the Internet, I'll want the computer hooked up somewhere close to where my cable connection is.
So short of using your media center as a wireless router, it seems kind of silly...
"[...] but keeping customers in the dark isn't a great idea - if people make buying decisions keeping the future in mind (as any smart buyer does), that attitude could easily result in sales going to someone else."
I'm not convinced that the "smart buyer" is that smart.
Take computers, for example. I bought a Blue & White PowerMac G3 when they first came out. Top of the line, 400MHz, all the bells and whistles. Nobody told me that the PowerMac G4s would be out in eight months. Heck, the conventional wisdom at the time said at least a year. So what happened? Intel brought out the Pentium III which spanked the PowerMac G3.
Conversely, I bought a top of the line PowerMac G5 when it first came out--dual 2GHz. This was after Steve Jobs got up on stage and said 3GHz by next year. Well, it's 3 years later and Apple is still selling a "dual 2GHz G5" (okay, it's dual core--not dual processor) for $800 less than I bought mine for. So what happened? Well, IBM didn't make 3GHz CPUs, for whatever reason.
It's the technology field and anything can happen, no matter what Apple promises or doesn't promise.
But let's run a scenario. Let's say Apple announces on Monday that an 8GB iPod nano will be available on June 17th for $299. That's pretty darn specific.
First, we can reasonably assume that anybody who was going to buy a 4GB iPod nano will wait until June. Kiss off 2 months of 4GB iPod nano sales. You'd probably see maybe a quarter of the people who were going to buy 2GB iPod nanos hold off because if the 4GB is to become an 8GB, then the 2GB might become a 4GB.
Second, we can assume that Creative, iRiver, and SanDisk would immediately announce 8GB players to be available June 7th for $298. They would begin hyping their players and trying to get people interested. By the time June 17th rolls around, it looks like Apple is late to the party--not the industry leader. Conceivably, Apple has lost sales to the Creatives, iRivers, and SanDisks because people bought the other higher-capacity MP3 players--or at least ordered them because there weren't any available.
So, if Apple pre-announces exactly when they will sell what configuration of iPod, how does it help them sell more?
The reason you pre-announce something is to create FUD--Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt--in order to prevent the other guy from making sales. "Yeah, SanDisk's 8GB MP3 player is nice, but wait'll you see ours! It'll knock your socks off! Don't buy SanDisk's player until you see what we have to offer--otherwise you'll be kicking yourself for a dumb purchase."
Actually, I would. Lie detectors are lots of fun. Hold your breath, think fearful thoughts, do all sorts of things so that they get inconclusive readings.
"Well, we're pretty sure John Smith did not send the information to the web site. However, we're not sure his name is really John Smith and he may have kidnapped the Lindbergh baby."
Yes, you're right. It can generate hype. It can also have a detrimental effect by giving information to competitors who may attempt to diffuse some of the hype with their own press releases, promotions, or advertisements.
At the very least, I don't think it's up to the individual employee to decide whether Apple should use "stealth" marketing via rumor sites. Apple has a legitimate beef with the employee in question.
Slashdot Mirror
"Also I'm not sure how you got OSX 'Tiger' to run a G3, unless you know of a trick I don't know of. I didn't think it would install, nor function properly without the altivec extensions."
Tiger will install on a PowerMac G3. But, like Vista, certain things will not be available in certain applications. For example, forget doing any video-conferencing in iChat. Bag the cute "water droplet" effect when you use Dashboard. Things like that.
But, no, Mac OS X does not require a PowerPC G4.
Yes, but how many of them are interested in joining the military?
MyTubeSpace4You?
"NOW 50% MORE EXTREME!"
"Research says that shows with 'X' in the name get higher ratings."
Makes me think of my friend who worked at Wang Laboratories. He was quite emphatic that he did not work for Wang, he worked at Wang.
Also makes me think of the old Benny Hill joke. A child goes up to his parent and says, "Daddy! Daddy! I wanna go wee! I wanna go wee!" Since there are no public restrooms about, Daddy tells the kid to hold it. But the kid keeps repeating it over and over--"I wanna go wee! I wanna go wee!" Finally, Dad takes the kid behind some bushes and says, "Okay. You can go wee here." The kid promptly throws his arms up and yells "WHEEE!!"
I heard this one from someone who alleges he was involved in naming the 4Runner. I'm not sure I believe him--he is somewhat of a liar--but it's a fun story anyway. I don't know if it's true.
Originally, the 4Runner was to be called the 4Play. After all, it's a Sport Utility Vehicle. So it's for play, versus being for work. Supposedly, this is also somewhat akin to what it is called in Japan.
And, yes, they had to explain that they couldn't really call it that. Which is why it is the 4Runner.
Again, I can't speak for the veracity of the story. But it is amusing.
"I would like to hear an example that doesn't put down this idea based on your ability to break the law, or do something wrong, and get away with it."
Okay, here's a couple.
Example #1: You're a single guy who likes to go to adult bookstores. There's an attached strip club--not uncommon. They get robbed. The police are checking out everybody in the neighborhood. So they go to your office--they can do that, you know, because they know where your car is--and ask you whether you saw anything. Your boss, a born-again Puritan, is now concerned because there's some pervert working for him. Think you'll be getting that raise or promotion anytime soon?
You're not doing anything wrong or illegal. But you are behaving in a way that your boss doesn't approve of. Now, obviously, he can't fire you. But he can see to it that your career goes nowhere. It's nothing you can prove in a court of law, of course...
Example #2: You're a celebrity. Fame, fortune, millions of screaming fans who hang on your every action. You don't think the paparazzi wouldn't give good money to find out where you are? Imagine you're a politician. "The public has a right to know what you do every night." Exit your privacy.
"The 65 mph speed limit began as another temporary measure to reduce gas consumption during an oil embargo by Middle East producers in the 1970's."
If I remember correctly--I was pretty young back then--it was originally 70 MPH. During the oil crisis back in '74, it was lowered to 55. I think Reagan dropped the 55 MPH speed limit in the late 80s outside "centers of population" and instituted the 65 MPH speed limit. At some point in the 90s, I think Clinton gave the control to the states, so you have a myriad of different speed limits depending on what state you're in.
For example, it's a nice evening. You and an attractive young lady decide to visit a secluded area for some amorous pursuits. Meanwhile, about a mile away and unbeknownst to you, someone is murdered.
So the cops pull up the records--which cars were in the area around the time of the crime. My, your car was in the area. Perhaps the police should have a little talk with you because, after all, you were in the area--maybe you saw something. So the police show up at your door.
Now we can move to various entertaining scenarios:
And so on and so on.
Add to that the recent issues of not needing a warrant for such things as terrorist investigations. Again, the police have been known to stretch the laws which constrain them in order to get information. How quickly would your information become part of a terrorist investigation where it does not need a warrant?
Finally, if the information exists, it can be accessed. Tell me that if I slip a quick $1000 to somebody on the police force, they won't look up somebody's history and give me the information. They're not stealing anything, after all--they're just copying information. The worst they'll get is a slap on the wrist.
I might take off the tinfoil hat, but I'd consider keeping it handy depending on how open Microsoft is about it's encryption methods.
Will it be possible to write a driver for these encrypted file systems without having to reverse engineer the encryption? Or will Microsoft tell people their encryption algorithms so that competitors can write drivers? Or is Microsoft using some standard algorithm (DES, RSA, or whatever)?
If Microsoft does the, "Oh, sorry, we won't tell you how to decrypt the data because you're doing this for some other operating system," that tinfoil hat goes back on.
"For example, no matter how much the main characters are in jeopardy, we know they will survive to justify their existence later in history."
As a counter, the best example is Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. We knew Indy wasn't going to die--He's Indiana Jones! The fact that this was a prequel was beside the point because we know Indy is going to get out of it somehow.
We don't tune in to see whether the hero will escape. Of course the hero will escape! That's why he's the hero! We tune in to see how the hero will escape. And what he will learn in the process.
"They introduce things that no longer justifies what was established in the earlier movies. [...] For example, the appearance of Borg on Star Trek Enterprise before the time of Kirk."
I'll grant you that, though I like to point out that the Borg did exist on Earth before the time of Kirk. Ever see the movie, "Star Trek: First Contact"? So if you want to be snippy, blame that movie--not Enterprise.
It was never mentioned in Star Trek because Kirk never encountered them. And there might be good reason why Picard had never heard of them--the whole thing might have been classified.
Personally, I didn't have a problem with it except that it seemed a bit too gimmicky. "Ratings are down, let's have a Borg episode. Everybody likes Borg episodes."
"For example, some of the consoles and user interface screens used by the cast in Star Trek Enterprise looked more advanced than the ones on Star Trek : DS9."
Actually, I liked the sets for Enterprise and I thought they did an okay job of making it look "retro." But you're right in that it took place 100 years before Star Trek and yet some things looked "more modern" than Star Trek. My favorite example? The flat screen in Archer's quarters versus the CRT in Kirk's quarters. You'd also see the odd effect of things like bulky phase pistols and communicators next to sleek scanners.
"[...] they speak neither 'french' nor are they Canadian."
They speak Quebecois or Jouale, not French or Hanglish.
...and the obvious response when the salesman brings up the software:
"I don't use Windows. Can I get a rebate on the software?"
Apple is already dropping the "Power" nomenclature (ie, PowerBooks became MacBooks). Redmond's photocopier is too slow. :^)
"PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE AND STEP AWAY - SLOWLY."
:^)
:^)
You'll take my crack pipe when you pry it out of my cold dead hands.
"Giving the telcos what they want will result in lower rates? I want to live in your universe! In the universe I live in, when a monopoly gets the chance to lock all competetors out of the market, prices go up, not down."
You can live in my universe if you want. Move to a medium-sized city. And buy a crack pipe, of course.
Where I live, I have two choices for premium TV. One is Time Warner Cable. The other is some sort of satellite dish (and the ensuing installation hassles). Along comes competitor number 3--Verizon. Suddenly Time Warner drops it's prices because with one phone call, I can kick them out of the house.
"What people (who understand the issues) are complaining about is not that I get X Bandwidth for $X and 2X bandwidht for $2X."
Remember, most people aren't interested in "bandwidth." They're interested in what can be done with the bandwidth. It creates the proverbial chicken/egg scenario: No one is producing bandwidth-intensive services because the bandwidth isn't there for most people and no one is buying big bandwidth because there are no services which require it.
It's tough to convince people to spend $100/month so that they can download songs from iTunes in 5 seconds versus, say, 20 seconds for $20/month. On the other hand, come up with a great service that people want and you'll sell it. Of course, nobody is doing that (chicken/egg) so the telcos will do it themselves.
Personally, I'd have no problem with that. If Verizon wants to sell me HBO HD over my Internet connection, I'm all for it. The problem is that Verizon is trying to accomplish this by punishing everybody else except their favorites. For example, I can HBO HD over my Internet connection but iTunes takes 60 seconds to download a song (unless Apple pays Verizon) and that's bad.
So rather than giving everybody huge bandwidth, they're giving everybody 'okay' bandwidth and improving it based on who's doing the providing.
And that's why this must be fought.
"Again, why would anyone [...] be against Net Neutraility?"
Well, here's the issue.
Essentially, the telcos are trying to sell services to the consumer, such as video (premium TV channels, etc.). The problem is that if you're watching a program in real time, the video stream may be adversely affected when your neighbor starts downloading volumes and volumes of porn or performs some other bandwidth-intensive action.
So what the telcos want to be able to do is "slow down" delivery of your neighbors packets so that your TV won't hiccup because the data isn't arriving fast enough. Because why should you pay for premium TV channels that stutter when their competitors--the cable companies--can deliver crystal clear channels (at least in theory).
Of course, the consequence of this action is to create a "tiered" network where certain packets have priority over other ones. These are packets which you have paid the telco for--things such as HBO or Showtime. Of course, if you pay random smut site for the "Naked Women with Aardvarks" live feed or download a movie from MovieLink, you might find your video stuttering. Unless, of course, either you pay the telcos more money for "guaranteed bandwidth" or MovieLink pays the telco to be added to the telco's "preferred" list.
So why would I be against Net Neutrality? I'm not, but there is an advantage in that it will promote competition among the leading providers of broadband to the home--Cable Companies and Telcos--which will amount to lower rates for premium TV.
Agreed. Who knows what could happen?
Okay, I'll put it here:
"Gee, I didn't know that you could patent 'Buffering.'"
Thank you providing a place for me.
"Did nobody at HP or Intel ever try actually using the product even once? Does anything think they have responsibility for what the user finds when they take the product out of the box?"
I tend to doubt it.
First, Intel doesn't actually make the box. As the article says, Intel makes the standard. It's up to the OEMS (eg, HP, Sony, Gateway, Dell, etc.) to implement the standard from a hardware perspective. These people can dance around, cut pieces, change pieces, etc.
So, in theory, HP starts with a box that works. But then they need to add more software. Some of this is done to make life easier for the user--after all, I want my HP Camera to work seamlessly with my HP Computer, right? So HP's Imaging Group adds their software. Some of this is the same sort of thing that Microsoft has included with Windows Media Center Edition--software for doing slide shows, etc. So you now have two programs for managing your photos--the one in Windows and the one that the HP Imaging Group wrote. Next, the Business Development group comes along. They make a deal with Adobe, where Adobe will pay them 25 cents for each copy of Adobe Photoshop Elements Crippleware (works with up-to 75 photos--send $40 to Adobe to get the full version) that they put on a computer. HP also might have a deal with Symantec, for example, to include Norton Internet Security. HP includes it for free and gets, say, $25 when the user signs up with Symantec for product updates. Internet Security is a good thing, right?
So even if some employee does use it and comes back and says, "This is a complete mess," who do you get rid of? Well, you can't get rid of Microsoft's software because it's "part of the operating system" or because Microsoft will raise the price of Windows unless you include it. The HP Imaging Group will remind you that all HP products should work together, so you can't get rid of their software. And Business Development will tell you that they make money off of every copy of some crappy sampleware that they stick on the machine, so you can't get rid of any of that stuff.
So there isn't really a solution, other than build your own or go to a smaller company that will build one for you...
"[...] built in wireless (On a desktop, not that useful!) [...]"
Minor grouse.
The advantage of the built-in wireless is that I can put the device where I want it to be. All I need is a place to plug it in.
For example, my cable connection comes in on one side of the room and I had to run this wire around the baseboard of my apartment's living room to get it to the other side of the room, where I want my computer. With wireless, I'd just put the modem and the base station over there and my computer over here and be done.
That said...
It does seem kind of silly for a media center. After all, I would assume that I want the computer somewhere around where the TV is, unless Intel has some sort of magical wireless TV interface. And since not all of my content will be coming in over the Internet, I'll want the computer hooked up somewhere close to where my cable connection is.
So short of using your media center as a wireless router, it seems kind of silly...
"[...] but keeping customers in the dark isn't a great idea - if people make buying decisions keeping the future in mind (as any smart buyer does), that attitude could easily result in sales going to someone else."
I'm not convinced that the "smart buyer" is that smart.
Take computers, for example. I bought a Blue & White PowerMac G3 when they first came out. Top of the line, 400MHz, all the bells and whistles. Nobody told me that the PowerMac G4s would be out in eight months. Heck, the conventional wisdom at the time said at least a year. So what happened? Intel brought out the Pentium III which spanked the PowerMac G3.
Conversely, I bought a top of the line PowerMac G5 when it first came out--dual 2GHz. This was after Steve Jobs got up on stage and said 3GHz by next year. Well, it's 3 years later and Apple is still selling a "dual 2GHz G5" (okay, it's dual core--not dual processor) for $800 less than I bought mine for. So what happened? Well, IBM didn't make 3GHz CPUs, for whatever reason.
It's the technology field and anything can happen, no matter what Apple promises or doesn't promise.
But let's run a scenario. Let's say Apple announces on Monday that an 8GB iPod nano will be available on June 17th for $299. That's pretty darn specific.
First, we can reasonably assume that anybody who was going to buy a 4GB iPod nano will wait until June. Kiss off 2 months of 4GB iPod nano sales. You'd probably see maybe a quarter of the people who were going to buy 2GB iPod nanos hold off because if the 4GB is to become an 8GB, then the 2GB might become a 4GB.
Second, we can assume that Creative, iRiver, and SanDisk would immediately announce 8GB players to be available June 7th for $298. They would begin hyping their players and trying to get people interested. By the time June 17th rolls around, it looks like Apple is late to the party--not the industry leader. Conceivably, Apple has lost sales to the Creatives, iRivers, and SanDisks because people bought the other higher-capacity MP3 players--or at least ordered them because there weren't any available.
So, if Apple pre-announces exactly when they will sell what configuration of iPod, how does it help them sell more?
The reason you pre-announce something is to create FUD--Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt--in order to prevent the other guy from making sales. "Yeah, SanDisk's 8GB MP3 player is nice, but wait'll you see ours! It'll knock your socks off! Don't buy SanDisk's player until you see what we have to offer--otherwise you'll be kicking yourself for a dumb purchase."
Actually, I would. Lie detectors are lots of fun. Hold your breath, think fearful thoughts, do all sorts of things so that they get inconclusive readings.
"Well, we're pretty sure John Smith did not send the information to the web site. However, we're not sure his name is really John Smith and he may have kidnapped the Lindbergh baby."
Yes, you're right. It can generate hype. It can also have a detrimental effect by giving information to competitors who may attempt to diffuse some of the hype with their own press releases, promotions, or advertisements.
At the very least, I don't think it's up to the individual employee to decide whether Apple should use "stealth" marketing via rumor sites. Apple has a legitimate beef with the employee in question.
Early leaks might also work against them by giving competitors an opportunity to plan a counter strategy.
At the very least, shouldn't it be up to the company to decide whether to let this information out--not the press?
Mmm...Barracuda!