> It might have something to do with the fact that > distances in the USA are *huge* compared to the > relatively compact cities of Europe.
Could also be the traffic. Since there are more cars in the U.S., and in most parts of the States, there isn't public transportation to speak of (not like the train systems in Europe). It's annoying to drive a manual in stop/go traffic every day.
Plus, it's hard to shift when you're chomping down on a hamburger and drinking a soda while you're driving. And try talking on your cell phone while you're shifting in that traffic and eating your lunch.
So, there are probably many factors why you don't see as many manual transmission cars in the U.S. any more.
In my car (SLK320 with six-speed manual, BTW), the European version comes with sunglasses holders in the dash. In the U.S. version, they substitute a beverage holder. Figures.
What's funny is that the CNN article is an excellent example of how news organizations *don't* have a liberal bias. This article is pretty pro-right wing/fundamentalist Christian -- it's important to realize that moderate Christians and other religious people don't have a problem with teaching science; it's the fundamentalists that have a problem with it.
1. The article seems to intentionally mistake "theory" with "Theory". In general, a "theory" is the same as a conjecture, while a scientific "Theory" is a scientific term for a falsifiable explanation that describes facts. From this perspective, evolution is a fact, but natural selection is a Theory.
2. In the call out box "An explanation of the origin of life theories", I was expecting a description of modern Theories of evolution, like punctuated equilibrium or neo-Darwinism. Instead, it (mistakenly? intentionally?) sets up a false science/religion dichotomy where either you believe in Darwinism or you believe the Christian God manipulated human beings by hand. The interesting part is that pure Darwinism focuses too much on natural selection, while biologists today tend to believe that mutation plays a greater role. But from the CNN article, a layman would think its Darwin or nothing.
> In related news, Ga. school board OKs teaching > creationism > *Weeps*
Go ahead and mark this day down on your Return to the Dark Ages timeline.
Before long, we'll be teaching kids not to have their pictures taken because their souls will be stolen away and that Baby Jesus cries whenever they touch themselves *there*. Then we can continue with the whole War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength policies.
when I plug my iPod into a different Mac, I get a dialog box asking if I want to associate this iPod with this new Mac. If you click yes, it will delete all your music and then autosync with the new Mac. If you click no, you're safe. Apple's Knowledge Base has more info on this.
You must have accidentally dismissed the dialog box without really reading it.
> If you use a pushreel lawnmower, [organic- > ga...oducts.com] they use no gas, oil, or > electricity, and dont make any noise
Thanks for the suggestion. My wife did buy two push mowers to try as a replacement for our electric, but neither one would work well in our lawn for some reason. They kept flipping over and they cut the lawn in a jagged way. After the second one, I decided that push mowers weren't going to work for us.
> I have the demo CD for System 8 (Copland not Mac > OS 8). It demonstrates themes and other new features > of Copland.
You want to see something cool? That demo CD for Mac OS 8 (with the corny music and overly-excited narration) runs under Mac OS X 10.2. That's backwards compatibility!
I ran it the other weekend, after I installed Jaguar. Boot up Classic and pop the disc in-- it's a laugh. That disc was vaporware of the highest order. It was clear that Copland was very unfinished, even in the demos. I thought that when Apple shipped that demo disc, it was really a sign of something bad going on with the project.
I like the idea of the folders as saved searches, but the rest of it is okay. The Themes that they show are painfully childish compared to Aqua.
I think what's interesting is if Apple had delivered on Copland, I don't think they would have guaranteed success, and I think they would have been worse off than with Mac OS X.
For one, for the average user, Copland looked like the regular Mac OS, so I don't think it was well differentiated from the Windows-look-alike. Aqua looks much different, and thus has the appearance of a next generation UI.
Second, the Unix underpinnings of Mac OS X are probably one of the biggest factors in its success. Look at all the Unix geeks that are buying into Mac OS X just because of the Unix-on-a-desktop capabilties. I don't think Copland would have brought that to the table.
> However, they break even that guideline w/ the > new address book app. Go figure.:)
Uh, yeah, Apple broke their guidelines for the Address Book. All the other iApps that use the brushed metal look have an physical "digital lifestyle" device that goes with it:
iTunes: MP3 player iPhoto: digital camera iMovie: digital video iDVD: DVD player
AddressBook: nothing. iCal: nothing
On an entirely unrelated note, what's the point of Inkwell -- the handwriting recognition package? Even if you assume that the digital device for AddressBook and iCal is the iPod (with the 1.2 software), you can't even use handwriting recognition with that! So what's the point?
I know that you meant it as a joke, but I think Apple's statement makes sense.
The days of the skilled programmer (but unskilled UI designer) putting together the icons and user interface are over. Well designed applications are the key to making an application useful. I think SoundJam and iTunes are a great example.
Cassidy and Green built the original SoundJam MP3 application, and while it was full-featured, it was a bit of a pain to use, particularly the custom playlist feature. In fact, I never really used the feature since it was such a pain to create the playlist with customized criteria and keep it in synch with the songs I had in my collection.
When Apple bought SoundJam from Cassidy and Green, they renamed it as iTunes, and stripped the functionality down. The most important thing they added was the live searching feature, and the ability to support integrated playlists. Suddenly, the overwhelming SoundJam application became the much more friendly iTunes, accessible to any user. iTunes 1.0 had fewer features than SoundJam, but since its user interface was better, the application was better.
Icons are the same way. When you look at just the icons of 10 years ago, you can see how far we've come. Look at the winners of Icon Factory's Pixelpalooza competition, you can see how even the winners' icons from just five years ago, you can see although they were cute and clever for 1997, they look unprofessional compared to the look of the icons delivered with Mac OS X 10.2.
> Gas permeable lenses (aka hard contacts), as well as > some of the newer toric (?) lenses for astigmatism > don't rotate in the eye. Though the hard contacts are > uncomfortable, and the torics are pricey...
The toric lenses would work. I have them for astigmatism in my right eye, though I don't have to have them for the left. So I buy a box of toric and a box of regular. There's about a $10 difference in price, so it's not too expensive.
The problem with toric lenses is it takes about 30 minutes for them to "settle" after you put them in (they have to rotate to the regular position and then want to be that way until you take them out). So things look kind of blurry for the first few minutes until the lenses rotate to the right angle.
So if you had polarized contact lenses to you with your computer, you have a ready-made excuse for goofing off the first 30 minutes you're at work. Then make it a habit to rub your eyes, pretend the lens fell out, and give yourself another 30 minutes!
So Ford pulls the plug on electric cars, but they're allowing this out?
Forget hearing about how cool their trucks are; we need to a commercial with Ford's CEO William Clay Ford, with a public apology for building the Escort that transmogrified into this.
> 10.2 on my PowerBook G4 550 is really fast. Only > problem is that I can't get Dave to uninstall.
Does Quartz Extreme work on your PowerBook G4 550 MHz? This is kind of the gray area since if your PowerBook G4 is the same generation as mine (just prior to the current model), it has 4x AGP, but only 16 MB of RAM. When Apple announced Quartz Extreme, they said you'd need 32 MB of RAM and 4x AGP. The current specs say AGP 4x ATI Radeon and 16 MB of RAM, so I'm curious how well these PowerBooks can take advantage of QE.
"Wherefore" isn't a "ye olde English" way of saying "where". It means, what is the purpose or reason why? Thus, Juliet wasn't asking where Romeo was, but why did he have to exist, because their love was complicating her life.
Therefore, this article title is inadvertently asking "Why Hypercard? What is the purpose of Hypercard?" Clearly Steve Jobs asked the same thing (likely with more expletives and in an upraised voice).
Thus today, some people are left asking the question, "Where is Hypercard?"
- Apple Garamond for copy and other places you'd use a serif font
- Myriad for product materials and accent text where a sans serif font is more appropriate.
It's not unusual for companies to adopt multiple corporate fonts for different purposes. However, if Apple's getting rid of Garamond completely, then I'd be a little disappointed; Garamond has always given their stuff a classy look. Myriad looks modern and trendy, which makes sense when putting together the materials for their products.
What's interesting is that some of their product pages have been updated to include Myriad and some haven't. The newer or recently updated products like the eMac, iPod, and Power Mac have the new font, while the iBook and PowerBook have the old. Comparing the two, I think the newer product pages using Myriad look a little fresher.
This is a plan that Microsoft can rip off with impunity.
There are two ways to deal with people who are loose with their software licenses.
1. Clamp down hard to make sure they can only install the software once on a single piece of hardware. Systematically piss off your entire user base.
2. Pragmatically realize that users are going to install their software on every machine in their house. Therefore, change your licensing to make such a practice legal. Charge a reasonable amount to do this.
Note: Item 1 will only work if you are willing to illegally abuse your monopoly.
Cheers to Apple. $199 for 5 home licenses is great because the majority of Mac users I know have two or three Macs in their house and this allows them to "get legal" without breaking the bank.
Worldcom, Imclone, Global Crossing, Enron, Adelphia, Anderson -- "a few bad apples" or a systemic problem? I think Bush saying that the American people don't care about this "stock market stuff" just shows how out of touch he is. Either that, or he simply doesn't care and he's just filling time until the next topic of the day comes along.
Here's what we know:
- George W. Bush wanted to run the government like a business
- George W. Bush has never come within 50 feet of a successful business himself. Not Harkin, not the sweetheart deal with the Texas Rangers, not even that stupid airline catering company
- Neither has Dick Cheney
- Both Cheney and Bush are so close to the oil industry that they're willing to allow companies steal money from taxpayers and business in fradulent energy schemes.
Any talk of this being a Clinton-caused recession is just willfully ignoring that the Bush's tax cut caused nearly half of the budget shortfall.
What can you do?
- Demand that the Bush Administration release information on the secret energy task force. We want to know how Enron, Haliburton, Harkin, and Unocal were involved in this
- Demand that the Bush Adminstration support an independent investigation of the goverment's actions before and after September 11. If the attacks were due to the U.S.'s quest for oil, the American people deserve to know.
- Demand that the SEC open the files on Bush's dealings with Harkin
- Demand the Justice Department come down hard on Enron
- Demand to know why Bush is so interested in attacking Iraq
- Ask yourself if you're better off now or 4 years ago. Good, now vote Democrat in November.
I think Apple's considering it, but they'll have to go through some steps first.
Before they introduce a version of Mac OS X to work on x86, they'll want to make sure there's a near-perfect substitute for Microsoft Office. This looks like Apple's considering contingencies. Call OpenOffice Step 3.5.
> Probably all it would take would be a new > "theme" for the Toolkit OOo uses.
I don't think they'll be able to introduce an Apple-endorsed OpenOffice without direct calls to the Quartz APIs. A "theme" won't cut it. Think about what happened with the first version of Netscape 6.0; it didn't support Aqua, but there was a theme to make it look like Aqua. Apple immediately told the developer to quit developing the theme, although they did encourage them to use Quartz and Aqua.
As a Mac OS X user, I think that's the right move. Apple needs to make developers use Quartz and the real Aqua because the Aqua-look-alikes never look the same as a real app. If a developer isn't willing to spend the time to implement Quartz, then they're not likely to spend the time making their hacked version of Aqua look indistinguishable from the real thing.
However, the fact that Apple's working with Sun is a great sign. We may have a competitor to Microsoft Office yet.
> Mac could be the OS Monopoly if it only started to port > its stuff to the PC Platforms.
Patience, my boy, patience. It's very unlikely that you'll see such a project until Apple can safely move as many Mac users there as possible, while stranding as few users as possible. The Mac market is too small for it to be successfully fragmented into Mac-PPC and Mac-x86 camps. But there is a path for Apple to get there.
1. Introduce Macintoshes running on as much PC-compatible hardware as possible. CHECK: current Macs use the same video cards, video memory, bus ports, and other parts as regular PCs. Just the processor is different
2. Introduce an operating system that can be run truely architecture independent. CHECK: Mac OS X is based on NeXTStep that used to run on x86. All they need is to get the majority of their users onto Mac OS X. Right now they're at 20% penetration.
3. Get Mac users off of Classic so they don't have to worry about PPC compatibility. IN PROGRESS: with Mac OS X 10.2, expect a lot more users spending all their time in Cocoa and Carbon. It'll probably be until 2004 before Classic will fall to a minority of users (once the specialized apps are replaced by Mac OS equivalents)
4. Introduce a Mac that uses a non-PowerPC processor (like AMD Hammer) which gives a definite performance advantage or price advantage. You'd better bet that Apple is at least considering this
5. Allow other PC makers to build Mac clones. But this time, Apple will have to negotiate from a position of strength, rather than one of desparation like before.
So, if you're waiting for Apple to move to the PC platform, expect the first 5 steps. Note that Apple could/has perform steps 1-3 safely (since this would be their plan even if they never got off of PPC) without angering Microsoft. But once they do Step 4, Microsoft would surely seek some sort of retribution.
> I've not tested this yet on other random numbers but > that constitutes quite a hole. I'd imagine Apple will be > quick to fix it though...they're getting enough media > flak for charging for the service now.
Acutally, with Apple's current track record, they'll make a fix, but to get it, you have to pay an extra $29/year to upgrade to a "premium" account. Luckily, they'll bundle a rock that keeps tigers away (a $59 value), so it will still be a good deal!
I vaguely remember something like this happening with Hotmail about 2 years ago. Somebody even figured out how to generate the URL's given a username, so you could go and read anybody's hotmail if you wanted to. The hole was probably a little different than this, but it's along the same lines.
No, this is a completely different situation. For one, Hotmail is free, but.Mac users pay for the privilege of this security hole.
Just checked my iDisk, and there's a new folder called backup with a file called "about this folder":
About your iDisk Backup Folder
Your iDisk Backup folder contains files that have been copied there by your.Mac Backup software when you perform manual or scheduled backups. This folder has Read Only access; that means that you can see what's in the folder, but you can't drag files into it. Only Backup can add files to or delete files from your iDisk Backup folder.
About Backup Put your mind at ease knowing that your data is backed up regularly by Backup. Use it to back up files to your iDisk or, if you have purchased a.Mac membership, to a recordable CD or DVD disc. You can download Backup from your iDisk Software folder or from the.Mac Web site at http://www.mac.com
Before you install You must have a Macintosh running Mac OS X version 10.1.2 or later, an Internet connection, and.Mac account to use Backup.
To create backup CDs or DVDs, you must have a supported CD-RW drive or SuperDrive and a paid.Mac membership. All internal Apple-supplied drives work with Backup.
Mac OS 9 Customers You'll only see your iDisk Backup folder when you use Mac OS X. If you use Mac OS 9 to access your iDisk, you won't be able to see your Backup folder.
When you price a product, a rule of thumb is 10% percent of your target market should think the price is too high and will be unwilling to pay for it (that's why it's generally not a good idea to give a service away for free). But $100? For one email address? Sheesh!
I'd be willing to pay $100 and get four.mac email addresses to cover a typical US household, but the thought of paying $100 for my.Mac account and $100 for my wife's.Mac account is insane!
There are not enough Mac viruses to make bundled virus software worthwhile. And I already bought Retrospect (which sucks by the way), so I don't need backup software. So, I'm sitting here trying to justify $100/year for an email address.
Maybe Apple's losing a bundle on the free iTools, and they're hoping for one of two things:
1. Enough morons will actually pay $100 for this and Apple can make some juicy margins off of what they used to get nothing for
2. A whole lot of people will be unwilling to pay $100 for the service and will quit using it, effectively allowing Apple to kill a costly service
Apple would be more successful with item (1) with a lower entry price (say $49/year) -- and considering they already have the iTools infrastructure in place (mail servers, web servers, Web Objects applications, etc) they can only expect their service availability requirements to reduce when they charge for a service (obviously, less demand for a for-fee service than a for-free service). Therefore, charging such a high price for the service implies that they were really trying to accomplish item (2).
So maybe they only get a 5% take on the deal. They get to get rid of 95% of the users, reducing their need to expand the infrastructure. If they eventually get rid of the service entirely, they've only angered a small fraction of users than if they had gotten rid of the for-free service.
Slashdot Mirror
> It might have something to do with the fact that
> distances in the USA are *huge* compared to the
> relatively compact cities of Europe.
Could also be the traffic. Since there are more cars in the U.S., and in most parts of the States, there isn't public transportation to speak of (not like the train systems in Europe). It's annoying to drive a manual in stop/go traffic every day.
Plus, it's hard to shift when you're chomping down on a hamburger and drinking a soda while you're driving. And try talking on your cell phone while you're shifting in that traffic and eating your lunch.
So, there are probably many factors why you don't see as many manual transmission cars in the U.S. any more.
In my car (SLK320 with six-speed manual, BTW), the European version comes with sunglasses holders in the dash. In the U.S. version, they substitute a beverage holder. Figures.
What's funny is that the CNN article is an excellent example of how news organizations *don't* have a liberal bias. This article is pretty pro-right wing/fundamentalist Christian -- it's important to realize that moderate Christians and other religious people don't have a problem with teaching science; it's the fundamentalists that have a problem with it.
1. The article seems to intentionally mistake "theory" with "Theory". In general, a "theory" is the same as a conjecture, while a scientific "Theory" is a scientific term for a falsifiable explanation that describes facts. From this perspective, evolution is a fact, but natural selection is a Theory.
2. In the call out box "An explanation of the origin of life theories", I was expecting a description of modern Theories of evolution, like punctuated equilibrium or neo-Darwinism. Instead, it (mistakenly? intentionally?) sets up a false science/religion dichotomy where either you believe in Darwinism or you believe the Christian God manipulated human beings by hand. The interesting part is that pure Darwinism focuses too much on natural selection, while biologists today tend to believe that mutation plays a greater role. But from the CNN article, a layman would think its Darwin or nothing.
> In related news, Ga. school board OKs teaching
> creationism
> *Weeps*
Go ahead and mark this day down on your Return to the Dark Ages timeline.
Before long, we'll be teaching kids not to have their pictures taken because their souls will be stolen away and that Baby Jesus cries whenever they touch themselves *there*. Then we can continue with the whole War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength policies.
> No warning, no dialogue, no music.
when I plug my iPod into a different Mac, I get a dialog box asking if I want to associate this iPod with this new Mac. If you click yes, it will delete all your music and then autosync with the new Mac. If you click no, you're safe. Apple's Knowledge Base has more info on this.
You must have accidentally dismissed the dialog box without really reading it.
> If you use a pushreel lawnmower, [organic-
> ga...oducts.com] they use no gas, oil, or
> electricity, and dont make any noise
Thanks for the suggestion. My wife did buy two push mowers to try as a replacement for our electric, but neither one would work well in our lawn for some reason. They kept flipping over and they cut the lawn in a jagged way. After the second one, I decided that push mowers weren't going to work for us.
My neighborhood -- and it's not even that fancy -- is pretty strict about lawn maintenance and the like so not mowing the lawn isn't an option.
Home Owners' Associations can be a bit of a pain, but they come in handy if you don't want to live next door to a purple house.
> I have the demo CD for System 8 (Copland not Mac
> OS 8). It demonstrates themes and other new features
> of Copland.
You want to see something cool? That demo CD for Mac OS 8 (with the corny music and overly-excited narration) runs under Mac OS X 10.2. That's backwards compatibility!
I ran it the other weekend, after I installed Jaguar. Boot up Classic and pop the disc in-- it's a laugh. That disc was vaporware of the highest order. It was clear that Copland was very unfinished, even in the demos. I thought that when Apple shipped that demo disc, it was really a sign of something bad going on with the project.
I like the idea of the folders as saved searches, but the rest of it is okay. The Themes that they show are painfully childish compared to Aqua.
I think what's interesting is if Apple had delivered on Copland, I don't think they would have guaranteed success, and I think they would have been worse off than with Mac OS X.
For one, for the average user, Copland looked like the regular Mac OS, so I don't think it was well differentiated from the Windows-look-alike. Aqua looks much different, and thus has the appearance of a next generation UI.
Second, the Unix underpinnings of Mac OS X are probably one of the biggest factors in its success. Look at all the Unix geeks that are buying into Mac OS X just because of the Unix-on-a-desktop capabilties. I don't think Copland would have brought that to the table.
> However, they break even that guideline w/ the :)
... maybe they're building a ... nah!
> new address book app. Go figure.
Uh, yeah, Apple broke their guidelines for the Address Book. All the other iApps that use the brushed metal look have an physical "digital lifestyle" device that goes with it:
iTunes: MP3 player
iPhoto: digital camera
iMovie: digital video
iDVD: DVD player
AddressBook: nothing.
iCal: nothing
On an entirely unrelated note, what's the point of Inkwell -- the handwriting recognition package? Even if you assume that the digital device for AddressBook and iCal is the iPod (with the 1.2 software), you can't even use handwriting recognition with that! So what's the point?
Wait...
I know that you meant it as a joke, but I think Apple's statement makes sense.
The days of the skilled programmer (but unskilled UI designer) putting together the icons and user interface are over. Well designed applications are the key to making an application useful. I think SoundJam and iTunes are a great example.
Cassidy and Green built the original SoundJam MP3 application, and while it was full-featured, it was a bit of a pain to use, particularly the custom playlist feature. In fact, I never really used the feature since it was such a pain to create the playlist with customized criteria and keep it in synch with the songs I had in my collection.
When Apple bought SoundJam from Cassidy and Green, they renamed it as iTunes, and stripped the functionality down. The most important thing they added was the live searching feature, and the ability to support integrated playlists. Suddenly, the overwhelming SoundJam application became the much more friendly iTunes, accessible to any user. iTunes 1.0 had fewer features than SoundJam, but since its user interface was better, the application was better.
Icons are the same way. When you look at just the icons of 10 years ago, you can see how far we've come. Look at the winners of Icon Factory's Pixelpalooza competition, you can see how even the winners' icons from just five years ago, you can see although they were cute and clever for 1997, they look unprofessional compared to the look of the icons delivered with Mac OS X 10.2.
> Gas permeable lenses (aka hard contacts), as well as
> some of the newer toric (?) lenses for astigmatism
> don't rotate in the eye. Though the hard contacts are
> uncomfortable, and the torics are pricey...
The toric lenses would work. I have them for astigmatism in my right eye, though I don't have to have them for the left. So I buy a box of toric and a box of regular. There's about a $10 difference in price, so it's not too expensive.
The problem with toric lenses is it takes about 30 minutes for them to "settle" after you put them in (they have to rotate to the regular position and then want to be that way until you take them out). So things look kind of blurry for the first few minutes until the lenses rotate to the right angle.
So if you had polarized contact lenses to you with your computer, you have a ready-made excuse for goofing off the first 30 minutes you're at work. Then make it a habit to rub your eyes, pretend the lens fell out, and give yourself another 30 minutes!
So Ford pulls the plug on electric cars, but they're allowing this out?
Forget hearing about how cool their trucks are; we need to a commercial with Ford's CEO William Clay Ford, with a public apology for building the Escort that transmogrified into this.
> I got the 550 when the 550 and 667 were just
> out.
> Yes Quartz Extreme works.
>
> It works fast. Scale minimizes so fast it's a
> blur of motion now instead of an...well...old
> scale into the dock.
You just made my day! Too bad I have to wait for Amazon to ship my copy.
> 10.2 on my PowerBook G4 550 is really fast. Only
> problem is that I can't get Dave to uninstall.
Does Quartz Extreme work on your PowerBook G4 550 MHz? This is kind of the gray area since if your PowerBook G4 is the same generation as mine (just prior to the current model), it has 4x AGP, but only 16 MB of RAM. When Apple announced Quartz Extreme, they said you'd need 32 MB of RAM and 4x AGP. The current specs say AGP 4x ATI Radeon and 16 MB of RAM, so I'm curious how well these PowerBooks can take advantage of QE.
> "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" is not really asking
> why he exists but rather "Why are you Romeo?".
It could be either, but we're in danger of being attacked by rabid moderators if we elaborate at all.
However, since "whither" is an adverb, a better question is, "Whither is Hypercard?"
"Wherefore" isn't a "ye olde English" way of saying "where". It means, what is the purpose or reason why? Thus, Juliet wasn't asking where Romeo was, but why did he have to exist, because their love was complicating her life.
Therefore, this article title is inadvertently asking "Why Hypercard? What is the purpose of Hypercard?" Clearly Steve Jobs asked the same thing (likely with more expletives and in an upraised voice).
Thus today, some people are left asking the question, "Where is Hypercard?"
Maybe they're going to adopt a second font.
- Apple Garamond for copy and other places you'd use a serif font
- Myriad for product materials and accent text where a sans serif font is more appropriate.
It's not unusual for companies to adopt multiple corporate fonts for different purposes. However, if Apple's getting rid of Garamond completely, then I'd be a little disappointed; Garamond has always given their stuff a classy look. Myriad looks modern and trendy, which makes sense when putting together the materials for their products.
What's interesting is that some of their product pages have been updated to include Myriad and some haven't. The newer or recently updated products like the eMac, iPod, and Power Mac have the new font, while the iBook and PowerBook have the old. Comparing the two, I think the newer product pages using Myriad look a little fresher.
This is a plan that Microsoft can rip off with impunity.
There are two ways to deal with people who are loose with their software licenses.
1. Clamp down hard to make sure they can only install the software once on a single piece of hardware. Systematically piss off your entire user base.
2. Pragmatically realize that users are going to install their software on every machine in their house. Therefore, change your licensing to make such a practice legal. Charge a reasonable amount to do this.
Note: Item 1 will only work if you are willing to illegally abuse your monopoly.
Cheers to Apple. $199 for 5 home licenses is great because the majority of Mac users I know have two or three Macs in their house and this allows them to "get legal" without breaking the bank.
Here's a flash version of your rant.
... uh ... run Linux too.
Worldcom, Imclone, Global Crossing, Enron, Adelphia, Anderson -- "a few bad apples" or a systemic problem? I think Bush saying that the American people don't care about this "stock market stuff" just shows how out of touch he is. Either that, or he simply doesn't care and he's just filling time until the next topic of the day comes along.
Here's what we know:
- George W. Bush wanted to run the government like a business
- George W. Bush has never come within 50 feet of a successful business himself. Not Harkin, not the sweetheart deal with the Texas Rangers, not even that stupid airline catering company
- Neither has Dick Cheney
- Both Cheney and Bush are so close to the oil industry that they're willing to allow companies steal money from taxpayers and business in fradulent energy schemes.
Any talk of this being a Clinton-caused recession is just willfully ignoring that the Bush's tax cut caused nearly half of the budget shortfall.
What can you do?
- Demand that the Bush Administration release information on the secret energy task force. We want to know how Enron, Haliburton, Harkin, and Unocal were involved in this
- Demand that the Bush Adminstration support an independent investigation of the goverment's actions before and after September 11. If the attacks were due to the U.S.'s quest for oil, the American people deserve to know.
- Demand that the SEC open the files on Bush's dealings with Harkin
- Demand the Justice Department come down hard on Enron
- Demand to know why Bush is so interested in attacking Iraq
- Ask yourself if you're better off now or 4 years ago. Good, now vote Democrat in November.
Oh, and
I think Apple's considering it, but they'll have to go through some steps first.
Before they introduce a version of Mac OS X to work on x86, they'll want to make sure there's a near-perfect substitute for Microsoft Office. This looks like Apple's considering contingencies. Call OpenOffice Step 3.5.
> Probably all it would take would be a new
> "theme" for the Toolkit OOo uses.
I don't think they'll be able to introduce an Apple-endorsed OpenOffice without direct calls to the Quartz APIs. A "theme" won't cut it. Think about what happened with the first version of Netscape 6.0; it didn't support Aqua, but there was a theme to make it look like Aqua. Apple immediately told the developer to quit developing the theme, although they did encourage them to use Quartz and Aqua.
As a Mac OS X user, I think that's the right move. Apple needs to make developers use Quartz and the real Aqua because the Aqua-look-alikes never look the same as a real app. If a developer isn't willing to spend the time to implement Quartz, then they're not likely to spend the time making their hacked version of Aqua look indistinguishable from the real thing.
However, the fact that Apple's working with Sun is a great sign. We may have a competitor to Microsoft Office yet.
> Mac could be the OS Monopoly if it only started to port
> its stuff to the PC Platforms.
Patience, my boy, patience. It's very unlikely that you'll see such a project until Apple can safely move as many Mac users there as possible, while stranding as few users as possible. The Mac market is too small for it to be successfully fragmented into Mac-PPC and Mac-x86 camps. But there is a path for Apple to get there.
1. Introduce Macintoshes running on as much PC-compatible hardware as possible. CHECK: current Macs use the same video cards, video memory, bus ports, and other parts as regular PCs. Just the processor is different
2. Introduce an operating system that can be run truely architecture independent. CHECK: Mac OS X is based on NeXTStep that used to run on x86. All they need is to get the majority of their users onto Mac OS X. Right now they're at 20% penetration.
3. Get Mac users off of Classic so they don't have to worry about PPC compatibility. IN PROGRESS: with Mac OS X 10.2, expect a lot more users spending all their time in Cocoa and Carbon. It'll probably be until 2004 before Classic will fall to a minority of users (once the specialized apps are replaced by Mac OS equivalents)
4. Introduce a Mac that uses a non-PowerPC processor (like AMD Hammer) which gives a definite performance advantage or price advantage. You'd better bet that Apple is at least considering this
5. Allow other PC makers to build Mac clones. But this time, Apple will have to negotiate from a position of strength, rather than one of desparation like before.
So, if you're waiting for Apple to move to the PC platform, expect the first 5 steps. Note that Apple could/has perform steps 1-3 safely (since this would be their plan even if they never got off of PPC) without angering Microsoft. But once they do Step 4, Microsoft would surely seek some sort of retribution.
> I've not tested this yet on other random numbers but
> that constitutes quite a hole. I'd imagine Apple will be
> quick to fix it though...they're getting enough media
> flak for charging for the service now.
Acutally, with Apple's current track record, they'll make a fix, but to get it, you have to pay an extra $29/year to upgrade to a "premium" account. Luckily, they'll bundle a rock that keeps tigers away (a $59 value), so it will still be a good deal!
When you price a product, a rule of thumb is 10% percent of your target market should think the price is too high and will be unwilling to pay for it (that's why it's generally not a good idea to give a service away for free). But $100? For one email address? Sheesh!
.mac email addresses to cover a typical US household, but the thought of paying $100 for my .Mac account and $100 for my wife's .Mac account is insane!
I'd be willing to pay $100 and get four
There are not enough Mac viruses to make bundled virus software worthwhile. And I already bought Retrospect (which sucks by the way), so I don't need backup software. So, I'm sitting here trying to justify $100/year for an email address.
Maybe Apple's losing a bundle on the free iTools, and they're hoping for one of two things:
1. Enough morons will actually pay $100 for this and Apple can make some juicy margins off of what they used to get nothing for
2. A whole lot of people will be unwilling to pay $100 for the service and will quit using it, effectively allowing Apple to kill a costly service
Apple would be more successful with item (1) with a lower entry price (say $49/year) -- and considering they already have the iTools infrastructure in place (mail servers, web servers, Web Objects applications, etc) they can only expect their service availability requirements to reduce when they charge for a service (obviously, less demand for a for-fee service than a for-free service).
Therefore, charging such a high price for the service implies that they were really trying to accomplish item (2).
So maybe they only get a 5% take on the deal. They get to get rid of 95% of the users, reducing their need to expand the infrastructure. If they eventually get rid of the service entirely, they've only angered a small fraction of users than if they had gotten rid of the for-free service.