This is the last comment I'm ever going to leave here.
I wrote a comment that was on topic and was not redundant when I started writing it.
It was scored down for no apparent reason.
This ridiculous school yard rating is juvenile and is why Slashdot is on the decline and being usurped by other tech sites.
I assume this post will get scored down as well so that few will ever see it, but I wanted to do my part to raise awareness about what's killing Slashdot.
Farewell Slashdot.
There is a flaw in that logic as far as I can see. People who are going to buy Apple hardware just to run another OS on it are going to be in addition to the people who are are going to buy it just for the OS, not instead of. It doesn't really matter why you buy a Mac, it only matters that you buy a Mac. That way the company will say "we'll keep doing what we're doing with the OS and the other people will still buy our products anyway." Also, I think there will only be a small number of people who will do this as most people are not geeks like us. Also, there will be a percent of that number who will buy a Mac thinking they will probably buy it just to replace the Mac OS but then use it for a little while and decide to stick with it.
Overall I can only see the move to x86 growing the Mac OS mindshare, not reducing it. The only real way I can see the move reducing the Mac OS mindshare is if programmers say to themselves "both mac and windows users can now run our program as as a windows only program since Mac users will be able to dual boot or run windows programs natively some other way now, so we are no longer going to release our programs for Mac." But I doubt that will happen either.
I don't have any names, but there are programs out there that convert image files of scanned in sheet music and turns them into midi files that any media software could playback.
Why can't they just make an auto pilot override override? If the plane is doing something automatically that's fakakta why cant the pilot just hit a button and resume manual control?
Well I can understand your point of view in that case, but it is something that happens in all products in all markets. If I want to buy a 2004 Ford pickup truck in 2005 because I like them better, Ford doesn't sell those models any more. My only choice is to buy it used. It's an unfortunate reality that as new models of any product come out the old models are discontinued. And if a company is making the right business decision then many more people will want to buy the new model than were looking to buy the old model, whether because some people just want the latest thing or because it's actually a better product. It just a fact of the market economy. And in the rare cases when a new product is not selling as well as the old one then occasionally the new 1 will be discontinued and the old model put back in production. But in the case of the Nano, I predict a whole lot of them flying off the shelf.
I totally agree! Why don't they just come out with a 300 cd changer attached to a battery so I can take my whole music collection with me! The answer: because a portable music player has 2 main features: music and size. Having your music be most easily carried with you is the entire point that makes these products different than something to play your music at home. It's not just about capacity, but also portability. 4 gig worth of full size ipod costs less than 4 gig worth of iPod mini which is worth less than 4 gig of the much thinner iPod nano. The smaller the package the more each gig costs. That's the way Apple and every other portable audio maker on the market sets their price. It's not rocket science.
More features does not automatically equal a better product, even if those features are ones that the user wants. If, I said if, adding more feature creates more complexity and a lesser user experience, than the product is now worse, even if it theoretically does more that a user might want. What many people fail to understand is that the thing that makes the iPod / iTunes solution the most attractive to most users is exactly BECAUSE it isn't overloaded with every bell and whistle but rather focuses on it's core objective. This allows the end user the greatest possible experience in the area that he was seeking the product for in the first place. If you sacrifice your primary objective, it doesn't matter how many secondary objectives you hit because the product has failed it's primary objective.
You are incorrect. Statistically, Macs stay in use for many more years than Windows boxes. That means that the installed base of Macs is much higher than just looking at how many Macs are sold vs. Windows boxes.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the last comment I'm ever going to leave here. I wrote a comment that was on topic and was not redundant when I started writing it. It was scored down for no apparent reason. This ridiculous school yard rating is juvenile and is why Slashdot is on the decline and being usurped by other tech sites. I assume this post will get scored down as well so that few will ever see it, but I wanted to do my part to raise awareness about what's killing Slashdot. Farewell Slashdot.
There is a flaw in that logic as far as I can see. People who are going to buy Apple hardware just to run another OS on it are going to be in addition to the people who are are going to buy it just for the OS, not instead of. It doesn't really matter why you buy a Mac, it only matters that you buy a Mac. That way the company will say "we'll keep doing what we're doing with the OS and the other people will still buy our products anyway." Also, I think there will only be a small number of people who will do this as most people are not geeks like us. Also, there will be a percent of that number who will buy a Mac thinking they will probably buy it just to replace the Mac OS but then use it for a little while and decide to stick with it. Overall I can only see the move to x86 growing the Mac OS mindshare, not reducing it. The only real way I can see the move reducing the Mac OS mindshare is if programmers say to themselves "both mac and windows users can now run our program as as a windows only program since Mac users will be able to dual boot or run windows programs natively some other way now, so we are no longer going to release our programs for Mac." But I doubt that will happen either.
I don't have any names, but there are programs out there that convert image files of scanned in sheet music and turns them into midi files that any media software could playback.
Why can't they just make an auto pilot override override? If the plane is doing something automatically that's fakakta why cant the pilot just hit a button and resume manual control?
Well I can understand your point of view in that case, but it is something that happens in all products in all markets. If I want to buy a 2004 Ford pickup truck in 2005 because I like them better, Ford doesn't sell those models any more. My only choice is to buy it used. It's an unfortunate reality that as new models of any product come out the old models are discontinued. And if a company is making the right business decision then many more people will want to buy the new model than were looking to buy the old model, whether because some people just want the latest thing or because it's actually a better product. It just a fact of the market economy. And in the rare cases when a new product is not selling as well as the old one then occasionally the new 1 will be discontinued and the old model put back in production. But in the case of the Nano, I predict a whole lot of them flying off the shelf.
I totally agree! Why don't they just come out with a 300 cd changer attached to a battery so I can take my whole music collection with me! The answer: because a portable music player has 2 main features: music and size. Having your music be most easily carried with you is the entire point that makes these products different than something to play your music at home. It's not just about capacity, but also portability. 4 gig worth of full size ipod costs less than 4 gig worth of iPod mini which is worth less than 4 gig of the much thinner iPod nano. The smaller the package the more each gig costs. That's the way Apple and every other portable audio maker on the market sets their price. It's not rocket science.
More features does not automatically equal a better product, even if those features are ones that the user wants. If, I said if, adding more feature creates more complexity and a lesser user experience, than the product is now worse, even if it theoretically does more that a user might want. What many people fail to understand is that the thing that makes the iPod / iTunes solution the most attractive to most users is exactly BECAUSE it isn't overloaded with every bell and whistle but rather focuses on it's core objective. This allows the end user the greatest possible experience in the area that he was seeking the product for in the first place. If you sacrifice your primary objective, it doesn't matter how many secondary objectives you hit because the product has failed it's primary objective.
You are incorrect. Statistically, Macs stay in use for many more years than Windows boxes. That means that the installed base of Macs is much higher than just looking at how many Macs are sold vs. Windows boxes.