Re:Now all we need is a company that stands behind
on
MacBook Pro Reviewed
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Although your repair experiences are no doubt aggravating, you are one person and thus represent too small a sample to form a general conclusion on the overall platform. For that, a large sample is needed. The data I have seen from Consumer Reports surveys of readers (a sample of 134,000 computers) reported in the December 2005 issue suggest the opposite conclusion:
For both laptops and desktops, Apple scored highest in customer satisfaction with tech support by a considerable amount. For example, for laptops, Apple scored 82 (very satisfied). This compares to 70 for IBM, 58 for Toshiba, 58 for Dell, 57 for Gateway, 55 for HP, 53 for Sony, and 49 for Compaq.
In terms of the percentage of computers that needed repairs, Apple was the lowest among makers of desktop computers. Among laptops, Apple was 4th lowest, behind Sony, IBM and Toshiba. Following Apple was HP, Dell, Compaq, and Gateway.
Apple also scores very high in the reader surveys conducted by PC World. So, while your experience was no doubt bad, the conclusion that "Apple sucks as a hardware producer and support company" is not merited.
I am often skeptical about articles from this author, John Markoff, concerning Apple. He often seems to go out of his way to tout competing products over Apple's, or just try to make Apple look bad. For example, he was the one who wrote the article, "Michael Dell Should Eat His Words, Apple Chief Suggests." In this article, Jobs did not say anything so confrontational. He only pointed out how Apple had passed Dell in market cap, noted that this may not last (it didn't), and marked this as a milestone given that Dell had one said Apple should be closed down. Although I know the headline was probably not his doing, the article still tried to make a confrontation where there wasn't one.
Did you read the story? It has almost nothing to do with iTunes other than that one could subscribe to the free podcast using iTunes. The producers of the podcast themselves decided to move to a subscription model and thus are selling their content through audible.com. In a deal that was made long ago before there were podcasts on iTunes, iTunes users could buy content from Audible using the iTunes.
So when you say, "if they want to make me pay for podcasts I will not be visiting them for those podcasts" you sound like this was Apple's idea, but Apple had nothing to do with the makers of this podcast changing their plans.
Firefox is an awfully nice web browser, and it is free, but about 90% of web surfers are still using IE. Linux is free, but the vast majority of x86 box owners run Windows.
Now, take those same people and try to guess what percentage would consider paying $130 to buy a copy of OS X for Intel. It's going to be single digits, probably low single digits. Nevertheless, Apple would have to be prepared to provide support for *any* possible combination of x86 hardware to accomodate those people that would do it. For an OS that is just out of beta, that's a tall order for seemingly little gain.
Apple may move in the direction you want, but it more likely will be gradual process that involves licensing to another manufacturer using a specified set of components first.
A lot of people have the idea that Apple is just throwing away billions of dollars in sales by refusing to sell OS X for x86 in a box for the masses to install on their existing PCs. This idea apparently assumes the following things are true:
First, Apple's execs are completely brain dead. The company that has so successfully managed to maintain a dominance in the mp3 player market far longer than anyone thought possible is somehow completely inept when it comes to understanding how to best maximize their profits on the computer size of their business.
Second, OS X for x86 in its present state will run well on most PCs out there, regardless of what components they are built with, even though Apple has nearly always worked with full control over the internals of its machines and even though key pieces of software work only with Rosetta translation that runs at passable speed on the latest equipment.
Third, the economics of the computer marketplace have changed substantially since the 1990s when Apple licensed its OS to clone manufacturers and nearly went bankrupt as hardware sales went down the toilet.
Fourth, the gains from sales of software will outweigh support costs related to these sales. Note that someone who installs OS X for x86 on their Dell or HP box won't be able to get support from Dell or HP when problems arise. It's all on Apple's shoulders. Strange errors from incompatible equipment? Call Apple and explain to them what you've got in your box so that they can work out a solution for you.
Fifth, the gains from sales of software will outweigh lost hardware sales.
My guess is that Apple's gurus indeed "do the math" and have a pretty good idea how to maximize their company's profits in the current marketplace. They have an OS for x86 machines that is just out of beta. Drivers do not yet exist for a huge range of equipment. They are pushing developers hard to get their software re-written to run natively. Their business model has been based on selling hardware and the mere fact that Intel, rather than PowerPC, is on the inside does not mean that a model based upon selling software is suddenly the best move, especially when Apple's reputation for an OS that "just works" is on the line.
That is not to say that things will not change over time. For example, once the transition to Intel is complete, Apple might experiment with licensing the Mac OS to another manufacturer under certain conditions relating to components and pricing. If the experiment is a success, it could be expanded.
Copying between devices directly? So, Apple's software doesn't do things that way, but don't make this out to be a deal breaker. iTunes handles multiple iPods very easily, and you can put your files on as many iPods as you want simultaneously. You make it sound like Apple is preventing you from using your music files on multiple devices, which is completely not true.
What you seem to want is transfer directly from one device to another. I can only see rare circumstances, such as when you are on the road away from your computer, that this might come in handy. Usually, there's no need to go from one device to another, you simply plug in the device and load whatever you want onto it from iTunes. Easy. So what's the big deal?
Re:If you replace enough files...
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sure, but that DVD you buy won't run on your machine, at least not now, and you have no right to force Apple sell you one that does. Playstation owners can buy Xbox games and can do with them what they want, but they won't work on the Playstation, nor would anyone expect them too.
Granted, machines made by Apple are now very close in architecture to machines made by other PC manufacturers, one key exception being use of EFI rather than BIOS, but that does not increase the obligation on Apple to write software that is guaranteed to work on machines that it does not make.
Apple is writing an OS that runs on it's hardware set. If it were to sell a box with software to install on generic PCs, it would open up a huge support load due to the enormous number of combinations of possible components. Perhaps Apple will chose to do this down the road once the transition to Intel-based machines has been completed. Right now, however, Apple has a lot on its plate just to make sure OS X runs well on Intel machines with known sets of components. Drivers are still not available for many printers, scanners, and so forth, for example.
You seem to assume that Apple would chase you down for buying a legal copy of OS X and hacking it to run on your machine. I doubt that Apple could do much to stop you from doing this or would they even try. Note that Apple does not even require licensing keys on its OS and consumer-level software. They are not as much of control freaks as you seem to think. It's just that Apple survives by making hardware. Allowing licensing of the OS nearly drove the company into bankruptcy in the 1990s. Before they go out and sell an install kit for generic PCs out there, they have to be very sure of the economics of it, including the certainty of added support costs and the possibility of lower hardware sales.
I believe that once Apple is in a position where they can profit from licensing the OS to a PC manufacturer like Dell, they will do it, and they will do it carefully. That time has not come yet.
The idea that a company should hold back from innovating and improving its products has got to be one of the most inane I've ever heard. Any informed person already knows that the storage capacity of microdrives is going to be greater in 6 months. Any informed person already knows that high-capacity flash memory is becoming more available and affordable. When technology is developing quickly, the product you buy today will always be outdated shortly. That is inevitable, and to expect a company to refuse to improve its products just to soothe the egos of existing customers is stupid.
Do you think Creative, Samsung or any of the other competitors will politely hold off introducing newer technology just so Apple can maintain its marketshare? Unfathomable. Do you think that Dell or HP should delay in adopting new, faster processors to soothe the feelings of those who just bought computers? It's go with the latest technology or watch your competitors take your customers.
Moreover, Apple made very clear that the 5th generation iPod is a *music player* that also has video capabilities. It seemed obvious that someday there would be a new device with a bigger screen more appropriate for watching video. The problem is less to do with techology than with getting access to legal content suitable for loading the players. The 5th-gen iPod got the ball rolling. At first there was very little, but Apple has shown the networks that video content will sell and has added video content steadily. Perhaps they feel they are getting close to a stage where a fully-fledged video player makes sense.
Finally, you assume that an Apple video player is a replacement for the 5th-gen iPod. That seems unlikely to me. It probably will be more expensive and possibly larger in order to accomodate a larger battery. I think it would be a different device on the high end of the line-up.
As a buyer of a tech product, the questions should be: Do I want this product now? Are the present features good enough for my needs now? If the answer is yes, then buy it and go on with life knowing that, sooner or later, the thing you just bought will not be top of the line.
Apple has become Microsoft? LOL. No, I don't think Microsoft has ever been accused of innovating too quickly.
I'm a happy Shuffle owner. I use it for workouts and have no concerns about breaking it. It's a solid little thing. Battery life has been fine. I get the 12 hours that Apple states in their tech specs. That's plenty for my needs. Sound quality is really good, but don't take my word for it:
I have found only a few occasions where a screen would have been handy, such as finding a particular song my kids want to hear in the car. Since it doesn't hold that much music, there's not some huge number of playlists to sort though. If I knew there is something I will want to listen to, such a podcast, I just put it at the top of the playlist while connected to iTunes. Or, if I have loaded on several albums and want to listen to a particular one, I turn on shuffle mode and click until I get to a song from that album. Then, I turn on regular mode and back up to the beginning of the album.
I don't know much about other brands. Just have been happy with my Shuffle.
Total cost was a bit over $10, shipping included. I have no affiliation with these people whatsoever. Just a customer. You can find the same thing from other sources as well.
They are a bit of a hassle to apply, but the results are very nice. The skin (made from a very tough material manufactured by 3M) dries clear so that the beauty of the iPod is not hidden away. I can hardly tell it is there.
Wow, I wear my Shuffle twice week to the gym for workouts and it's been a champ. I have no worries about it being damaged. I bought the armband that Apple makes for the shuffle -- holds the device off my skin. Never get it sweaty.
But people were waiting for a PowerBook G5 for well over a year before Apple announced the switch to Intel. It seems much more likely that Apple pushed IBM hard about getting a low-power G5 and it just did not materialize. IBM had weak incentives to develop the low-power G5 because Apple is too small a customer to justify the R&D spending necessary. The game console market, in contrast, appeared much more lucrative.
See the comments from Freescale's CEO. He was at IBM and sold the G5 to Apple. As he says " . . . then IBM decided not to take the G5 into the laptop and decided to really focus its chip business on the game consoles."
Dimwitted and condescending, eh? That's a good one. Perhaps you can enlighten us, but it would help if you would start by using terms like "faint praise" correctly.
Yes, the G5 is "nice" for lack of a more technical term. I am very pleased with how much I can throw at my G5 dualie without it needing to strain. So, no, that is not faint praise at all. Not sure how that is condescending, dimwitted, or pathetic either. What is your point? Just to call out insults?
Well, there's a perfectly inane comment. Try some thinking yourself.
You really think Jobs made up the whole 3 GHz thing years ago just to have an excuse to move to Intel? Right. It's always a great idea for a CEO to might a high-profile pledge and fail to deliver for two years running.
Look, the G5 is a nice chip. There are two of them in the box on my desk and I am one happy camper. They are friggin' hot, however. Speed increases required the addition of liquid cooling systems. These things are not going into laptops, period, and it was laptops that drove this whole move. Apple is too small a player for IBM to devote the R&D necessary to keep up development. The game consoles are where it is at for IBM right now. The PowerMacs will be the last to move to Intel for a good reason: they are served very well by the G5 for the moment.
In the x86 world, Apple can count on being able to run the same chips that every other machine is running (including AMD). That assurance of supply relieves a major worry for Apple.
Actually, if you listen to the Macworld keynote, Jobs said something to the effect that "of course, the other components like the drives, memory, etc. are not 2x-3x faster." He was clear that many other things will factor into real-world performance. Before you pillory him, put his comments in context.
There are stronger grounds for critique in the kind of benchmarks that Jobs used: ones where dual-core chips naturally do much better. On the other hand, the presence of dual-core chips does produce major speed increases for certain tasks, as the Ars Technica review shows, such as ripping a CD (which the Intel iMac finished in less than half the time of the iMac G5).
Different issue. The "Microsoft tax" involved Microsoft using its market power to force the OEM's to pay a license fee for any machine they sold, regardless of whether there was an operating system installed on that machine. Supposedly, many years ago, Apple approached Dell about producing Apple clones. Dell told Apple that they would have to provide the Mac OS for free since Dell had to pay Microsoft's fee.
Why should you pay for something you will not use? Good question. I don't really want all those channels I get with my cable subscription, but the cable company won't let me pay a la carte. When I bought a new car, I had to buy a whole package of options rather than just the options I wanted. And, damn it, when I buy a package of jelly beans, they won't let me return just the black ones.
It's the market. If you don't want the company offers you, don't buy it.
Nope. Not that simple since there are support costs involved. If Apple offers Windows on its machines, it has to support Windows. I bet they don't want that hassle.
Have you ever picked up a PowerMac G5 desktop? Damn, it is one heavy computer! I think "built like a tank" is a pretty fitting description. When you open up the case, moreover, you can see the attention to detail. Everything fits together so well, cables are neatly tucked away, spare screws are provided for an additional drive, it's really nice. It is not just "slick."
"Send them a message: do not use this service. Buy a physical CD instead - it'll work out about the same price if you shop somewhere decent anyway (10-12 tracks = $17-$21 on iTunes, which is crazy)."
No! The record labels would absolutely love for people to buy physical CDs. They want to keep that tired, old model going as long as possible. If you want to send a message, boycott them altogether.
Of course this is what is happening. The idea that it is an "antitrust" violation for a large customer to negotiate a good price with a supplier is absurd. What happened is that the iRiver manufacturer complained that it was unfair and is trying to use the power of its government to intervene in the marketplace on its behalf. They even pulled the nationalism card, saying that Samsung shouldn't be giving such good prices to a non-Korean manufacturer. Samsung, rightly, responded like a corporation that has moved beyond thinking in nationalistic terms. It does not have to give favor to domestic firms over any other firm.
This is politics. Simple and clear. American firms do this kind of stuff all the time, using "anti-dumping" laws to get trade protection against competitors from China and elsewhere that can supply cheaper products. It just so happens that the anti-dumping laws are one of the few legal avenues that remain to win trade restrictions given our participation in various trade agreements. So, we see lots of anti-dumpting claims.
I believe he said two things. First, there is very little in the way of legal commercial content to play on such a device. That is true. Although the copy protection on DVDs can be broken and the movies compressed, Jobs can't go out tell people to do this without making a lot of enemies from future business partners in the movie industry.
Second, he has said that most people prefer to watch movies on a large screen. That is also true. That doesn't preclude Apple from offering a device that gives people the option of watching videos. They start with music videos for now. Down the road, they start selling movies through iTunes. As long as there is a video out attachment for the iPod, there is nothing inconsistent with what Jobs said.
Re:No, or Apple would be marketing like mad
on
Video iPod Oct 12?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Actually, you are completely wrong. Releases of Apple products are NEVER preceeded by a massive marketing campaign. There are a always a few rumors, some of them more accurate than others, but Jobs loves to make the big surprise announcement. In fact, he said that it would have broken his heart if news of the nano got out before the big unveiling. With the Mac mini, there were rumors about a "headless" Mac, but the actual form was unveiled in a big announcement at MacWorld San Francisco.
The lawsuits by Apple against rumor sites are not a twisted propaganda strategy. Jobs hates the leaks because they spoil the surprise.
I haven't found any reason to install Acrobat Reader. I haven't installed it on my current machine, which is over a year and one-half old, and I don't miss it in the slightest. Preview does handle forms (at least it does in Tiger). I can't say that it handles every single kind of form, but it has handled every form that I have needed to fill out and print.
Acrobat Reader is bloatware. Preview is fast. As for creating PDFs, the ability to generate them from any app takes care of my needs. I don't need to create forms, for instance. So, I say avoid Acrobat for now.
I agree that if Jobs plays his cards right he could be the most prominent advocate for consumers against the record lables. In that PR battle, it's not too hard to figure out who will win. All these quotes coming from the label execs are only solidifying the notion of them as anachronistic, greedy fools.
By the time the contract with the labels expires, Apple will have sold 1 billion downloads. That is huge. Jobs will be able to make a strong case that he bailed the labels out when they couldn't get their acts together.
Slashdot Mirror
Although your repair experiences are no doubt aggravating, you are one person and thus represent too small a sample to form a general conclusion on the overall platform. For that, a large sample is needed. The data I have seen from Consumer Reports surveys of readers (a sample of 134,000 computers) reported in the December 2005 issue suggest the opposite conclusion:
For both laptops and desktops, Apple scored highest in customer satisfaction with tech support by a considerable amount. For example, for laptops, Apple scored 82 (very satisfied). This compares to 70 for IBM, 58 for Toshiba, 58 for Dell, 57 for Gateway, 55 for HP, 53 for Sony, and 49 for Compaq.
In terms of the percentage of computers that needed repairs, Apple was the lowest among makers of desktop computers. Among laptops, Apple was 4th lowest, behind Sony, IBM and Toshiba. Following Apple was HP, Dell, Compaq, and Gateway.
Apple also scores very high in the reader surveys conducted by PC World. So, while your experience was no doubt bad, the conclusion that "Apple sucks as a hardware producer and support company" is not merited.
I am often skeptical about articles from this author, John Markoff, concerning Apple. He often seems to go out of his way to tout competing products over Apple's, or just try to make Apple look bad. For example, he was the one who wrote the article, "Michael Dell Should Eat His Words, Apple Chief Suggests." In this article, Jobs did not say anything so confrontational. He only pointed out how Apple had passed Dell in market cap, noted that this may not last (it didn't), and marked this as a milestone given that Dell had one said Apple should be closed down. Although I know the headline was probably not his doing, the article still tried to make a confrontation where there wasn't one.
Did you read the story? It has almost nothing to do with iTunes other than that one could subscribe to the free podcast using iTunes. The producers of the podcast themselves decided to move to a subscription model and thus are selling their content through audible.com. In a deal that was made long ago before there were podcasts on iTunes, iTunes users could buy content from Audible using the iTunes.
So when you say, "if they want to make me pay for podcasts I will not be visiting them for those podcasts" you sound like this was Apple's idea, but Apple had nothing to do with the makers of this podcast changing their plans.
Firefox is an awfully nice web browser, and it is free, but about 90% of web surfers are still using IE. Linux is free, but the vast majority of x86 box owners run Windows.
Now, take those same people and try to guess what percentage would consider paying $130 to buy a copy of OS X for Intel. It's going to be single digits, probably low single digits. Nevertheless, Apple would have to be prepared to provide support for *any* possible combination of x86 hardware to accomodate those people that would do it. For an OS that is just out of beta, that's a tall order for seemingly little gain.
Apple may move in the direction you want, but it more likely will be gradual process that involves licensing to another manufacturer using a specified set of components first.
A lot of people have the idea that Apple is just throwing away billions of dollars in sales by refusing to sell OS X for x86 in a box for the masses to install on their existing PCs. This idea apparently assumes the following things are true:
First, Apple's execs are completely brain dead. The company that has so successfully managed to maintain a dominance in the mp3 player market far longer than anyone thought possible is somehow completely inept when it comes to understanding how to best maximize their profits on the computer size of their business.
Second, OS X for x86 in its present state will run well on most PCs out there, regardless of what components they are built with, even though Apple has nearly always worked with full control over the internals of its machines and even though key pieces of software work only with Rosetta translation that runs at passable speed on the latest equipment.
Third, the economics of the computer marketplace have changed substantially since the 1990s when Apple licensed its OS to clone manufacturers and nearly went bankrupt as hardware sales went down the toilet.
Fourth, the gains from sales of software will outweigh support costs related to these sales. Note that someone who installs OS X for x86 on their Dell or HP box won't be able to get support from Dell or HP when problems arise. It's all on Apple's shoulders. Strange errors from incompatible equipment? Call Apple and explain to them what you've got in your box so that they can work out a solution for you.
Fifth, the gains from sales of software will outweigh lost hardware sales.
My guess is that Apple's gurus indeed "do the math" and have a pretty good idea how to maximize their company's profits in the current marketplace. They have an OS for x86 machines that is just out of beta. Drivers do not yet exist for a huge range of equipment. They are pushing developers hard to get their software re-written to run natively. Their business model has been based on selling hardware and the mere fact that Intel, rather than PowerPC, is on the inside does not mean that a model based upon selling software is suddenly the best move, especially when Apple's reputation for an OS that "just works" is on the line.
That is not to say that things will not change over time. For example, once the transition to Intel is complete, Apple might experiment with licensing the Mac OS to another manufacturer under certain conditions relating to components and pricing. If the experiment is a success, it could be expanded.
Copying between devices directly? So, Apple's software doesn't do things that way, but don't make this out to be a deal breaker. iTunes handles multiple iPods very easily, and you can put your files on as many iPods as you want simultaneously. You make it sound like Apple is preventing you from using your music files on multiple devices, which is completely not true.
What you seem to want is transfer directly from one device to another. I can only see rare circumstances, such as when you are on the road away from your computer, that this might come in handy. Usually, there's no need to go from one device to another, you simply plug in the device and load whatever you want onto it from iTunes. Easy. So what's the big deal?
Sure, but that DVD you buy won't run on your machine, at least not now, and you have no right to force Apple sell you one that does. Playstation owners can buy Xbox games and can do with them what they want, but they won't work on the Playstation, nor would anyone expect them too.
Granted, machines made by Apple are now very close in architecture to machines made by other PC manufacturers, one key exception being use of EFI rather than BIOS, but that does not increase the obligation on Apple to write software that is guaranteed to work on machines that it does not make.
Apple is writing an OS that runs on it's hardware set. If it were to sell a box with software to install on generic PCs, it would open up a huge support load due to the enormous number of combinations of possible components. Perhaps Apple will chose to do this down the road once the transition to Intel-based machines has been completed. Right now, however, Apple has a lot on its plate just to make sure OS X runs well on Intel machines with known sets of components. Drivers are still not available for many printers, scanners, and so forth, for example.
You seem to assume that Apple would chase you down for buying a legal copy of OS X and hacking it to run on your machine. I doubt that Apple could do much to stop you from doing this or would they even try. Note that Apple does not even require licensing keys on its OS and consumer-level software. They are not as much of control freaks as you seem to think. It's just that Apple survives by making hardware. Allowing licensing of the OS nearly drove the company into bankruptcy in the 1990s. Before they go out and sell an install kit for generic PCs out there, they have to be very sure of the economics of it, including the certainty of added support costs and the possibility of lower hardware sales.
I believe that once Apple is in a position where they can profit from licensing the OS to a PC manufacturer like Dell, they will do it, and they will do it carefully. That time has not come yet.
The idea that a company should hold back from innovating and improving its products has got to be one of the most inane I've ever heard. Any informed person already knows that the storage capacity of microdrives is going to be greater in 6 months. Any informed person already knows that high-capacity flash memory is becoming more available and affordable. When technology is developing quickly, the product you buy today will always be outdated shortly. That is inevitable, and to expect a company to refuse to improve its products just to soothe the egos of existing customers is stupid.
Do you think Creative, Samsung or any of the other competitors will politely hold off introducing newer technology just so Apple can maintain its marketshare? Unfathomable. Do you think that Dell or HP should delay in adopting new, faster processors to soothe the feelings of those who just bought computers? It's go with the latest technology or watch your competitors take your customers.
Moreover, Apple made very clear that the 5th generation iPod is a *music player* that also has video capabilities. It seemed obvious that someday there would be a new device with a bigger screen more appropriate for watching video. The problem is less to do with techology than with getting access to legal content suitable for loading the players. The 5th-gen iPod got the ball rolling. At first there was very little, but Apple has shown the networks that video content will sell and has added video content steadily. Perhaps they feel they are getting close to a stage where a fully-fledged video player makes sense.
Finally, you assume that an Apple video player is a replacement for the 5th-gen iPod. That seems unlikely to me. It probably will be more expensive and possibly larger in order to accomodate a larger battery. I think it would be a different device on the high end of the line-up.
As a buyer of a tech product, the questions should be: Do I want this product now? Are the present features good enough for my needs now? If the answer is yes, then buy it and go on with life knowing that, sooner or later, the thing you just bought will not be top of the line.
Apple has become Microsoft? LOL. No, I don't think Microsoft has ever been accused of innovating too quickly.
I'm a happy Shuffle owner. I use it for workouts and have no concerns about breaking it. It's a solid little thing. Battery life has been fine. I get the 12 hours that Apple states in their tech specs. That's plenty for my needs. Sound quality is really good, but don't take my word for it:
s p
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1777890,00.a
I have found only a few occasions where a screen would have been handy, such as finding a particular song my kids want to hear in the car. Since it doesn't hold that much music, there's not some huge number of playlists to sort though. If I knew there is something I will want to listen to, such a podcast, I just put it at the top of the playlist while connected to iTunes. Or, if I have loaded on several albums and want to listen to a particular one, I turn on shuffle mode and click until I get to a song from that album. Then, I turn on regular mode and back up to the beginning of the album.
I don't know much about other brands. Just have been happy with my Shuffle.
If you are really worried about scratching, buy one of the protective skins that are available from various sources. My choice was:
o /Categories
http://www.bestskinsever.com/servlet/the-iPod-Nan
Total cost was a bit over $10, shipping included. I have no affiliation with these people whatsoever. Just a customer. You can find the same thing from other sources as well.
They are a bit of a hassle to apply, but the results are very nice. The skin (made from a very tough material manufactured by 3M) dries clear so that the beauty of the iPod is not hidden away. I can hardly tell it is there.
Wow, I wear my Shuffle twice week to the gym for workouts and it's been a champ. I have no worries about it being damaged. I bought the armband that Apple makes for the shuffle -- holds the device off my skin. Never get it sweaty.
But people were waiting for a PowerBook G5 for well over a year before Apple announced the switch to Intel. It seems much more likely that Apple pushed IBM hard about getting a low-power G5 and it just did not materialize. IBM had weak incentives to develop the low-power G5 because Apple is too small a customer to justify the R&D spending necessary. The game console market, in contrast, appeared much more lucrative.
See the comments from Freescale's CEO. He was at IBM and sold the G5 to Apple. As he says " . . . then IBM decided not to take the G5 into the laptop and decided to really focus its chip business on the game consoles."
http://news.com.com/Is+the+PowerPC+due+for+a+secon d+wind+-+page+2/2008-1006_3-5983157-2.html?tag=st. next
Dimwitted and condescending, eh? That's a good one. Perhaps you can enlighten us, but it would help if you would start by using terms like "faint praise" correctly.
Yes, the G5 is "nice" for lack of a more technical term. I am very pleased with how much I can throw at my G5 dualie without it needing to strain. So, no, that is not faint praise at all. Not sure how that is condescending, dimwitted, or pathetic either. What is your point? Just to call out insults?
"Apple zealots don't like thinking . . . "
Well, there's a perfectly inane comment. Try some thinking yourself.
You really think Jobs made up the whole 3 GHz thing years ago just to have an excuse to move to Intel? Right. It's always a great idea for a CEO to might a high-profile pledge and fail to deliver for two years running.
Look, the G5 is a nice chip. There are two of them in the box on my desk and I am one happy camper. They are friggin' hot, however. Speed increases required the addition of liquid cooling systems. These things are not going into laptops, period, and it was laptops that drove this whole move. Apple is too small a player for IBM to devote the R&D necessary to keep up development. The game consoles are where it is at for IBM right now. The PowerMacs will be the last to move to Intel for a good reason: they are served very well by the G5 for the moment.
In the x86 world, Apple can count on being able to run the same chips that every other machine is running (including AMD). That assurance of supply relieves a major worry for Apple.
Actually, if you listen to the Macworld keynote, Jobs said something to the effect that "of course, the other components like the drives, memory, etc. are not 2x-3x faster." He was clear that many other things will factor into real-world performance. Before you pillory him, put his comments in context.
There are stronger grounds for critique in the kind of benchmarks that Jobs used: ones where dual-core chips naturally do much better. On the other hand, the presence of dual-core chips does produce major speed increases for certain tasks, as the Ars Technica review shows, such as ripping a CD (which the Intel iMac finished in less than half the time of the iMac G5).
Different issue. The "Microsoft tax" involved Microsoft using its market power to force the OEM's to pay a license fee for any machine they sold, regardless of whether there was an operating system installed on that machine. Supposedly, many years ago, Apple approached Dell about producing Apple clones. Dell told Apple that they would have to provide the Mac OS for free since Dell had to pay Microsoft's fee.
Why should you pay for something you will not use? Good question. I don't really want all those channels I get with my cable subscription, but the cable company won't let me pay a la carte. When I bought a new car, I had to buy a whole package of options rather than just the options I wanted. And, damn it, when I buy a package of jelly beans, they won't let me return just the black ones.
It's the market. If you don't want the company offers you, don't buy it.
Nope. Not that simple since there are support costs involved. If Apple offers Windows on its machines, it has to support Windows. I bet they don't want that hassle.
Have you ever picked up a PowerMac G5 desktop? Damn, it is one heavy computer! I think "built like a tank" is a pretty fitting description. When you open up the case, moreover, you can see the attention to detail. Everything fits together so well, cables are neatly tucked away, spare screws are provided for an additional drive, it's really nice. It is not just "slick."
"Send them a message: do not use this service. Buy a physical CD instead - it'll work out about the same price if you shop somewhere decent anyway (10-12 tracks = $17-$21 on iTunes, which is crazy)."
No! The record labels would absolutely love for people to buy physical CDs. They want to keep that tired, old model going as long as possible. If you want to send a message, boycott them altogether.
"What's difficult about these new-fangled CD things is that 99% of my music is on eight-track tape."
Of course this is what is happening. The idea that it is an "antitrust" violation for a large customer to negotiate a good price with a supplier is absurd. What happened is that the iRiver manufacturer complained that it was unfair and is trying to use the power of its government to intervene in the marketplace on its behalf. They even pulled the nationalism card, saying that Samsung shouldn't be giving such good prices to a non-Korean manufacturer. Samsung, rightly, responded like a corporation that has moved beyond thinking in nationalistic terms. It does not have to give favor to domestic firms over any other firm.
This is politics. Simple and clear. American firms do this kind of stuff all the time, using "anti-dumping" laws to get trade protection against competitors from China and elsewhere that can supply cheaper products. It just so happens that the anti-dumping laws are one of the few legal avenues that remain to win trade restrictions given our participation in various trade agreements. So, we see lots of anti-dumpting claims.
I believe he said two things. First, there is very little in the way of legal commercial content to play on such a device. That is true. Although the copy protection on DVDs can be broken and the movies compressed, Jobs can't go out tell people to do this without making a lot of enemies from future business partners in the movie industry.
Second, he has said that most people prefer to watch movies on a large screen. That is also true. That doesn't preclude Apple from offering a device that gives people the option of watching videos. They start with music videos for now. Down the road, they start selling movies through iTunes. As long as there is a video out attachment for the iPod, there is nothing inconsistent with what Jobs said.
Actually, you are completely wrong. Releases of Apple products are NEVER preceeded by a massive marketing campaign. There are a always a few rumors, some of them more accurate than others, but Jobs loves to make the big surprise announcement. In fact, he said that it would have broken his heart if news of the nano got out before the big unveiling. With the Mac mini, there were rumors about a "headless" Mac, but the actual form was unveiled in a big announcement at MacWorld San Francisco.
The lawsuits by Apple against rumor sites are not a twisted propaganda strategy. Jobs hates the leaks because they spoil the surprise.
I haven't found any reason to install Acrobat Reader. I haven't installed it on my current machine, which is over a year and one-half old, and I don't miss it in the slightest. Preview does handle forms (at least it does in Tiger). I can't say that it handles every single kind of form, but it has handled every form that I have needed to fill out and print.
Acrobat Reader is bloatware. Preview is fast. As for creating PDFs, the ability to generate them from any app takes care of my needs. I don't need to create forms, for instance. So, I say avoid Acrobat for now.
I agree that if Jobs plays his cards right he could be the most prominent advocate for consumers against the record lables. In that PR battle, it's not too hard to figure out who will win. All these quotes coming from the label execs are only solidifying the notion of them as anachronistic, greedy fools.
By the time the contract with the labels expires, Apple will have sold 1 billion downloads. That is huge. Jobs will be able to make a strong case that he bailed the labels out when they couldn't get their acts together.