The problem with this canard, or at least misconception, is that it takes the notion "I would buy this kind of thing if Apple offered it" (which may or may not be true) and assumes that, therefore, it would be a good business move for Apple to offer that configuration.
In the mid 90s, Apple had so many product lines and options that you couldn't keep track of them: Classics, Performas, Quadras, whatever. There were Apple-manufactured machines that had two processors for dual-booting, not to mention several brands of clones. (This is another thing that many people still say: "if only Apple would get their head out of their asses and license their OS to other manufacturers, they would increase their market share, blah blah blah...") At that time, it looked like Apple wasn't long for this world.
After Jobs came back in 1996 (1997? whatever.), the company slowly reined in the product lines and started to concentrate on making a few identifiable, distinct products, with a limited number of options for each. Apple is now a quite successful company, and, while their non-computer products are a large part of this, the company has managed to continue to hang on to, and even expand, its corner of the computer and OS market, a market that is surely stacked against it. Not only that, Apple has become a trendsetter in this market.
You can bet that there are some pretty savvy financial analysts at Apple who have probably looked at this a lot more closely than you have, and, if they really thought demand was high enough for a mid-range tower, they would make one. I would bet that the average computer user (not the average Slashdot reader, which is something else) never expands their PC past the basic configuration that they bought it with during its lifespan, and, furthermore, doesn't need anything more powerful than what comes with a Mac Mini. The population of customers who need more than a Mac Mini, but less than a Mac Pro (like you) is real, but too small to be profitable for Apple. Apple's success is not based on a shotgun approach but on carefully maximizing the profitability of a small number of product lines.
Yes, and my $999 MacBook does everything I need it to do. Yes, the lowest-end MacBooks are not as cheap as the lowest-end Dells (nor as underpowered), but neither is the $2800 the only price point for a Mac laptop, as your post implies.
Well, first of all, nylon is only a poor replacement for good old-fashioned cat gut. Again, if the player doesn't eviscerate the cat him/herself, then it's not really art.
I won't even listen to a guitar player unless he/she mines the metal for the strings and hand-crafts them his/herself. I mean, really, BUYING strings that somebody else made?! It's so uncreative!
Way to completely miss the point! The name-calling is especially constructive, too.
I said "I understand why a lot of people question IP laws in general..."
Then, in your rush to use your ever-so-clever language like "douchebag" (the 80s called, BTW, they want their slang back) and to talk about "my ideas" and "my theory," you completely ignored this ever-so-important part of the sentence.
You see, you don't think ANYTHING is protected as IP. I asked, however, that if A is protected, why should it be so surprising that B is protected. You then started foaming at the mouth and ranting without having actually understood what you were reading.
Why am I bothering to explain this? Sigh. I must me new here.
Um, anybody who knew more than what they learned in elementary school about the DDC (it's actually called the Dewey Decimal Classification) to begin with probably knew that. Admittedly, that's not very many people, unfortunately. I understand why a lot of people question IP laws in general, but I don't understand why so many people are surprised to find out that the DDC is a piece of IP like any other.
Now, the fact that one needs to pay to get the full version of the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) confuses me a little more, since it's actually a governement-created resource. Well, actually I guess I do know. LC, and especially it's under-appreciated traditional services, like cataloging, classification and authority control are so underfunded that they actually need to charge money to libraries to keep those projects alive. Alas.
Alright, goddammit! That's the last straw! I'm a major caffeine addict and occasional Starbuck's customer and I want to declare an end to this myth. It's actually mostly milk people are buying when they buy those overpriced drinks. The real caffeine heads know you get more of the good stuff and pay less money when you buy drip coffee.
Admittedly, the post I'm responding to did actually mention "milk," and also mentioned a cost in pounds, so I can assume that a) s/he knows it's only the latte-type and other "fancy" drinks that are the expensive ones and b) s/he lives in a country where drip coffee is not the norm. However, I'm always hearing somebody say that "a cup of coffee costs five dollars now" or "idiots go to Starbuck's and pay five dollars for a cup of coffee [there's often something about how they use their Macs while they're in there, too]!" Idiots go to Starbuck's and pay $5 for a cup of milk, with a little bit of coffee in it. If you just want coffee, you can still get a "venti" drip (which is way more over-roasted Starbuck's coffee than anybody should really be drinking in one sitting) for $2 or so, and a more rational sized cup is under $1.50.
I say "apparently" because TFA is actually blocked where I am right now, but the most common questions people seem to be asking in this discussion are:
Is that "5 years" thing a fact or speculation? (That's an honest question, not an attempt to antagonize.) I've assumed that part of Apple's lockdown of this device had something to do with their contract with AT&T, but I was unaware that the terms of the contract had been revealed to the public anywhere. Can you post a link?
Personally, I've been hoping that, when all the dust settles, Apple will eventually allow real application development for this device, so I would be bummed if they had legally obligated themselves not to allow that for five years. I would not buy an iPhone with the current arrangement, though I have been a fan of Apple products for many years and love the idea of an Apple handheld.
Anecdotally, I have a MacBook and the Bluetooth has always worked fine, but I realize that anecdotal evidence isn't worth much.
For the very same reason, I'm not sure if this is a story if the only evidence to support it is a thread or threads on Apple's discussion pages. You hear this all the time: "Hundreds of people are posting to the forums about this problem, but [whatever company, Apple in this example] refused to acknowledge that it's a major problem!" Well, here's the thing, if the company sells millions of computers and a hundred people are having a problem... in fact, let's say that the posters on the forum represent only a small percentage of people that are having the problem, so, it's a few thousand units that have the problem, it's still statistically small, even if it looks like a major issue on the forum and feels like a major issue if it happens to you.
It's not that it's not important or that Apple shouldn't fix it, it's just that it's not a news story, IMO.
Posting this to Slashdot with no other links about the story seems like somebody's just looking for an excuse to write a negative Apple story, but maybe that's just my tinfoil hat talking.
Consumer Reports' surveys consistently give Apple's support the highest rating of any computer company. Enterprise-level support might be a different story, but calling their consumer-level support "mediocre at best" is not an opinion that is supported statistically. What it may mean, of course, is that the entire industry's support is so awful that Apple only looks good in comparison. I'm just sayin'.
I think you missed his point. He's not claiming that Hollywood doesn't favor Democrats over Republicans. It's the statement "Hollywood is their biggest cash machine" that rings false. According to opensecrets.org's listing of contributions by industry, the sector that they call "TV/Movies/Music" gave the Dems about $14M in 2006 and $22M in 2004. It's true that they only gave Republicans $8M and $10M in those same years, however, here are the contributions to Democrats for other sectors in those same years:
Construction 2006 $16M (more than TV/Movies/Music) 2004 $20M (less)
So, according to these numbers, the Democrats have several bigger "cash machines" than Hollywood, even if you include the music industry in there. Your mind may stop being boggled now.
Interesting. I was kindof scrounging to find someone from the 90s and I was going based on how many people have tried to copy that sound ever since The Chronic came out. I thought about Public Enemy, but their best stuff was really more late-80s, and I was listening to a lot of Bill Laswell in the 90s, but it would be hard to claim his influence, since most people would say "who?"
It's okay if you don't compare it to the classic stuff, but I think the production style has lost some of it's edge, which happens to a lot of artists that get more "refined." It's a hard thing to put your finger on, but you know it when you hear it. Also, an interesting thing that I mentioned in a response to another response to my original comment is that, on the old albums, Prince frequently played all the instruments, whereas now he usually just uses a band. That makes the sounds less Prince-y, I think. Also, while I love certain bands that "jam" (though I'm not so into most bands that are labeled "jam bands," the ones I like are, for example Miles Davis' bands from the early 70s, but I digress...), the old recording style where Prince played all of the parts may have forced his songs to be tighter and more structured and that sound may have suited his style better.
Also, Prince has found religion (though he always had it a little bit) and now believes that singing about sex is wrong. Prince. Not singing about sex.
Okay, I was just being silly when I first posted about Prince, but, because I do love His Purpleness, I'll point out one of the many things that makes Prince amazing that those other bands don't have: read the liner notes of most Prince albums and you'll see...
Music and lyrics by Prince Guitar: Prince Bass: Prince Drums: Prince Keyboards: Prince Vocals: Prince Backup Vocals: Prince etc.
Stevie Wonder actually did a lot of the same kind of thing and a lot of people don't know that about either of them. Now, on to your list, an (almost) alternate version might have something like:
40s - Charlie Parker 50s - Chuck Berry 60s - The Funk Brothers (the backup band on almost all the Motown records) 70s - James Brown 80s - Prince 90s - Dr. Dre 2000s - ??? (I live in hope, there's always something cool going on, even among all the crap.)
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this canard, or at least misconception, is that it takes the notion "I would buy this kind of thing if Apple offered it" (which may or may not be true) and assumes that, therefore, it would be a good business move for Apple to offer that configuration.
In the mid 90s, Apple had so many product lines and options that you couldn't keep track of them: Classics, Performas, Quadras, whatever. There were Apple-manufactured machines that had two processors for dual-booting, not to mention several brands of clones. (This is another thing that many people still say: "if only Apple would get their head out of their asses and license their OS to other manufacturers, they would increase their market share, blah blah blah...") At that time, it looked like Apple wasn't long for this world.
After Jobs came back in 1996 (1997? whatever.), the company slowly reined in the product lines and started to concentrate on making a few identifiable, distinct products, with a limited number of options for each. Apple is now a quite successful company, and, while their non-computer products are a large part of this, the company has managed to continue to hang on to, and even expand, its corner of the computer and OS market, a market that is surely stacked against it. Not only that, Apple has become a trendsetter in this market.
You can bet that there are some pretty savvy financial analysts at Apple who have probably looked at this a lot more closely than you have, and, if they really thought demand was high enough for a mid-range tower, they would make one. I would bet that the average computer user (not the average Slashdot reader, which is something else) never expands their PC past the basic configuration that they bought it with during its lifespan, and, furthermore, doesn't need anything more powerful than what comes with a Mac Mini. The population of customers who need more than a Mac Mini, but less than a Mac Pro (like you) is real, but too small to be profitable for Apple. Apple's success is not based on a shotgun approach but on carefully maximizing the profitability of a small number of product lines.
Yes, and my $999 MacBook does everything I need it to do. Yes, the lowest-end MacBooks are not as cheap as the lowest-end Dells (nor as underpowered), but neither is the $2800 the only price point for a Mac laptop, as your post implies.
Well, first of all, nylon is only a poor replacement for good old-fashioned cat gut. Again, if the player doesn't eviscerate the cat him/herself, then it's not really art.
I won't even listen to a guitar player unless he/she mines the metal for the strings and hand-crafts them his/herself. I mean, really, BUYING strings that somebody else made?! It's so uncreative!
Yeah, I know. I'm a cataloger. I was just responding to one specific comment about DDC.
"Sorry to break it for you..."
Since I never said you were wrong, what exactly are you "breaking for me?"
You keep insisting that I am defending IP law as it currently exists, which I never did.
Way to completely miss the point! The name-calling is especially constructive, too.
I said "I understand why a lot of people question IP laws in general..."
Then, in your rush to use your ever-so-clever language like "douchebag" (the 80s called, BTW, they want their slang back) and to talk about "my ideas" and "my theory," you completely ignored this ever-so-important part of the sentence.
You see, you don't think ANYTHING is protected as IP. I asked, however, that if A is protected, why should it be so surprising that B is protected. You then started foaming at the mouth and ranting without having actually understood what you were reading.
Why am I bothering to explain this? Sigh. I must me new here.
Um, anybody who knew more than what they learned in elementary school about the DDC (it's actually called the Dewey Decimal Classification) to begin with probably knew that. Admittedly, that's not very many people, unfortunately. I understand why a lot of people question IP laws in general, but I don't understand why so many people are surprised to find out that the DDC is a piece of IP like any other.
Now, the fact that one needs to pay to get the full version of the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) confuses me a little more, since it's actually a governement-created resource. Well, actually I guess I do know. LC, and especially it's under-appreciated traditional services, like cataloging, classification and authority control are so underfunded that they actually need to charge money to libraries to keep those projects alive. Alas.
Dude, we would never say "arse."
Every time I go um, "cable laying" the results are pretty god damned dark.....
Hmm. That might be a sign of an ulcer. You should have that checked out.
They're real... and they're spectacular!
Alright, goddammit! That's the last straw! I'm a major caffeine addict and occasional Starbuck's customer and I want to declare an end to this myth. It's actually mostly milk people are buying when they buy those overpriced drinks. The real caffeine heads know you get more of the good stuff and pay less money when you buy drip coffee.
Admittedly, the post I'm responding to did actually mention "milk," and also mentioned a cost in pounds, so I can assume that a) s/he knows it's only the latte-type and other "fancy" drinks that are the expensive ones and b) s/he lives in a country where drip coffee is not the norm. However, I'm always hearing somebody say that "a cup of coffee costs five dollars now" or "idiots go to Starbuck's and pay five dollars for a cup of coffee [there's often something about how they use their Macs while they're in there, too]!" Idiots go to Starbuck's and pay $5 for a cup of milk, with a little bit of coffee in it. If you just want coffee, you can still get a "venti" drip (which is way more over-roasted Starbuck's coffee than anybody should really be drinking in one sitting) for $2 or so, and a more rational sized cup is under $1.50.
Real addicts don't drink lattes!
"In India, a Honda Insight is a 6 passenger vehicle."
In Soviet Russia, 6 passenger vehicle is a Hon... oh, never mind.
It seems to me that Comcast is choking my Usenet connection, but I haven't heard anybody else comment on this.
I say "apparently" because TFA is actually blocked where I am right now, but the most common questions people seem to be asking in this discussion are:
1) "Sequel, WTF?"
and
2)"Will Ian McKellen return as Gandalf?"
According to this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7150644.stm
the answers are:
1) No, there will not be a sequel based on some new not-created-by-Tolkien story, The Hobbit will be two movies.
2) Yes.
Is that "5 years" thing a fact or speculation? (That's an honest question, not an attempt to antagonize.) I've assumed that part of Apple's lockdown of this device had something to do with their contract with AT&T, but I was unaware that the terms of the contract had been revealed to the public anywhere. Can you post a link?
Personally, I've been hoping that, when all the dust settles, Apple will eventually allow real application development for this device, so I would be bummed if they had legally obligated themselves not to allow that for five years. I would not buy an iPhone with the current arrangement, though I have been a fan of Apple products for many years and love the idea of an Apple handheld.
Anecdotally, I have a MacBook and the Bluetooth has always worked fine, but I realize that anecdotal evidence isn't worth much.
For the very same reason, I'm not sure if this is a story if the only evidence to support it is a thread or threads on Apple's discussion pages. You hear this all the time: "Hundreds of people are posting to the forums about this problem, but [whatever company, Apple in this example] refused to acknowledge that it's a major problem!" Well, here's the thing, if the company sells millions of computers and a hundred people are having a problem... in fact, let's say that the posters on the forum represent only a small percentage of people that are having the problem, so, it's a few thousand units that have the problem, it's still statistically small, even if it looks like a major issue on the forum and feels like a major issue if it happens to you.
It's not that it's not important or that Apple shouldn't fix it, it's just that it's not a news story, IMO.
Posting this to Slashdot with no other links about the story seems like somebody's just looking for an excuse to write a negative Apple story, but maybe that's just my tinfoil hat talking.
Consumer Reports' surveys consistently give Apple's support the highest rating of any computer company. Enterprise-level support might be a different story, but calling their consumer-level support "mediocre at best" is not an opinion that is supported statistically. What it may mean, of course, is that the entire industry's support is so awful that Apple only looks good in comparison. I'm just sayin'.
I believe you meant diethylene glycol, BTW.
I think you missed his point. He's not claiming that Hollywood doesn't favor Democrats over Republicans. It's the statement "Hollywood is their biggest cash machine" that rings false. According to opensecrets.org's listing of contributions by industry, the sector that they call "TV/Movies/Music" gave the Dems about $14M in 2006 and $22M in 2004. It's true that they only gave Republicans $8M and $10M in those same years, however, here are the contributions to Democrats for other sectors in those same years:
Construction
2006 $16M (more than TV/Movies/Music)
2004 $20M (less)
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate
2006 $110M
2004 $140M
Health
2006 $36M
2004 $48M
Lawyers/Lobbyists
2006 $96M
2004 $150M
Misc. Business
2006 $57M
2004 $85M
Labor
2006 $57M
2004 $53M
Ideology/Single-Issue Money
2006 $98M
2004 $110M
So, according to these numbers, the Democrats have several bigger "cash machines" than Hollywood, even if you include the music industry in there. Your mind may stop being boggled now.
It would be hard to top the ongoing practical joke that L. Ron Hubbard set in motion, though.
Interesting. I was kindof scrounging to find someone from the 90s and I was going based on how many people have tried to copy that sound ever since The Chronic came out. I thought about Public Enemy, but their best stuff was really more late-80s, and I was listening to a lot of Bill Laswell in the 90s, but it would be hard to claim his influence, since most people would say "who?"
It's okay if you don't compare it to the classic stuff, but I think the production style has lost some of it's edge, which happens to a lot of artists that get more "refined." It's a hard thing to put your finger on, but you know it when you hear it. Also, an interesting thing that I mentioned in a response to another response to my original comment is that, on the old albums, Prince frequently played all the instruments, whereas now he usually just uses a band. That makes the sounds less Prince-y, I think. Also, while I love certain bands that "jam" (though I'm not so into most bands that are labeled "jam bands," the ones I like are, for example Miles Davis' bands from the early 70s, but I digress...), the old recording style where Prince played all of the parts may have forced his songs to be tighter and more structured and that sound may have suited his style better.
Also, Prince has found religion (though he always had it a little bit) and now believes that singing about sex is wrong. Prince. Not singing about sex.
Okay, I was just being silly when I first posted about Prince, but, because I do love His Purpleness, I'll point out one of the many things that makes Prince amazing that those other bands don't have: read the liner notes of most Prince albums and you'll see...
Music and lyrics by Prince
Guitar: Prince
Bass: Prince
Drums: Prince
Keyboards: Prince
Vocals: Prince
Backup Vocals: Prince
etc.
Stevie Wonder actually did a lot of the same kind of thing and a lot of people don't know that about either of them. Now, on to your list, an (almost) alternate version might have something like:
40s - Charlie Parker
50s - Chuck Berry
60s - The Funk Brothers (the backup band on almost all the Motown records)
70s - James Brown
80s - Prince
90s - Dr. Dre
2000s - ??? (I live in hope, there's always something cool going on, even among all the crap.)
Now, what's different about my list?