Could it simply be that every 10 years, there's a year that ends in zero to compensate for the lack of an initial year zero? Or to remind us to have this argument again?
I had a nun as a home room teacher. She apparently thought that the Christmas that Jesus was born (actually in the Spring) was the first instant of year zero. Nice theologically, but completely impossible. Actually, the evolution of the modern calendar is shrouded in mystery. The first one to date events in AD and BC was the Venerable Bede, in around 600. His scale, however, was not always clear. Sometime after this, the convention of numbering the transition from BC 1 to AD 1, no zero, finally evolved into the standard practice in historical dating.
So, it seems logical that the first year of each decade should begin with 1. 2001 was the beginning of the decade that will end in December 2010.
But it seems to most that a new decade begins when you see the number turn over from "09" to "10."
I'm a Mac user, and my exposure to Vista and XP and 7 is on bootcamp partitions and virtual machines. XP ran fine when I had a program I had to have that was Windows-only. Vista in my environment was just a pig, prone to multiple slowdowns and freezes. It just seemed to be put together by a committee. But 7 is fine; it's easy to use, quick enough, and VMWare and Parallels have finally figured out how to give you the slick transparencies and so on.
I'll stay a Mac user, but Windows is a tool in my box.
Except the MacBook Air was a big financial success. Execs love them, and like giving them to their daughters. That surprised me, because of its price. But then again, the iPod mini and nano surprised me, too.
In the very first edition, if you had a guest user, and you used it, you would return to the administrator account and find all the data gone. Bad. Fixed in 10.6.1. We're now in 10.6.2. But some people just can't move on.
That's the only way to optimize the cellular networks. Everyone adopts a standard, with a standard stack, so that everyone uses each other's towers. Really, who cares if AT&T or Verizon has the better network? Let them all adopt the same 5G, and if they still can't fully develop the cell network, then the government goes into the business of rural cellphonication. You pay for your own cellphone/computer.
If we had developed railroads at different gauges, with no sharing of right of way, we'd be living in the Confederate States. If we allowed the power grid or the telephone networks or the radio and TV infrastructure with so little demand for standards, what would we have by now? A society and economy even more feudal, segmented into segregated economic units -- in other words, backwards. What is the power of these stupid companies? I can see the reason for the competition at the beginning, but really, we've got some idea now how we want this to develop now.
Break up the exclusivity and the insularity of our networks. It should be much more like the Internet.
Because it's not true. People can't read reports. IN a SURVEY, a number of users, about 3,000, were asked what they thought of the iPhone. About 46% liked it. It's not known if they owned it, or exactly what the question was. Brush up on your Japanese and explain it to us.
You want to trust your phone's security to javascript? Are you nuts, Firefox? How many security updates has Firefox released for the javascript component?
And that's just for starters.
I was angry at Apple for one thing: no Google Voice. I've since gotten Google Voice in my browser, and you know what? I don't care for it that much.
Because it's "free." Wait till Google can no longer keep up the costs of development and starts charging for each copy, or throws in special ads when you start using it -- nice, big fat full-frame Flash animations.
We're not looking at the included apps, which will tend to be very solid -- and that tells you something, right? -- but the ones you want to add, either through the apple or blackberry or Microsoft Marketplaces/iTunes, etc.
What is the motivation for somebody to make an app with a Trojan that takes your bank sign-in and sends it to Turkestan, huh? Why, there's no-- Oh, no, they want to take the money out of your bank account. There's lots of motivation for malware, and if it's from third-party suppliers, who knows?
Would you settle for your company getting the ability to sign the app, and if you screw up, everybody will know it's your dumb app?
There seems to be a problem of transparency and speed of notification of problems, yes. How many apps have been rejected, out of the 100,000 accepted? How large is the number of the developers who are chafing under this dictatorship?
I simply don't think there's any big reason to believe that's true. I was in the hospital recently, and while there, the cute nurse saw my iPhone. After maybe 20 minutes of impromptu demo, she went out and bought one. To get big numbers like you want, you have to get a lot of people like that nurse into the tent. And the single source of apps makes everything very simple.
By the way, I get why people are upset about the Google Voice app. But then why are no people upset about the Google Maps turn-by-turn in the Android only? Isn't that equally egregious, or is that okay, because it's not Google's turn in the barrel?
I'd seriously dispute that. People who are aware of programming, linux, free software -- who have a serious knowledge of computers, they might find this onerous, or a "black eye." Those who haven't heard of it, and that is the great majority of a consumer device's market, don't really give a damn. I know five people like that -- not that "I know x people" is any proof.
The iPhone software market locked up tight? Is that why there's 100,000 apps? With AT&T, you have a point. But the exclusivity deal is coming off this year. Get ready for price drops and increasing market share.
Your account of the PC market leaves out a ton of stuff. One, PCs were cheaper, immediately. Business fueled the adoption of DOS in business, but they weren't any more "open" that the Mac. They gave the appearance of the same, because IBMs and Compaqs and HPs were "compatible," that is, the software and the processor was the same. But the DOS, and then Windows platforms weren't a tinkle more "open" than the Mac. The Mac stayed with Motorola processors, true. The most egregious sins were not by Jobs, of course, they were committed by the sugared-water marketers who came after him.
The Mac delayed windows compatibility, but I think that's a dead issue now, isn't it? I've run Macs perfectly well on Windows networks, we've shared printers, shared files, and shared common documents to work on with alternate applications. I can run the Windows environment on the iPhone. I can even run Windows in a Parallels environment on my iPhone, though I'm not sure why.
I'm sure if you read the Google or whatever programming tips, they tell you not to use certain API calls which are "private" and subject to change, and thus break. That seems to be the majority of rejections from the App Store.
When the iPhone came out, it was derided for not having any apps. Then only having Safari apps. Then when it came through with the apps, big-time, that's not good enough because it's too controlled. If the unpatched iPhone was subject to the nasty Trojans that the jailbroken phones are prone to, you'd hear about it.
Steve don't want porn apps on the iPhone, though he's not in control of your pictures. Steve don't want apps that have bad calls. Steve don't want his lawyers unhappy with copyright infringement, though that makes them twitch and do stupid stuff at times. But the network(s) need more protection from the ground up than computers needed in 1984, and paradoxically, you're always on the network now. Which sounds right for a phone. When you can't phone somebody else, or you can't go to any web site with Safari, that's when a smartphone will be closed.
I am not a programmer, though I've done some fooling around and know some of the basic issues. Some of the issues complained about on this site seem to be of the legal department variety. Those guys are jerks. But if you don't enforce your copyrights, in two years some guy in a New Jersey basement could lawfully make an "iPhone." Some of these things are frivolous or plain wrong, like the Missing Manual for... app. Lawyers have no common sense. They're paid not to have common sense.
The remainder of the apps seem to have been rejected on the basis of using private APIs. I'm aware of this issue, and I'm simply not sure of the "wrongness" of this. This has been the case throughout OS X's development. On the Mac, developers were warned not to use hidden, or private APIs, because they might change at any time.The same thing is on the iPhone, though since the iPhone has one seller, it comes to a head. But many of the commenters on this blog seem to have good points: if you use a hidden API, it might not be there in the next revision, or it might now be linked to another function, one that crashes your app.
One commenter posted that if 1,000 apps were rejected, and 100,000 approved, then maybe we're dealing with a bunch of people that just didn't follow the rules, and some who got a raw deal.
The process should be more open and subject to quick appeal. This website may be one of the points of data that we need to evaluate things in a real way, rather than just popping off about how authoritarian Apple is while neglecting the fact that Google also advises you not to use its hidden APIs, and that is accepted as normal behavior.
Okay, now I'm a fanboy. I'm expecting that. But those who have the ideology that Apple is constricting the supply of applications when they're in a pool of 100,000 -- the fastest-growing software pile in history, I'm thinking -- may need to go back to the shop for a rethink. Not that they will.
There's just something in their craw. I see nice new 27" iMacs I'd love to own, they see a tyranny and a conspiracy against their freedom! Kind of like thinking that health care reform = Dachau.
That's right. The ONLY way Microsoft makes money on software is by dominating the market. Why? Well, until very recently, they had NO significant hardware division. Now, with the XBox, the Zune -- tee-hee -- they have some, but do we know for sure if they make money?
I think that's the flaw behind the Microsoft business plan: they need to have 90% of the computers on their OS, with Exchange, and Office, etc., to make money. That's why Vista was such a disaster. Years later, and the majority were still on XP. And they had to keep people making software patches for XP, for free.
Instead of market dominance, Apple's never looking for much more than 20% of the market in computers. (They're adept at making computer add-ons like iPhones and iPods, which have a larger slice of that particular market -- because there's a Windows version, and the smart Linux people have whipped up iTunesy-like software too.) The hardware-software binding probably ensures that they won't ever get more than a nice solid fraction of computer sales. Some will need software that isn't available on the Mac, though that list is getting shorter. Some will prefer cheaper, and some will prefer faster hardware. And they don't mind Windows. God knows, some actually like Windows. The answer is simple: don't buy one. The majority of systems don't run the Mac OS. No problem. (By the way, you can still make a hackintosh. It's pretty easy, right? A company can't bring it out, though. The Mac doesn't use activation, go right ahead. VMWare now runs the Mac OS, too. So you could have a bootcamp partition running Windows with a VMWare OS X guest system. On a Mac.
An awful lot of people are complaining that the Mac is just as much a meanie as Microsoft, because of this insistence on software being tied to machines. Nobody who has followed Apple during Jobs I or Jobs II thinks that's true. Don't like, buy the cheaper computers. I mean, monopoly rules are for firms that dominate entire markets, and then take fair competition away. Unfair competition might be say, if they stopped making iTunes for Windows -- though I'm sure many here would applaud -- thus unfairly pressuring people to leave Windows. Or it might mean giving away the OS to companies like Psystar, while refusing it to others.
Monopoly law has nothing against a certain software or hardware becoming very popular, it has to do with the tactics employed once you get to a monopoly position.
The most recent word is, Apple is making about half the profits for the entire retail computer industry. They're not about market dominance, they're about margins, margins, margins. As long as there are lots of places you can get cheaper machines with comparable abilities, there's no restraint of trade or unfair competition.
Not a good analogy. The Ford isn't bonded to its tires with a copyright. You can buy any tires you want.
A better example with Ford might be the Sync system, licensed from Microsoft to be used in new Fords. Say I like that, and develop an after-market business that transfers Sync technology over to Chevies, Toyotas etc. Microsoft and Ford have an exclusivity clause in their contract, I'm sure, and my after-market business would be toast.
I get it. The anti-Apple crusaders make the mistake of confusing an iPhone with a totalitarian state. It's nothing of the sort. They make objects which are supported by software. They're quite popular. If they double their market share again, they might have 20% of the computer market, though I really don't think that's likely. But you know what? You don't have to have a Mac, or an iPhone, or anything at all made by Apple. They're quite popular. They're turning a good profit.
If you want to collect a bunch of parts, strap it together with a Linux distro, fine. Apple isn't stopping you for an instant. If you want to put Windows on the hardware, go ahead.
You see yourselves as crusaders for freedom. I see you as predictable anti-authoritarians, seeing Daddy in everything. Tell me if you need an allowance.
Well, the same "logic" is rampant on the right, if you haven't noticed. Just watch Beck and FOX and listen to Limbaugh. Apparently, Obama is in the pay of the Rothschilds. No, really.
Bush didn't arrange 9/11. He just demagogued two wars out of something he might have stopped had he and his staff been more alert.
Let's see... how much is the Mac OS? A point version has been $129. Snow Leopard is $29, for a few minor changes on the surface, and some major changes under the hood. The business strategy for Apple has been quite consistent through the years. From 3.2, which was on the Mac Plus I bought, through System 6, it was free. As in, go into the store with the floppies and get them to make you three or four floppies, and you have the update. Then they started charging for 7, 8 and 9, though not what you pay with Windows. Apple makes money on the hardware. Same model applies to the music store and the app store; software charge just covers third-party profits and/or copyright holder fees. It's there to make the hardware more useful.
So, where's the profit if people put it on a netbook? Miniscule. By the way, where's the profit on netbooks? Well, nowhere. They're selling like hotcakes, losing money on each, but they'll make it up in volume. You'll notice that, last quarter, Microsoft lost money. Last quarter, sales were up for PCs but they lost money -- except Apple.
Everybody's waiting for the supposed tablet/big iPhone, whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
Could it simply be that every 10 years, there's a year that ends in zero to compensate for the lack of an initial year zero? Or to remind us to have this argument again?
I had a nun as a home room teacher. She apparently thought that the Christmas that Jesus was born (actually in the Spring) was the first instant of year zero. Nice theologically, but completely impossible. Actually, the evolution of the modern calendar is shrouded in mystery. The first one to date events in AD and BC was the Venerable Bede, in around 600. His scale, however, was not always clear. Sometime after this, the convention of numbering the transition from BC 1 to AD 1, no zero, finally evolved into the standard practice in historical dating.
So, it seems logical that the first year of each decade should begin with 1. 2001 was the beginning of the decade that will end in December 2010.
But it seems to most that a new decade begins when you see the number turn over from "09" to "10."
I'm a Mac user, and my exposure to Vista and XP and 7 is on bootcamp partitions and virtual machines. XP ran fine when I had a program I had to have that was Windows-only. Vista in my environment was just a pig, prone to multiple slowdowns and freezes. It just seemed to be put together by a committee. But 7 is fine; it's easy to use, quick enough, and VMWare and Parallels have finally figured out how to give you the slick transparencies and so on.
I'll stay a Mac user, but Windows is a tool in my box.
Except the MacBook Air was a big financial success. Execs love them, and like giving them to their daughters. That surprised me, because of its price. But then again, the iPod mini and nano surprised me, too.
And DVDs are going the way of the Dodo.
In the very first edition, if you had a guest user, and you used it, you would return to the administrator account and find all the data gone. Bad. Fixed in 10.6.1. We're now in 10.6.2. But some people just can't move on.
That's the only way to optimize the cellular networks. Everyone adopts a standard, with a standard stack, so that everyone uses each other's towers. Really, who cares if AT&T or Verizon has the better network? Let them all adopt the same 5G, and if they still can't fully develop the cell network, then the government goes into the business of rural cellphonication. You pay for your own cellphone/computer.
If we had developed railroads at different gauges, with no sharing of right of way, we'd be living in the Confederate States. If we allowed the power grid or the telephone networks or the radio and TV infrastructure with so little demand for standards, what would we have by now? A society and economy even more feudal, segmented into segregated economic units -- in other words, backwards. What is the power of these stupid companies? I can see the reason for the competition at the beginning, but really, we've got some idea now how we want this to develop now.
Break up the exclusivity and the insularity of our networks. It should be much more like the Internet.
Because it's not true. People can't read reports. IN a SURVEY, a number of users, about 3,000, were asked what they thought of the iPhone. About 46% liked it. It's not known if they owned it, or exactly what the question was. Brush up on your Japanese and explain it to us.
You wouldn't expect innumeracy from /.
You want to trust your phone's security to javascript? Are you nuts, Firefox? How many security updates has Firefox released for the javascript component?
And that's just for starters.
I was angry at Apple for one thing: no Google Voice. I've since gotten Google Voice in my browser, and you know what? I don't care for it that much.
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091113/apple-smartphone/
Apple: From Zero to 17.1 Percent Smartphone Share in 2.5 Years
That's "Smartphone," so it's not "cell phones."
Because it's "free." Wait till Google can no longer keep up the costs of development and starts charging for each copy, or throws in special ads when you start using it -- nice, big fat full-frame Flash animations.
We're not looking at the included apps, which will tend to be very solid -- and that tells you something, right? -- but the ones you want to add, either through the apple or blackberry or Microsoft Marketplaces/iTunes, etc.
What is the motivation for somebody to make an app with a Trojan that takes your bank sign-in and sends it to Turkestan, huh? Why, there's no-- Oh, no, they want to take the money out of your bank account. There's lots of motivation for malware, and if it's from third-party suppliers, who knows?
Would you settle for your company getting the ability to sign the app, and if you screw up, everybody will know it's your dumb app?
Brilliant, mr. garote.
There seems to be a problem of transparency and speed of notification of problems, yes. How many apps have been rejected, out of the 100,000 accepted? How large is the number of the developers who are chafing under this dictatorship?
When has it? *rolls eyes*
Note, I'm not saying that Linux doesn't work, but that it's stuck forever around 1% of market share. And Firefox is an app, not an OS.
I simply don't think there's any big reason to believe that's true. I was in the hospital recently, and while there, the cute nurse saw my iPhone. After maybe 20 minutes of impromptu demo, she went out and bought one. To get big numbers like you want, you have to get a lot of people like that nurse into the tent. And the single source of apps makes everything very simple.
By the way, I get why people are upset about the Google Voice app. But then why are no people upset about the Google Maps turn-by-turn in the Android only? Isn't that equally egregious, or is that okay, because it's not Google's turn in the barrel?
I'd seriously dispute that. People who are aware of programming, linux, free software -- who have a serious knowledge of computers, they might find this onerous, or a "black eye." Those who haven't heard of it, and that is the great majority of a consumer device's market, don't really give a damn. I know five people like that -- not that "I know x people" is any proof.
The iPhone software market locked up tight? Is that why there's 100,000 apps? With AT&T, you have a point. But the exclusivity deal is coming off this year. Get ready for price drops and increasing market share.
Your account of the PC market leaves out a ton of stuff. One, PCs were cheaper, immediately. Business fueled the adoption of DOS in business, but they weren't any more "open" that the Mac. They gave the appearance of the same, because IBMs and Compaqs and HPs were "compatible," that is, the software and the processor was the same. But the DOS, and then Windows platforms weren't a tinkle more "open" than the Mac. The Mac stayed with Motorola processors, true. The most egregious sins were not by Jobs, of course, they were committed by the sugared-water marketers who came after him.
The Mac delayed windows compatibility, but I think that's a dead issue now, isn't it? I've run Macs perfectly well on Windows networks, we've shared printers, shared files, and shared common documents to work on with alternate applications. I can run the Windows environment on the iPhone. I can even run Windows in a Parallels environment on my iPhone, though I'm not sure why.
I'm sure if you read the Google or whatever programming tips, they tell you not to use certain API calls which are "private" and subject to change, and thus break. That seems to be the majority of rejections from the App Store.
When the iPhone came out, it was derided for not having any apps. Then only having Safari apps. Then when it came through with the apps, big-time, that's not good enough because it's too controlled. If the unpatched iPhone was subject to the nasty Trojans that the jailbroken phones are prone to, you'd hear about it.
Steve don't want porn apps on the iPhone, though he's not in control of your pictures. Steve don't want apps that have bad calls. Steve don't want his lawyers unhappy with copyright infringement, though that makes them twitch and do stupid stuff at times. But the network(s) need more protection from the ground up than computers needed in 1984, and paradoxically, you're always on the network now. Which sounds right for a phone. When you can't phone somebody else, or you can't go to any web site with Safari, that's when a smartphone will be closed.
Excellent point.
I am not a programmer, though I've done some fooling around and know some of the basic issues. Some of the issues complained about on this site seem to be of the legal department variety. Those guys are jerks. But if you don't enforce your copyrights, in two years some guy in a New Jersey basement could lawfully make an "iPhone." Some of these things are frivolous or plain wrong, like the Missing Manual for... app. Lawyers have no common sense. They're paid not to have common sense.
The remainder of the apps seem to have been rejected on the basis of using private APIs. I'm aware of this issue, and I'm simply not sure of the "wrongness" of this. This has been the case throughout OS X's development. On the Mac, developers were warned not to use hidden, or private APIs, because they might change at any time.The same thing is on the iPhone, though since the iPhone has one seller, it comes to a head. But many of the commenters on this blog seem to have good points: if you use a hidden API, it might not be there in the next revision, or it might now be linked to another function, one that crashes your app.
One commenter posted that if 1,000 apps were rejected, and 100,000 approved, then maybe we're dealing with a bunch of people that just didn't follow the rules, and some who got a raw deal.
The process should be more open and subject to quick appeal. This website may be one of the points of data that we need to evaluate things in a real way, rather than just popping off about how authoritarian Apple is while neglecting the fact that Google also advises you not to use its hidden APIs, and that is accepted as normal behavior.
Okay, now I'm a fanboy. I'm expecting that. But those who have the ideology that Apple is constricting the supply of applications when they're in a pool of 100,000 -- the fastest-growing software pile in history, I'm thinking -- may need to go back to the shop for a rethink. Not that they will.
There's just something in their craw. I see nice new 27" iMacs I'd love to own, they see a tyranny and a conspiracy against their freedom! Kind of like thinking that health care reform = Dachau.
Gee, what's the odds of this? TWO people coming to one forum and having completely atypical experiences... oh, wait a minute, it's a Mac-PC war.
Jobs cancelled the clones because they WEREN'T making money for Apple, and that was in the days when making money was life-and-death.
That's right. The ONLY way Microsoft makes money on software is by dominating the market. Why? Well, until very recently, they had NO significant hardware division. Now, with the XBox, the Zune -- tee-hee -- they have some, but do we know for sure if they make money?
I think that's the flaw behind the Microsoft business plan: they need to have 90% of the computers on their OS, with Exchange, and Office, etc., to make money. That's why Vista was such a disaster. Years later, and the majority were still on XP. And they had to keep people making software patches for XP, for free.
Instead of market dominance, Apple's never looking for much more than 20% of the market in computers. (They're adept at making computer add-ons like iPhones and iPods, which have a larger slice of that particular market -- because there's a Windows version, and the smart Linux people have whipped up iTunesy-like software too.) The hardware-software binding probably ensures that they won't ever get more than a nice solid fraction of computer sales. Some will need software that isn't available on the Mac, though that list is getting shorter. Some will prefer cheaper, and some will prefer faster hardware. And they don't mind Windows. God knows, some actually like Windows. The answer is simple: don't buy one. The majority of systems don't run the Mac OS. No problem. (By the way, you can still make a hackintosh. It's pretty easy, right? A company can't bring it out, though. The Mac doesn't use activation, go right ahead. VMWare now runs the Mac OS, too. So you could have a bootcamp partition running Windows with a VMWare OS X guest system. On a Mac.
An awful lot of people are complaining that the Mac is just as much a meanie as Microsoft, because of this insistence on software being tied to machines. Nobody who has followed Apple during Jobs I or Jobs II thinks that's true. Don't like, buy the cheaper computers. I mean, monopoly rules are for firms that dominate entire markets, and then take fair competition away. Unfair competition might be say, if they stopped making iTunes for Windows -- though I'm sure many here would applaud -- thus unfairly pressuring people to leave Windows. Or it might mean giving away the OS to companies like Psystar, while refusing it to others.
Monopoly law has nothing against a certain software or hardware becoming very popular, it has to do with the tactics employed once you get to a monopoly position.
The most recent word is, Apple is making about half the profits for the entire retail computer industry. They're not about market dominance, they're about margins, margins, margins. As long as there are lots of places you can get cheaper machines with comparable abilities, there's no restraint of trade or unfair competition.
Not a good analogy. The Ford isn't bonded to its tires with a copyright. You can buy any tires you want.
A better example with Ford might be the Sync system, licensed from Microsoft to be used in new Fords. Say I like that, and develop an after-market business that transfers Sync technology over to Chevies, Toyotas etc. Microsoft and Ford have an exclusivity clause in their contract, I'm sure, and my after-market business would be toast.
I get it. The anti-Apple crusaders make the mistake of confusing an iPhone with a totalitarian state. It's nothing of the sort. They make objects which are supported by software. They're quite popular. If they double their market share again, they might have 20% of the computer market, though I really don't think that's likely. But you know what? You don't have to have a Mac, or an iPhone, or anything at all made by Apple. They're quite popular. They're turning a good profit.
If you want to collect a bunch of parts, strap it together with a Linux distro, fine. Apple isn't stopping you for an instant. If you want to put Windows on the hardware, go ahead.
You see yourselves as crusaders for freedom. I see you as predictable anti-authoritarians, seeing Daddy in everything. Tell me if you need an allowance.
Well, the same "logic" is rampant on the right, if you haven't noticed. Just watch Beck and FOX and listen to Limbaugh. Apparently, Obama is in the pay of the Rothschilds. No, really.
Bush didn't arrange 9/11. He just demagogued two wars out of something he might have stopped had he and his staff been more alert.
Let's see... how much is the Mac OS? A point version has been $129. Snow Leopard is $29, for a few minor changes on the surface, and some major changes under the hood. The business strategy for Apple has been quite consistent through the years. From 3.2, which was on the Mac Plus I bought, through System 6, it was free. As in, go into the store with the floppies and get them to make you three or four floppies, and you have the update. Then they started charging for 7, 8 and 9, though not what you pay with Windows. Apple makes money on the hardware. Same model applies to the music store and the app store; software charge just covers third-party profits and/or copyright holder fees. It's there to make the hardware more useful.
So, where's the profit if people put it on a netbook? Miniscule. By the way, where's the profit on netbooks? Well, nowhere. They're selling like hotcakes, losing money on each, but they'll make it up in volume. You'll notice that, last quarter, Microsoft lost money. Last quarter, sales were up for PCs but they lost money -- except Apple.
Everybody's waiting for the supposed tablet/big iPhone, whatever.
If we keep on using all that silicon, we will run out of sand!!!!