Long-term reality intrudes on your economic short-term fantasy. The choice is really between (1) sell Mac Office at the expense of Windows sales, or (2) sell tons and tons of Windows licenses. If the need arises, it's not hard to envision Microsoft picking door number 2.
Re:I can't see this happening anytime soon
on
Dell We'd Sell Mac OS X
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sure, but it's hardly in Steve Ballmer's personality to give up control of the OS, and who can blame him? Controlling the OS is probably even more valuable than selling $billions and $billions of application-level software. If you're writing the OS that everyone uses, you have the power to gain a foothold in pretty much any other market, tech or not.
That's because Dell uses cheap components that wear out after a year or two of use, while Apple (traditionally) has built their computers to last. There's things to recommend each strategy, but I wonder if Apple's going to be releasing on a faster schedule in the future, and if so, whether they'll still design and manufacture for quality, or build cheaper "disposable" machines at the expense of their brand.
It'll be interesting to see what approach they take. Actually, now that I think about it, the first option seems unlikely.
I disagree. The Internet and VoIP have increased the need to see people face to face. The reason's simple: these technologies accelerate the pace of business and other things that require flying. And while you can conduct business (and entertainment, and even leisure, to a certain extent) remotely, it's much to your advantage to see people face-to-face. That's why, incidentally, central business districts have little to fear from cheaper office rents in suburbia and farmland.
Remember how computing and the internet were supposed to herald the "paperless office"? Remember how demand for paper products instead exploded in the '90s? It's the same thing.
So... how does it compare to H.264?
on
DivX 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 1
No mention in the article and Google just turns up a few scattered, barely relevant comments. I've already been blown away by what H.264 can do at low bitrates--should I prepare to be blown away again? Anyone got a comparison, or is it too early to ask?
Yeah, but how does that differ from Microsoft? I mean, Microsoft's argument was that by bundling IE and Windows, they were just providing the user with a complete platform, no need to dig around for a different browser. And from the customer's perspective--keeping in mind that many customers probably don't know the difference between a "browser" and the "web" and the "internet," it's all the same to them, and why should they care anyway? it's really not all that important--that was true.
Some people might happily pay 3x the price in order not to have to stare at the Dell logo for eight hours a day, especially considering that the rest of the monitor is almost as ugly as the logo.
Apple sells a platform. They sell a computing experience with an emphasis on good design; it's just that this happens to involve the development and sale of both hardware and software.
So if you've got a monopoly on operating systems, you shouldn't be allowed to sell a platform that's convenient for the user? That sounds unnecessarily perverse. I don't like Microsoft's tactics either, but I don't think unbundling is a good solution.
How about just requiring that components be modular? On a Mac, for example, you can delete Safari if you like (and replace it with Firefox). Probably the best suited to make the judgment about details would be a knowledgeable court.
You're right, of course, but why would you ask GP to be modded offtopic? Please. Unless I missed the irony, it's people like you who get modpoints that make Slashdot discussion so unpleasant.
Mac OS X Server, iWork, and Final Cut Pro all require serial numbers. Steve knows that copy protection may not be fully effective, but it can be effective enough.
If you page back through his blog, he's been having these problems with desktop Linux for months if not years. Sunbird and the sounds issue was, like they say, the straw that broke the camel's back.
It is different from OS X because with OS X, you've implicitly let the vendor do the work of figuring out whether your sound card works with the OS. Linux leaves the hard work up to you--as you say, "it takes some research." This can be good or bad, but it certainly isn't "no different."
Can we let this go already? Maybe Apple's not a hardware company or a software company. Why can't they just be a company?
If Steve sees an opportunity to strike it big (i.e. bring Mac OS X to the "rest of us") by dumping the hardware business and selling only software, he'll do it. If he thinks the way to "dent the universe" is to stop pushing OS X and focus on the hardware side of things, he'll do that too, although frankly I think that has a far smaller chance of happening.
Point is, Apple's a beast of its own. It defies traditional categorization. Comparing its business to a Microsoft or a Gateway is ultimately a useless comparison--they just don't fit.
But you can choose to ignore John C. Dvorak and blacklist the media outlets that print his drivel. Here, you're given a link to a random blogger with no reputation or reason to trust him--which is fine, if you've got the time to evaluate every article you read on its own merit. Most of us don't, however.
A medium that gives any idiot a voice tends to attract a lot of vocal idiots. For my money, when it comes to reviews, I'll stick to the publications I know and trust to vet their writers before signing them on.
Slashdot Mirror
Long-term reality intrudes on your economic short-term fantasy. The choice is really between (1) sell Mac Office at the expense of Windows sales, or (2) sell tons and tons of Windows licenses. If the need arises, it's not hard to envision Microsoft picking door number 2.
Sure, but it's hardly in Steve Ballmer's personality to give up control of the OS, and who can blame him? Controlling the OS is probably even more valuable than selling $billions and $billions of application-level software. If you're writing the OS that everyone uses, you have the power to gain a foothold in pretty much any other market, tech or not.
That's because Dell uses cheap components that wear out after a year or two of use, while Apple (traditionally) has built their computers to last. There's things to recommend each strategy, but I wonder if Apple's going to be releasing on a faster schedule in the future, and if so, whether they'll still design and manufacture for quality, or build cheaper "disposable" machines at the expense of their brand.
It'll be interesting to see what approach they take. Actually, now that I think about it, the first option seems unlikely.
I think you need to take the fork out of yours, grammar boy.
I just threw up on my shiny, formerly translucent keyboard. Thanks again, Michael Dell.
I disagree. The Internet and VoIP have increased the need to see people face to face. The reason's simple: these technologies accelerate the pace of business and other things that require flying. And while you can conduct business (and entertainment, and even leisure, to a certain extent) remotely, it's much to your advantage to see people face-to-face. That's why, incidentally, central business districts have little to fear from cheaper office rents in suburbia and farmland.
Remember how computing and the internet were supposed to herald the "paperless office"? Remember how demand for paper products instead exploded in the '90s? It's the same thing.
No mention in the article and Google just turns up a few scattered, barely relevant comments. I've already been blown away by what H.264 can do at low bitrates--should I prepare to be blown away again? Anyone got a comparison, or is it too early to ask?
How's 1999? *BSD still dying?
Yeah, but how does that differ from Microsoft? I mean, Microsoft's argument was that by bundling IE and Windows, they were just providing the user with a complete platform, no need to dig around for a different browser. And from the customer's perspective--keeping in mind that many customers probably don't know the difference between a "browser" and the "web" and the "internet," it's all the same to them, and why should they care anyway? it's really not all that important--that was true.
Hmm, I dunno. Guess I just don't see why you think the original post is offtopic. Well, whatever.
Some people might happily pay 3x the price in order not to have to stare at the Dell logo for eight hours a day, especially considering that the rest of the monitor is almost as ugly as the logo.
Sounds like you got what you deserved. :-)
Apple sells a platform. They sell a computing experience with an emphasis on good design; it's just that this happens to involve the development and sale of both hardware and software.
My perspective.
So if you've got a monopoly on operating systems, you shouldn't be allowed to sell a platform that's convenient for the user? That sounds unnecessarily perverse. I don't like Microsoft's tactics either, but I don't think unbundling is a good solution.
How about just requiring that components be modular? On a Mac, for example, you can delete Safari if you like (and replace it with Firefox). Probably the best suited to make the judgment about details would be a knowledgeable court.
You're right, of course, but why would you ask GP to be modded offtopic? Please. Unless I missed the irony, it's people like you who get modpoints that make Slashdot discussion so unpleasant.
Mac OS X Server, iWork, and Final Cut Pro all require serial numbers. Steve knows that copy protection may not be fully effective, but it can be effective enough.
Yup.
The UI development takes place on Windows? No wonder the Firefox UI sucks so much.
Time is money.
If you page back through his blog, he's been having these problems with desktop Linux for months if not years. Sunbird and the sounds issue was, like they say, the straw that broke the camel's back.
I bet you live in the 'burbs. Don't you?
It is different from OS X because with OS X, you've implicitly let the vendor do the work of figuring out whether your sound card works with the OS. Linux leaves the hard work up to you--as you say, "it takes some research." This can be good or bad, but it certainly isn't "no different."
Can we let this go already? Maybe Apple's not a hardware company or a software company. Why can't they just be a company?
If Steve sees an opportunity to strike it big (i.e. bring Mac OS X to the "rest of us") by dumping the hardware business and selling only software, he'll do it. If he thinks the way to "dent the universe" is to stop pushing OS X and focus on the hardware side of things, he'll do that too, although frankly I think that has a far smaller chance of happening.
Point is, Apple's a beast of its own. It defies traditional categorization. Comparing its business to a Microsoft or a Gateway is ultimately a useless comparison--they just don't fit.
Interesting. Can you post a screenshot of the "About This Mac" dialog from the Apple menu?
But you can choose to ignore John C. Dvorak and blacklist the media outlets that print his drivel. Here, you're given a link to a random blogger with no reputation or reason to trust him--which is fine, if you've got the time to evaluate every article you read on its own merit. Most of us don't, however.
A medium that gives any idiot a voice tends to attract a lot of vocal idiots. For my money, when it comes to reviews, I'll stick to the publications I know and trust to vet their writers before signing them on.