Since when? I have never known Steve Jobs to overhype Apple products with fictitious performance claims and grand statements like "Super Computer for your Desktop".
This is a good question, anyone have a link or insight to how Google's infrastructure works? I am sure that there is no ONE connection from Google to the internet, they probably have regional servers, so I am sure that not only is Bell South getting their due share, but many other baby bells as well.
As it is they are banking their reputation and identity as a computer manufacturer. If this Mactel venture goes south, I doubt Apple could recover from it (except to try out a partnership with AMD). They burned their bridges with Motorola, burned them again with IBM, and if they burn them with Intel, few would probably want to partner with Apple.
What is a Mactel anyways? A PC running OSX. Apple has lost their reputation as a proprietary computer platform. From what I am reading, Apple did very little innovation with Intel, using PC OEM parts and designing them to fit in the iMac form factor. With exception of the Extensible Firmware Interface, everything inside and iMac can be found in any PC notebook computer with the Duo Core branding. I am sure this is costing Apple losing their loyal mac diehards that wanted to move away from the Wintel market and get something more reliable and better designed. With the exception of the case, Apple has lost ALL quality control with their iMac and MacBook computers, and with all future Mactels.
Apple didn't even do anything to prevent Windows from running on Mactel. I am sure Apple is banking that there will be an initial rush for PC users to buy an iMac or Macbook once someone figures out how to run Windows XP on a Mac. Apple may gain a few million quick sales, but eventually running Windows on a Mac will be a novelty that runs off. Apple risks losing OSX as the only major reason why anyone would switch to Apple, because they can get the job done with Windows on an Apple computer. Apple is risking the cost of years of OSX development to try and appeal to the rest of the PC market.
Until Apple starts shipping their new Mactel computers and people start to figure out how to run Windows on them, the verdict is out whether this was a good move on Apple's part. It may inspire a new generation of sales, even encouraging increased adoption of OSX, but in the end I think that any PC user buying a Mactel will be more to run Windows on it, and OSX will be a novelty OS running a few novel applications like Front Row, but not become their dominant OS of choice.
Lastely, what cost is it for Apple to put their software on their computers? I mean, Apple is not like Dell or HP having to license 3rd party software. Is Apple really charging themselves $400+ to install their own OS and software on a Mac? Could the iMac not be cheaper and still be highly lucrative for Apple?
As I get older, I am not as interesed in the A.D.D. type gaming that companies are targetting at 15 year olds. I don't get that much out of 3rd person shooters for instance, and would give my right arm for a decent RPG to hit the market that isn't based on Dungeons and Dragons.
I'm in my early 30's and still enjoy playing video games, as do most of my friends. It is something I grew up with, and I think we can safely say that video games are not childs play anymore. But is the industry really targetting adult players, or are they just hoping for enough adult players to keep up with the kids by playing overly spastic 3rd person deathmatches.
As an adult, I can't dedicate 6 hours a day to my favourite games. While I love a good RPG, I really can't waste 80 - 120 hours of my life to complete it. Few game companies seem to be making compelling games that can keep an adult occupied without reaching a point where and adult gamer is either bored with the content or can't waste more time finishing the game.
This is definitely a growing trend to have 30 and 40 somethings an older playing video games, and considering that adult gamers generally have more disposable income then a high school kids working at McDonald's, I hope the industry would recognize that targetting games at adults makes good economic sense.
Unfortunatly, companies like Nintendo can't realize this. They are too busy making ready the next pokemon or mario or zelda adventure. Zelda was fun to play, but the last overly cutesy childish Wind Waker on the Gamecube left me screaming for something more adult like to do, like my doing my taxes or doing home renovations. The Nintendo DS hasn't offered any compelling adult-centric games either.
But also just an unfortunately, companies like Sony that can be said to be more adult-centric are not making compelling games either. The PSP was a perfect adult centered device. Slick and sophisticated and expensive, adults would prefer this over the Nintendo DS, yet few games have been offered to really drive up sales of the PSP to adults.
There will always be a few gems on the market, like Civilisation 4, that will help drive sales to adult players, but for the most part I don't think the gaming industry really knows how to deal with aging adult players. Why don't the aging game developers start making games THEY would actually like to play, rather then trying to create the next teen sensation.
Take all the time you need, to get it right
on
PS3 In U.S. In November?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think we can all agree that the Xbox360 launch was dismal.
Hardware and software glitches, not enough stock, no real nex-generation games at launch and a lackluster Japan release along with rumours about when and how Microsoft will suppor HD-DVD all can be attributed to Microsoft rushing the Xbox360 out the door without proper testing and defining any real rollout plan.
If it takes Sony until November of this year to release the PS3, then if they are doing so to ensure a rock solid release with lots of really good software titles at the time of release, then by all means, take the time.
There is no real point for Sony to release the PS3 before the holiday season. Selling the PS3 in April or May of this year may generate a few million in quick sales, but sales will drop off until the holiday season anyways. Sony may be releasing that by waiting until he holiday season to drive up anticipation may help them gain record sales figures, especially if they can claim they could sell more units over Christmas then Xbox360 did last year.
In then end, I am in no real panic about when the PS3 will be released. Xbox360 isn't everything it was cracked up to be, and I can easily wait until the PS3 is released to make a final decision over which game unit to buy. By then, Nintendo should have offered their Revolution, so real comparison shopping can begin for this Christmas.
If they think they will sell more Macbooks because they can run Windows, it might be true in the short while, but in the long run, this will be their undoing.
Apple still insist on charging a premium for their name. PC users want good value for their money. Apple might inspire some PC users to adopt a higher priced Wintel machine, but in the end, PC users will avoid something overpriced and keep to their Dell's, HP's, Gateways, and the rest.
Apple can't compete against PC's on their own turf. Apple's only ace up their sleeves has been OSX.
If Apple things that by allowing dual booting of Windows with OSX will cause more sales, then they will also be saddly mistaken. Despite offering a good 1-2 punch in terms of good quality hardware and superior OS, Apple hasn't gained 1% more market share over the last few years. This is because, despite how superior OSX is compared to Windows, PC users use Windows at work, at home, at school, everywhere, so why bother trying to use another OS in one location. OSX is a novelty for most people, offering them some easier ways to do common things, but OSX has not triggered hordes of PC users to switch to Mac's.
In the end, Apple will become the best PC OEM distributor, for a while. Once Dell and HP see DIRECT competition from Apple (in terms of winning over Wintel customers), Dell and HP and all the rest will start to offer creatively styled PC's with superior hardware and undercut Apple on price, a price ware between Wintel and Mactell will occur, which is Apple's biggest weakness. Apple could never contend against Dell in terms of a price war, Dell sell's 10 times more computers per quarter then Apple. Dell has the wholesale agreements with PC component suppliers to guarantee low cost components (much like Apple and the flash ram suppliers), thus Dell will always be able to undercut Apple in terms of price.
If Apple truely hasn't done ANYTHING to prevent Windows from running on their products, this will be the biggest mistake they have ever made. They may generate a large amount of sales in the beginning, but eventually once the hype over running Windows on a Mac is over, PC users will go back to buying cheaper PC brands and Apple will have lost their edge and lost their identity in admist a highly competitive market. Apple probably has already lost their loyal fan base by moving to Intel. What market they may gain in the short term won't be of the same loyalty as those feverent Mac heads, PC users are a fickle bunch. If some new carrot is dangled in front of a PC user running Windows on a Mac, they will jump ship in a heartbeat. For instance, AMD comes out with some superior product compared to Intel's Duo Core technology. PC users are not loyal, they want the best performance for the best price, and Apple won't maintain that lead for long.
Considering these are PC notebook components, I doubt Apple went to any trouble to break the mold. If your PC notebook has diagnostic lights, then this one will, but it isn't in Intel's specs to have diagnostic lights with their chipset. Remember, Apple is abandoning their proprietary innovation by going with Intel so they can offer cheap PC OEM equipement in an expensive fancy package, they are not really IMPROVING PC technology.
Name one good reason why Apple would make a cellphone?
Can't think of one either myslef.
I mean, Apple should make cars, PDA's, televisions, cable boxes, light switches, DVD players, game consoles, etc, etc, etc. There are a slew of products I wish Apple could make to make my life easier or just make things nicer to look at, that doesn't mean Apple SHOULD make those products.
There is no point for Apple to make a cellphone. First, they would have to jump into the world of embedded processors and create an embedded version of OSX. This isn't going to happen. Second, they would have to create PDA like functionality to compete with the popularity of all-in-one communication devices like the Treo or Smartphones. This isn't going to happen. Lastely, this market is ALREADY saturated with manufacturers making wildly popular phones. Its not like when Apple created the iPod at a time when MP3 players were big and klunky and not well implemented. Companies like Nokia and Motorola already have a firm grip on consumers by making very good phones. Other companies like Samsung come out with hits every now and then as well. There is simple TOO much competion in this market for Apple to enter it.
Most people want an iPod that works as a cellphone. This isn't going to happen. Apple can't even add an FM Transmitter or Bluetooth or Wifi to an iPod for easier connectivity. Adding support for a cellphone service to iPod is going to happen?
Give it up. Apple isn't in the process or developing a cellphone. It isn't in their gameplan and there is no chance for them to compete well in this industry. It goes against their current philosophies. Apple would have had a PDA device available today if they ever considered making a cellphone.
I would expect an Apple vacuum cleaner before an Apple cellphone.
I never used Media Player much on the Mac anyways, but being left with only QuickTime as a "media player" on the Mac is a little disconcerting.
Quicktime is adequate as a codec, but as a "media player" it lacks greatly. Its nagware to begin with, whining about all the benefits of QT Pro the first time you run QT in any new session.
Second, no full screen support without PRO? I need to pay for full screen when EVERY OTHER free media player out there supports it for free.
Windows Media Player has the nice feature of allowing you to switch to full screen mode even if the video is embedded in a web page. You can't even access QT playback menu if the video is embedded in a web page.
I stick with Video Lan for Mac video playback as it is a slick piece of software that allows for support of ANY video codec (divx or xvid support for QT is spotty at best) and it supports full screen mode. Except for a few issues with the overall UI of the app (it is a perpetual beta software afterall) its a good piece of software for video playback.
BTW, if you get annoyed with the QT "Please switch to Pro" annoying pop-ups, there are lots of places on the web you can get to crack QT into the pro version so you can get rid of the nagware and get full screen mode for free, as it should be.
With all the world's online knowledge base at its finger tips and with computational grid networking, I think if any company will create a computer that gains accidental sentience it will be Google. Whether that will fall under Google's "Do No Evil" guidelines, well, when Google turns you into a battery, you can kick their ass then.
The good news is that with 95% of the world running Windows, any computer that gains sentience will BSOD because it performed an illegal operation.
The Linux community will try and duplicate the effort, but nobody will take command line sentience seriously.
Unfortunately in the end, Apple will perfect the sentient Google computer and make it run flawlessly until it wipes out mankind.
Why is nobody talking about Acer Travelmate 8200
on
The Media's Crush on Apple
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Same components, same form factor, available now, cheaper, faster processor, double the ram, more hard drive space compared to the MacBook.
The media, along with Apple, is delusional.
What worries me the most about this latest Apple announcment is that the media seems to be both shocked and amazed that Apple was able to switch to Intel only 6 months after they announced the partnership.
This comes from media sources that claim to be in the business of reporting technology.
Why isn't this really all that shocking?
First, Apple put a PC notebook in a Powerbook/iMac enclosure. Acer can do it, Dell can do it, HP can do it. There is no technological miracle involved in Apple getting an Intel CPU to work in a notebook formfactor, especially one designed by Intel to work in notebooks. I give a slight nod to Apple for putting it in a slightly thinner and lighter enclosure then the Acer Travelmate, but are we to believe that Apple spent the last 6 months designing the MacBook or iMac? Remeber that both the iMac and Mac mini use notebook components, so even those models are not technological miracle's as the media would have you believe. The fact that Apple moved to the Intel platfrom is not earth shattering from a hardware perspective.
Second. Apple has had an x86 compiled version of OSX since they first coined the name OSX. There has always been some form of OSX avialable on some form of PC hardware. Apple hedged their bets that IBM's PowerPC may not take them everywhere they want to go, and with Wintel dominating 95% of the market, I would have been fool hardy for Apple not to recognize the potential to run their OS on an x86 based computer. Also, given that fact that Apple did not start development fresh at the moment Apple and Intel announced their partnership. Chances are, Apple already had much of this development up their sleeves. The fact they moved to the Intel platform is not earth shattering from a software perspective.
Yet the media and many geeks are gobbling up this tripe hook, line and sinker. They foolishly believe Apple are hardware guru's for wrapping an existing powerbook enclosure around an Intel mobile platform. Apple's real design work came 3 years ago when they first created the Powerbook Aluminum line, Apple simply recycled components from the Powerbook, they didn't even change the case much except to correct weaknesses in that original design. These people foolishly believe that Apple redesigned OSX from the ground up to work on Intel hardware, but all they did was make it official.
The media hypes about Apple because Apple hypes about Apple. I will give it to Steve Jobs that he as a charisma that few other CEO's in the computer world have, or is it arrogance. It is because of that that Apple gets ANY newsplay for what they do. Remember that Apple is the underdog. The reason why there isn't any news alert for anything Bill Gates does is because there is no need to hype about Microsoft, Microsoft introduces new technology and 95% of the computer world uses that technology the next day or next month. There isn't any news alerts for Dell, Dell comes out with a new product and millions are sold the next week.
Only Apple, with its slight marketshare and EVERYTHING to loose needs to overhype their product announcements, making it seem like every little thing they do is a technological marvel. Steve Jobs in his last keynote speech was hyping about Widgets for goodness sakes. Widgets! What impact has widgets has in the computer world, zero! The problem is that the media buys into this hype without sitting back and gaining perspective and realizing that Acer has a PC notebook with the EXACT SAME COMPONENTS as the Macbook and nobody is marveling over it. Its because millions will buy the Acer Travelmate and the HP dv1000t and a slew of other Intel Duo Core notebooks without a second thought.
If Apple hasn't done anything to prevent Windows from running on Mactel's, then this is the biggest mistake Apple will ever make.
It will turn Apple into an OEM Wintel PC maker, like Dell, HP, Gateway, and the rest.
Turn Apple into a Wintel machine, and charge 15% to 30% more for it, why buy Apple, period? Apple will have to compete head to head against Dell, HP, and the rest. Dell and HP combined sell over 30 million PC's a quarter, Apple sells under 2 million. Why buy an Apple computer, which has the same OEM Asian components that Dell and HP have just because Apple puts it in a fancier box and charges you more money for it. Dell and HP will just as quickly put it in a fancier box, and charge less because they have the marketshare to drive prices down without hurting the bottom line.
Many may say, yes, but Mactel will run OSX. So what? OSX hasn't caused hordes of PC users to switch to Mac's. In fact, OSX hasn't caused any noticible increase in Apple's computer marketshare in the last 5 years. iPod has probably been responsible for more Mac sales then OSX, and that was before iPod supported Windows. What attraction do PC users have to running a computer that runs both OSX and Windows? It all comes down to price, and PC users have firmly supported the notion that they want computers to be cheap, along with flexibility and choice, all concepts Apple doesn't offer.
In the end, the first person to get Windows running on a MacBook or iMac, and Apple does nothing to stop it, this will mark a countdown that will lead to the end of Apple as a computer hardware company. People will lose interest in OSX and once people realize they are paying more for the same thing they can get cheaper from Dell and HP, Apple will not inspire much support in the market.
Lastely, the one reason why Apple exists to day is that they have always had a loyal and dedicated fanbase that has supported them through-out the years. What do these customers think of Apple becoming a PC Clone? Will the die-hard Mac using photoshop graphics guru continue to use Mac's, or will they find they can get the power and performance they need in a much cheaper PC that has the same features a Mac has? Are loyal Apple users happy about becoming PC users? If this fan base, that has created Apple's only niche market, loses interest, who will buy Apple computers?
Product marketers know kids are impressionable. Companies like McDonald's aggressively target kids to get them to see McDonald's as a fun place to visit and thus consume their products. Toy makers and other companies use gorilla like tactics to aggressively market to children.
Create a registry of children's email addresses and suddenly you provide fuel for lots of child-direct marketing involving these corporate preditors.
There are also huge security concerns. If this email list gets leaked or hacked and suddenly sexual preditors have a long list of children to try and prey on.
This all boils down to parents and their need to be more actively involved in their childs life. In ALL honestly, CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE THEIR OWN EMAIL ADDRESS, PERIOD!
I mean, perhaps by the time they hit high school, most children are well aware of what Viagra and have probaly seen porn anyways, so lets not throw them in the same category. High school age kids are not innocent these days.
But handing a 6 year old an email account is just opening them to the kind of things parents dread. Porn and sexual preditors and other questionable content. Children under the age of 12 simply shouldn't have their own email address. Let emails go to their parents and let the parent's filter out the emails and let their kids know if they have one written to them personally. Thats the most common sense thing to do.
I don't understand how a law can prevent children from being emailed porn or sexually related content. US is so hyped about making laws to protect kids or people from this or that, its turning their society into a group of people that can't act on their own behalf or take responsibility for their actions. Some one because of a victim of something, and suddenly they need to point fingers and use others a scapegoats for their own lack of judgement.
Perhaps the law should charge parents with negligence for allowing 6 year olds to browse the internet and send and receive emails unattended. As much as it must be a parents worst nightmare for a child to meet a stranger through the internet, a parent should be slapped with a fine in that case for not being more pro-actively involved in their childs internet access. Don't put a computer in a child's room, and don't let them access the internet unattended or supervised. It IS as easy as that, period! You don't need to waste millions in tax payer's money to create a superficial law that won't protect children in the long run.
Definitely cool and beneficial
on
Smart Power
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There are lots of hair-brained ideas to merge the Internet with Fridges and toasters, but when it comes to energy conservation, this is where the idea makes sense. It's not an outrageous idea at all.
First, by having each appliance monitor its energy consumption, this will make consumers aware of just how much energy respective appliances are using. Outside the Geek and Nerd community, many people are simply not aware that running an oven or dryer for hours at requires a lot of energy and can cost a lot of money. If you got an electric bill that could actually break down how much money your dryer or oven costs in power, energy consumers could make more informed choices about how they use these appliances.
Second, it gives customers more control over how they use their products. Ever leave a light on at home while your at work? How about those moments when you can't remember if you turned off your oven. Having internet access connected to the appliances and circuitry in your home gives you greater control and would allow you to stop situations where you might waste energy unknowingly.
For instance, why not just shut off power going to your oven when your at work. From 9 to 5pm, no power goes to the oven. This prevents the potential waste of energy (or potential disaster of fire) of forgetting to turn the oven off.
Having this level of home automation may not be for everyone, but for those who consider themselves environmentally friendly, having more information about and greater control over how they use energy makes a lot of sense in the long run.
In either case, I think that would have spelled disaster for these companies.
Apple doesn't have the mindset to enter the server market. Apple's server offerings have been novel toys in the industry, but few would agree that Apple has truely offered any server product worth its salt. Having Apple absorb Sparc and Solaris server technologies probably would have killed off those Sun products.
Sun would have destroyed Apple's innovation and creativity. Sun spent the better part of the 90's innovating through litegation, bringing MS to court as a way to try and compete with the behemoth rather then creating any good and innovative product to fight against MS. Sun stagnated developing the Sparc and Solaris lines as they dumped money trying to sue MS for anti-competitive business practices. Java suffered for about 5 years because of this, instead of improving the technology, Sun simply crippled it on the world's most dominant platform. Sun's current method of innovation is to create OEM PC Linux desktops and tweak a Linux distro to be more Java friendly.
Would Sun want to enter the consumer electronic's market? Would Solaris technologies enter OSX? Apple would not have embraced Linux the way Sun has. Apple wouldn't embrace Open Source the way Sun did. Open Office probably would have been turned into AppleWorks for retail sale. I can't see two more different companies in terms of overall motivation coming together.
The only thing that is common with the two companies is that they are fledglings trying to gain marketshare against Wintel. But any form of a SNAPPLE company would have failed because of just too many difference of opinions. In fighting between execs from both companies probably would have thrown the resulting company into chaos. Both Sun and Apple have STRONG opinions about their relative companies, I doubt Steve Jobs would have handed over much control to Scott McNealy, and vice versa.
The bottom line is, has Sun and Apple ever partnered or cooperated on ANYTHING?
It sounds like most of the Xbox360 initial release games were probably developed on test platforms and were obviously not developed or tested with Xbox360 hardware. From the dark screens in King Kong, to game hang's in PGR, to this relatively unecessary DOA4 bug, lots of people seem to be pulling their collars and scratching their heads wondering what went wrong? Microsoft rushed the Xbox360 out the door, that's what went wrong.
The Acer Travelmate has the same components, faster processor, more ram, more storage space, but a cheaper price.
Apple's doom is sealed if they are going to start charging more for the same thing you can get in the PC WORLD!
Only difference, Apple is running OSX, so Apple should charge less then the Acer Travelmate, Acer has to pay Microsoft for Windows, Apple doesn't have to pay anybody for OSX.
Apple doesn't get it. They have become PC OEM retailers and with the exception of the OS, every component is made by PC OEM manufacturers, but Apple thinks they can charge more for it. Brand recognition might drive big sales in the first few months, but eventually people are going to realize you can get the same performance in a PC product for cheaper without paying more for the branding, as has been the case for the last few years.
Apple DIDN'T EVEN REDESIGN THE CASE!
MacBook Pro = the biggest joke yet. Apple claims it is more then a PC, it IS a PC, just costs more.
We can finally compare Apple's to Apple's now, I can't wait for the benchmarks that prove Apple isn't anything more then a PC with a different logo. Considering OSX has had lousy comparisons to similar Linux and Windows concepts (like threading performance, etc) which have been provem kernel related, I am sure that we will find that performance on the Mactels are probably not as good as with the same system running Linux or Windows.
Good luck Apple! After a year of hype you have come out with a product that has already been on the market for months.
iPod's audio quality isn't the best. Its not overly powerful, its quiet on most good quality headphones. I here some faint digital "chatter" in the background, such as noise caused by the hard drive (or so I thought). I still hear this chatter on my Shuffle without any moving parts, so this leads me to believe that its a hardware issue. However, I don't here this chatter on a good quality pair of headphones like Sony DJ's or Sennheiser's, only on the really crappy Apple headphones which are way too tinny for my tastes. Not enough bass comes out of Apple's headphones. I generally have not heard any static or background noise as I have heard from cheaper digital music players.
When you hook the iPod to any good receiver or external speakers, the audio quailty is about as good as any digital media player. A system with good bass and good processing handles the relatively weak output of the iPod well for good overall sound.
The end result is, NO digital media player is for audiophiles, but the iPod is about as good as any. You will get lots of bias feedback saying Apple is the best, or the worst, but its about middle of the road, the digital chatter I hear is annoying only if you like your treble levels high, which most people don't.
In the end, compared to Creative or another comparible price/featured product, I doubt your going to find any of them setting themselves appart greatly in terms of audio quality. Only that the Creative actually uses a real equalizer feature to help fine tune things unlike the cheesy presets Apple uses. In my experience, using ANY iPod preset results in lousy audio quality as their digital audio processing isn't that great and make the music sound overly processed.
Would I not recommend the iPod based on audio quality alone, no. There are a lot more features and benefits using an iPod then a few audio quirks which are mostly overcome using better speakers/headphones. Just that I get sick and tired when people seem to feel that one digital audio player is better sounding the the next, except for really cheap ones, most in the $300 range are comparable, just depends how much bias is behind the person recommending them.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when? I have never known Steve Jobs to overhype Apple products with fictitious performance claims and grand statements like "Super Computer for your Desktop".
Isn't NBC owned by Vivendi, at least partially. It would be pretty bad if a US television station no longer received investment from American sources.
All is the operative word, meaning, Nintendo hasn't confirmed anything.
This is a good question, anyone have a link or insight to how Google's infrastructure works? I am sure that there is no ONE connection from Google to the internet, they probably have regional servers, so I am sure that not only is Bell South getting their due share, but many other baby bells as well.
As it is they are banking their reputation and identity as a computer manufacturer. If this Mactel venture goes south, I doubt Apple could recover from it (except to try out a partnership with AMD). They burned their bridges with Motorola, burned them again with IBM, and if they burn them with Intel, few would probably want to partner with Apple.
What is a Mactel anyways? A PC running OSX. Apple has lost their reputation as a proprietary computer platform. From what I am reading, Apple did very little innovation with Intel, using PC OEM parts and designing them to fit in the iMac form factor. With exception of the Extensible Firmware Interface, everything inside and iMac can be found in any PC notebook computer with the Duo Core branding. I am sure this is costing Apple losing their loyal mac diehards that wanted to move away from the Wintel market and get something more reliable and better designed. With the exception of the case, Apple has lost ALL quality control with their iMac and MacBook computers, and with all future Mactels.
Apple didn't even do anything to prevent Windows from running on Mactel. I am sure Apple is banking that there will be an initial rush for PC users to buy an iMac or Macbook once someone figures out how to run Windows XP on a Mac. Apple may gain a few million quick sales, but eventually running Windows on a Mac will be a novelty that runs off. Apple risks losing OSX as the only major reason why anyone would switch to Apple, because they can get the job done with Windows on an Apple computer. Apple is risking the cost of years of OSX development to try and appeal to the rest of the PC market.
Until Apple starts shipping their new Mactel computers and people start to figure out how to run Windows on them, the verdict is out whether this was a good move on Apple's part. It may inspire a new generation of sales, even encouraging increased adoption of OSX, but in the end I think that any PC user buying a Mactel will be more to run Windows on it, and OSX will be a novelty OS running a few novel applications like Front Row, but not become their dominant OS of choice.
Lastely, what cost is it for Apple to put their software on their computers? I mean, Apple is not like Dell or HP having to license 3rd party software. Is Apple really charging themselves $400+ to install their own OS and software on a Mac? Could the iMac not be cheaper and still be highly lucrative for Apple?
As I get older, I am not as interesed in the A.D.D. type gaming that companies are targetting at 15 year olds. I don't get that much out of 3rd person shooters for instance, and would give my right arm for a decent RPG to hit the market that isn't based on Dungeons and Dragons.
I'm in my early 30's and still enjoy playing video games, as do most of my friends. It is something I grew up with, and I think we can safely say that video games are not childs play anymore. But is the industry really targetting adult players, or are they just hoping for enough adult players to keep up with the kids by playing overly spastic 3rd person deathmatches.
As an adult, I can't dedicate 6 hours a day to my favourite games. While I love a good RPG, I really can't waste 80 - 120 hours of my life to complete it. Few game companies seem to be making compelling games that can keep an adult occupied without reaching a point where and adult gamer is either bored with the content or can't waste more time finishing the game.
This is definitely a growing trend to have 30 and 40 somethings an older playing video games, and considering that adult gamers generally have more disposable income then a high school kids working at McDonald's, I hope the industry would recognize that targetting games at adults makes good economic sense.
Unfortunatly, companies like Nintendo can't realize this. They are too busy making ready the next pokemon or mario or zelda adventure. Zelda was fun to play, but the last overly cutesy childish Wind Waker on the Gamecube left me screaming for something more adult like to do, like my doing my taxes or doing home renovations. The Nintendo DS hasn't offered any compelling adult-centric games either.
But also just an unfortunately, companies like Sony that can be said to be more adult-centric are not making compelling games either. The PSP was a perfect adult centered device. Slick and sophisticated and expensive, adults would prefer this over the Nintendo DS, yet few games have been offered to really drive up sales of the PSP to adults.
There will always be a few gems on the market, like Civilisation 4, that will help drive sales to adult players, but for the most part I don't think the gaming industry really knows how to deal with aging adult players. Why don't the aging game developers start making games THEY would actually like to play, rather then trying to create the next teen sensation.
I think we can all agree that the Xbox360 launch was dismal.
Hardware and software glitches, not enough stock, no real nex-generation games at launch and a lackluster Japan release along with rumours about when and how Microsoft will suppor HD-DVD all can be attributed to Microsoft rushing the Xbox360 out the door without proper testing and defining any real rollout plan.
If it takes Sony until November of this year to release the PS3, then if they are doing so to ensure a rock solid release with lots of really good software titles at the time of release, then by all means, take the time.
There is no real point for Sony to release the PS3 before the holiday season. Selling the PS3 in April or May of this year may generate a few million in quick sales, but sales will drop off until the holiday season anyways. Sony may be releasing that by waiting until he holiday season to drive up anticipation may help them gain record sales figures, especially if they can claim they could sell more units over Christmas then Xbox360 did last year.
In then end, I am in no real panic about when the PS3 will be released. Xbox360 isn't everything it was cracked up to be, and I can easily wait until the PS3 is released to make a final decision over which game unit to buy. By then, Nintendo should have offered their Revolution, so real comparison shopping can begin for this Christmas.
If they think they will sell more Macbooks because they can run Windows, it might be true in the short while, but in the long run, this will be their undoing.
Apple still insist on charging a premium for their name. PC users want good value for their money. Apple might inspire some PC users to adopt a higher priced Wintel machine, but in the end, PC users will avoid something overpriced and keep to their Dell's, HP's, Gateways, and the rest.
Apple can't compete against PC's on their own turf. Apple's only ace up their sleeves has been OSX.
If Apple things that by allowing dual booting of Windows with OSX will cause more sales, then they will also be saddly mistaken. Despite offering a good 1-2 punch in terms of good quality hardware and superior OS, Apple hasn't gained 1% more market share over the last few years. This is because, despite how superior OSX is compared to Windows, PC users use Windows at work, at home, at school, everywhere, so why bother trying to use another OS in one location. OSX is a novelty for most people, offering them some easier ways to do common things, but OSX has not triggered hordes of PC users to switch to Mac's.
In the end, Apple will become the best PC OEM distributor, for a while. Once Dell and HP see DIRECT competition from Apple (in terms of winning over Wintel customers), Dell and HP and all the rest will start to offer creatively styled PC's with superior hardware and undercut Apple on price, a price ware between Wintel and Mactell will occur, which is Apple's biggest weakness. Apple could never contend against Dell in terms of a price war, Dell sell's 10 times more computers per quarter then Apple. Dell has the wholesale agreements with PC component suppliers to guarantee low cost components (much like Apple and the flash ram suppliers), thus Dell will always be able to undercut Apple in terms of price.
If Apple truely hasn't done ANYTHING to prevent Windows from running on their products, this will be the biggest mistake they have ever made. They may generate a large amount of sales in the beginning, but eventually once the hype over running Windows on a Mac is over, PC users will go back to buying cheaper PC brands and Apple will have lost their edge and lost their identity in admist a highly competitive market. Apple probably has already lost their loyal fan base by moving to Intel. What market they may gain in the short term won't be of the same loyalty as those feverent Mac heads, PC users are a fickle bunch. If some new carrot is dangled in front of a PC user running Windows on a Mac, they will jump ship in a heartbeat. For instance, AMD comes out with some superior product compared to Intel's Duo Core technology. PC users are not loyal, they want the best performance for the best price, and Apple won't maintain that lead for long.
Considering these are PC notebook components, I doubt Apple went to any trouble to break the mold. If your PC notebook has diagnostic lights, then this one will, but it isn't in Intel's specs to have diagnostic lights with their chipset. Remember, Apple is abandoning their proprietary innovation by going with Intel so they can offer cheap PC OEM equipement in an expensive fancy package, they are not really IMPROVING PC technology.
Name one good reason why Apple would make a cellphone?
Can't think of one either myslef.
I mean, Apple should make cars, PDA's, televisions, cable boxes, light switches, DVD players, game consoles, etc, etc, etc. There are a slew of products I wish Apple could make to make my life easier or just make things nicer to look at, that doesn't mean Apple SHOULD make those products.
There is no point for Apple to make a cellphone. First, they would have to jump into the world of embedded processors and create an embedded version of OSX. This isn't going to happen. Second, they would have to create PDA like functionality to compete with the popularity of all-in-one communication devices like the Treo or Smartphones. This isn't going to happen. Lastely, this market is ALREADY saturated with manufacturers making wildly popular phones. Its not like when Apple created the iPod at a time when MP3 players were big and klunky and not well implemented. Companies like Nokia and Motorola already have a firm grip on consumers by making very good phones. Other companies like Samsung come out with hits every now and then as well. There is simple TOO much competion in this market for Apple to enter it.
Most people want an iPod that works as a cellphone. This isn't going to happen. Apple can't even add an FM Transmitter or Bluetooth or Wifi to an iPod for easier connectivity. Adding support for a cellphone service to iPod is going to happen?
Give it up. Apple isn't in the process or developing a cellphone. It isn't in their gameplan and there is no chance for them to compete well in this industry. It goes against their current philosophies. Apple would have had a PDA device available today if they ever considered making a cellphone.
I would expect an Apple vacuum cleaner before an Apple cellphone.
Or, you can turn on Automatic Updates and forget about it. Set and Forget.
Although the need to reboot after most updates is a continued tiresome necessity on Windows. But then, even on OSX reboots are necessary.
I never used Media Player much on the Mac anyways, but being left with only QuickTime as a "media player" on the Mac is a little disconcerting.
Quicktime is adequate as a codec, but as a "media player" it lacks greatly. Its nagware to begin with, whining about all the benefits of QT Pro the first time you run QT in any new session.
Second, no full screen support without PRO? I need to pay for full screen when EVERY OTHER free media player out there supports it for free.
Windows Media Player has the nice feature of allowing you to switch to full screen mode even if the video is embedded in a web page. You can't even access QT playback menu if the video is embedded in a web page.
I stick with Video Lan for Mac video playback as it is a slick piece of software that allows for support of ANY video codec (divx or xvid support for QT is spotty at best) and it supports full screen mode. Except for a few issues with the overall UI of the app (it is a perpetual beta software afterall) its a good piece of software for video playback.
BTW, if you get annoyed with the QT "Please switch to Pro" annoying pop-ups, there are lots of places on the web you can get to crack QT into the pro version so you can get rid of the nagware and get full screen mode for free, as it should be.
Google = SkyNet = the Matrix.
With all the world's online knowledge base at its finger tips and with computational grid networking, I think if any company will create a computer that gains accidental sentience it will be Google. Whether that will fall under Google's "Do No Evil" guidelines, well, when Google turns you into a battery, you can kick their ass then.
The good news is that with 95% of the world running Windows, any computer that gains sentience will BSOD because it performed an illegal operation.
The Linux community will try and duplicate the effort, but nobody will take command line sentience seriously.
Unfortunately in the end, Apple will perfect the sentient Google computer and make it run flawlessly until it wipes out mankind.
Same components, same form factor, available now, cheaper, faster processor, double the ram, more hard drive space compared to the MacBook.
The media, along with Apple, is delusional.
What worries me the most about this latest Apple announcment is that the media seems to be both shocked and amazed that Apple was able to switch to Intel only 6 months after they announced the partnership.
This comes from media sources that claim to be in the business of reporting technology.
Why isn't this really all that shocking?
First, Apple put a PC notebook in a Powerbook/iMac enclosure. Acer can do it, Dell can do it, HP can do it. There is no technological miracle involved in Apple getting an Intel CPU to work in a notebook formfactor, especially one designed by Intel to work in notebooks. I give a slight nod to Apple for putting it in a slightly thinner and lighter enclosure then the Acer Travelmate, but are we to believe that Apple spent the last 6 months designing the MacBook or iMac? Remeber that both the iMac and Mac mini use notebook components, so even those models are not technological miracle's as the media would have you believe. The fact that Apple moved to the Intel platfrom is not earth shattering from a hardware perspective.
Second. Apple has had an x86 compiled version of OSX since they first coined the name OSX. There has always been some form of OSX avialable on some form of PC hardware. Apple hedged their bets that IBM's PowerPC may not take them everywhere they want to go, and with Wintel dominating 95% of the market, I would have been fool hardy for Apple not to recognize the potential to run their OS on an x86 based computer. Also, given that fact that Apple did not start development fresh at the moment Apple and Intel announced their partnership. Chances are, Apple already had much of this development up their sleeves. The fact they moved to the Intel platform is not earth shattering from a software perspective.
Yet the media and many geeks are gobbling up this tripe hook, line and sinker. They foolishly believe Apple are hardware guru's for wrapping an existing powerbook enclosure around an Intel mobile platform. Apple's real design work came 3 years ago when they first created the Powerbook Aluminum line, Apple simply recycled components from the Powerbook, they didn't even change the case much except to correct weaknesses in that original design. These people foolishly believe that Apple redesigned OSX from the ground up to work on Intel hardware, but all they did was make it official.
The media hypes about Apple because Apple hypes about Apple. I will give it to Steve Jobs that he as a charisma that few other CEO's in the computer world have, or is it arrogance. It is because of that that Apple gets ANY newsplay for what they do. Remember that Apple is the underdog. The reason why there isn't any news alert for anything Bill Gates does is because there is no need to hype about Microsoft, Microsoft introduces new technology and 95% of the computer world uses that technology the next day or next month. There isn't any news alerts for Dell, Dell comes out with a new product and millions are sold the next week.
Only Apple, with its slight marketshare and EVERYTHING to loose needs to overhype their product announcements, making it seem like every little thing they do is a technological marvel. Steve Jobs in his last keynote speech was hyping about Widgets for goodness sakes. Widgets! What impact has widgets has in the computer world, zero! The problem is that the media buys into this hype without sitting back and gaining perspective and realizing that Acer has a PC notebook with the EXACT SAME COMPONENTS as the Macbook and nobody is marveling over it. Its because millions will buy the Acer Travelmate and the HP dv1000t and a slew of other Intel Duo Core notebooks without a second thought.
If Apple hasn't done anything to prevent Windows from running on Mactel's, then this is the biggest mistake Apple will ever make.
It will turn Apple into an OEM Wintel PC maker, like Dell, HP, Gateway, and the rest.
Turn Apple into a Wintel machine, and charge 15% to 30% more for it, why buy Apple, period? Apple will have to compete head to head against Dell, HP, and the rest. Dell and HP combined sell over 30 million PC's a quarter, Apple sells under 2 million. Why buy an Apple computer, which has the same OEM Asian components that Dell and HP have just because Apple puts it in a fancier box and charges you more money for it. Dell and HP will just as quickly put it in a fancier box, and charge less because they have the marketshare to drive prices down without hurting the bottom line.
Many may say, yes, but Mactel will run OSX. So what? OSX hasn't caused hordes of PC users to switch to Mac's. In fact, OSX hasn't caused any noticible increase in Apple's computer marketshare in the last 5 years. iPod has probably been responsible for more Mac sales then OSX, and that was before iPod supported Windows. What attraction do PC users have to running a computer that runs both OSX and Windows? It all comes down to price, and PC users have firmly supported the notion that they want computers to be cheap, along with flexibility and choice, all concepts Apple doesn't offer.
In the end, the first person to get Windows running on a MacBook or iMac, and Apple does nothing to stop it, this will mark a countdown that will lead to the end of Apple as a computer hardware company. People will lose interest in OSX and once people realize they are paying more for the same thing they can get cheaper from Dell and HP, Apple will not inspire much support in the market.
Lastely, the one reason why Apple exists to day is that they have always had a loyal and dedicated fanbase that has supported them through-out the years. What do these customers think of Apple becoming a PC Clone? Will the die-hard Mac using photoshop graphics guru continue to use Mac's, or will they find they can get the power and performance they need in a much cheaper PC that has the same features a Mac has? Are loyal Apple users happy about becoming PC users? If this fan base, that has created Apple's only niche market, loses interest, who will buy Apple computers?
Product marketers know kids are impressionable. Companies like McDonald's aggressively target kids to get them to see McDonald's as a fun place to visit and thus consume their products. Toy makers and other companies use gorilla like tactics to aggressively market to children.
Create a registry of children's email addresses and suddenly you provide fuel for lots of child-direct marketing involving these corporate preditors.
There are also huge security concerns. If this email list gets leaked or hacked and suddenly sexual preditors have a long list of children to try and prey on.
This all boils down to parents and their need to be more actively involved in their childs life. In ALL honestly, CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE THEIR OWN EMAIL ADDRESS, PERIOD!
I mean, perhaps by the time they hit high school, most children are well aware of what Viagra and have probaly seen porn anyways, so lets not throw them in the same category. High school age kids are not innocent these days.
But handing a 6 year old an email account is just opening them to the kind of things parents dread. Porn and sexual preditors and other questionable content. Children under the age of 12 simply shouldn't have their own email address. Let emails go to their parents and let the parent's filter out the emails and let their kids know if they have one written to them personally. Thats the most common sense thing to do.
I don't understand how a law can prevent children from being emailed porn or sexually related content. US is so hyped about making laws to protect kids or people from this or that, its turning their society into a group of people that can't act on their own behalf or take responsibility for their actions. Some one because of a victim of something, and suddenly they need to point fingers and use others a scapegoats for their own lack of judgement.
Perhaps the law should charge parents with negligence for allowing 6 year olds to browse the internet and send and receive emails unattended. As much as it must be a parents worst nightmare for a child to meet a stranger through the internet, a parent should be slapped with a fine in that case for not being more pro-actively involved in their childs internet access. Don't put a computer in a child's room, and don't let them access the internet unattended or supervised. It IS as easy as that, period! You don't need to waste millions in tax payer's money to create a superficial law that won't protect children in the long run.
There are lots of hair-brained ideas to merge the Internet with Fridges and toasters, but when it comes to energy conservation, this is where the idea makes sense. It's not an outrageous idea at all.
First, by having each appliance monitor its energy consumption, this will make consumers aware of just how much energy respective appliances are using. Outside the Geek and Nerd community, many people are simply not aware that running an oven or dryer for hours at requires a lot of energy and can cost a lot of money. If you got an electric bill that could actually break down how much money your dryer or oven costs in power, energy consumers could make more informed choices about how they use these appliances.
Second, it gives customers more control over how they use their products. Ever leave a light on at home while your at work? How about those moments when you can't remember if you turned off your oven. Having internet access connected to the appliances and circuitry in your home gives you greater control and would allow you to stop situations where you might waste energy unknowingly.
For instance, why not just shut off power going to your oven when your at work. From 9 to 5pm, no power goes to the oven. This prevents the potential waste of energy (or potential disaster of fire) of forgetting to turn the oven off.
Having this level of home automation may not be for everyone, but for those who consider themselves environmentally friendly, having more information about and greater control over how they use energy makes a lot of sense in the long run.
Sun buying out Apple or Sun merging into Apple?
In either case, I think that would have spelled disaster for these companies.
Apple doesn't have the mindset to enter the server market. Apple's server offerings have been novel toys in the industry, but few would agree that Apple has truely offered any server product worth its salt. Having Apple absorb Sparc and Solaris server technologies probably would have killed off those Sun products.
Sun would have destroyed Apple's innovation and creativity. Sun spent the better part of the 90's innovating through litegation, bringing MS to court as a way to try and compete with the behemoth rather then creating any good and innovative product to fight against MS. Sun stagnated developing the Sparc and Solaris lines as they dumped money trying to sue MS for anti-competitive business practices. Java suffered for about 5 years because of this, instead of improving the technology, Sun simply crippled it on the world's most dominant platform. Sun's current method of innovation is to create OEM PC Linux desktops and tweak a Linux distro to be more Java friendly.
Would Sun want to enter the consumer electronic's market? Would Solaris technologies enter OSX? Apple would not have embraced Linux the way Sun has. Apple wouldn't embrace Open Source the way Sun did. Open Office probably would have been turned into AppleWorks for retail sale. I can't see two more different companies in terms of overall motivation coming together.
The only thing that is common with the two companies is that they are fledglings trying to gain marketshare against Wintel. But any form of a SNAPPLE company would have failed because of just too many difference of opinions. In fighting between execs from both companies probably would have thrown the resulting company into chaos. Both Sun and Apple have STRONG opinions about their relative companies, I doubt Steve Jobs would have handed over much control to Scott McNealy, and vice versa.
The bottom line is, has Sun and Apple ever partnered or cooperated on ANYTHING?
It sounds like most of the Xbox360 initial release games were probably developed on test platforms and were obviously not developed or tested with Xbox360 hardware. From the dark screens in King Kong, to game hang's in PGR, to this relatively unecessary DOA4 bug, lots of people seem to be pulling their collars and scratching their heads wondering what went wrong? Microsoft rushed the Xbox360 out the door, that's what went wrong.
You can have it now, buy an Acer Travelmate 8200, Same components, faster CPU, double the ram, more hard drive space, cheaper price, available now.
The Acer Travelmate has the same components, faster processor, more ram, more storage space, but a cheaper price.
Apple's doom is sealed if they are going to start charging more for the same thing you can get in the PC WORLD!
Only difference, Apple is running OSX, so Apple should charge less then the Acer Travelmate, Acer has to pay Microsoft for Windows, Apple doesn't have to pay anybody for OSX.
Apple doesn't get it. They have become PC OEM retailers and with the exception of the OS, every component is made by PC OEM manufacturers, but Apple thinks they can charge more for it. Brand recognition might drive big sales in the first few months, but eventually people are going to realize you can get the same performance in a PC product for cheaper without paying more for the branding, as has been the case for the last few years.
Apple DIDN'T EVEN REDESIGN THE CASE!
MacBook Pro = the biggest joke yet. Apple claims it is more then a PC, it IS a PC, just costs more.
We can finally compare Apple's to Apple's now, I can't wait for the benchmarks that prove Apple isn't anything more then a PC with a different logo. Considering OSX has had lousy comparisons to similar Linux and Windows concepts (like threading performance, etc) which have been provem kernel related, I am sure that we will find that performance on the Mactels are probably not as good as with the same system running Linux or Windows.
Good luck Apple! After a year of hype you have come out with a product that has already been on the market for months.
The author obviously figured out how to use a 101 button controller to write his article, so I don't know how a 12 button controller is confusing!
iPod's audio quality isn't the best. Its not overly powerful, its quiet on most good quality headphones. I here some faint digital "chatter" in the background, such as noise caused by the hard drive (or so I thought). I still hear this chatter on my Shuffle without any moving parts, so this leads me to believe that its a hardware issue. However, I don't here this chatter on a good quality pair of headphones like Sony DJ's or Sennheiser's, only on the really crappy Apple headphones which are way too tinny for my tastes. Not enough bass comes out of Apple's headphones. I generally have not heard any static or background noise as I have heard from cheaper digital music players.
When you hook the iPod to any good receiver or external speakers, the audio quailty is about as good as any digital media player. A system with good bass and good processing handles the relatively weak output of the iPod well for good overall sound.
The end result is, NO digital media player is for audiophiles, but the iPod is about as good as any. You will get lots of bias feedback saying Apple is the best, or the worst, but its about middle of the road, the digital chatter I hear is annoying only if you like your treble levels high, which most people don't.
In the end, compared to Creative or another comparible price/featured product, I doubt your going to find any of them setting themselves appart greatly in terms of audio quality. Only that the Creative actually uses a real equalizer feature to help fine tune things unlike the cheesy presets Apple uses. In my experience, using ANY iPod preset results in lousy audio quality as their digital audio processing isn't that great and make the music sound overly processed.
Would I not recommend the iPod based on audio quality alone, no. There are a lot more features and benefits using an iPod then a few audio quirks which are mostly overcome using better speakers/headphones. Just that I get sick and tired when people seem to feel that one digital audio player is better sounding the the next, except for really cheap ones, most in the $300 range are comparable, just depends how much bias is behind the person recommending them.
Makes real heros like Terry Fox or Rick Hanson pale in comparison doesn't it.
So will the RIAA impose a Music Levy Tax because this device can play copyrighted music?