Mac's marketshare may not be stellar yet, but compare it to their marketshare 5 years ago.
Sure, how about 2001 vs 2005? A quick Google found this from 2002 and this for 2005 (hint: they are basically the same, maybe even lower). The rest of your post hit the nail on the head (though maybe unintentionally) - Mac's are all about perception and appearance. They seem to have a far larger market share than they actually do.
That being said, I'm also considering getting a Macbook:) (why no integrated video, why?!?).
hmm, why do all WinCE phones have reset buttons but Symbian ones don't?
Well, based on this review of the Noka N90 (which uses Symbian OS) it sounds like it resets itself enough without a reset button ("The N90 would also reset itself about 70% of the time when I was using Voice Commands" and "and I encountered numerous resets when accessing certain functions").
In all seriousness though, Microsoft isn't perfect, but the alternatives aren't perfect either - claiming otherwise is just plain ignorance.
Agreed. It's not even like you'd need to edit a whole article - you're editing the summary of an article.
we certainly would see Apple's remarkable market share gain next year
(emphasis mine)
I found that pretty amusing. Since when is a 10% (plus or minus; feel free to correct me with solid info) marketshare remarkable?
Also, from the actual article itself:
The upcoming "Leopard" OS is expected to be even slicker and faster than its predecessor OS X.
Is this actually a new OS like the article suggests, or just a new revision of OSX (10.5 or what have you)? If it's not supposed to be completely brand new, I find this article somewhat questionable.
I find it really outrageous that (in the UK at least) a big chunk of many schools IT budget goes towards Windows and Office, which are completely rubbish peices of software for educating young children. But the administrators don't understand much about computers, and the nice man from Microsoft is always taking them out to lunch, being helpful and giving them "special deals" which just happen to take up most of the IT budget...
As opposed to what (seriously)? Is linux/osx/etc somehow better at educating young children? What am I missing here - I dont think the operating system has much to do with education aside from learning how to use the operating system and/or associated apps. If that's what you're referring to, then there is easily an advantage in teaching people about the most prevalent software that they will likely deal with in the future (near term at least).
I'd agree that Microsoft advertising is typically somewhat misleading - but what advertisment isn't? Companies want to put the best spin on their products. Microsoft bashing aside, I don't see how that's +5 insightful.
FYI, I use Shaw as well and find that uTorrent can get around Ellacoya just fine using protcol encryption. Went from around 10k to hitting the caps with that one setting.
We live in a society that worships at the alter of the free market. The invisible hand can do no wrong and anyone who claims otherwise is a dirty commie. The abundant nature of data on an open network is heresy to this new religion though - the market requires scarcity to function. A scarcity must be introduced so that the glorious march of capitalism can continue.
Call me a commie then - I hardly think the free market is perfect, and I don't believe that it should be completely unregulated. I'm also Canadian:)
However, the notion that everything should be free is also flawed. If I create a work, i should be free to do with it as I choose - I should not be _forced_ to share it if that isnt what I want to do. If I want to share it, sell it or sell it with DRM - that should be my choice. It is also the choice of the 'consumer' whether they want to consume my work - however it is provided.
Also, the free speech mention is weak at best. Please clarfiy how it is a free speech issue if I use a CD precisely how I want to.
Further, youre right there is far more to culture than what the music and movie industries offer, just like there is far more to the world than what major industrialized nations have to offer, that doesnt change the fact that what these music and movie industries have to offer makes up the _majority_ of our culture and we deserve the right to participate in it rather than simply _consume_ it.
So you are suggesting that all cultural work should be free to everyone to do with as they wish? I respectfully disagree - I am quite content in a world in which the artist is able to choose what they do with their work (and going with a label that believes in DRM is a choice) - whether that be selling it, giving it away for free or doing nothing.
If I sing a song or write a play or paint a picture and I don't share it with you, am I violating your rights? I find that notion absurd. Creators should have the right to do as they will with their creations.
why not extend that argument from culture to food.. we can go much longer without food than we can air and water.. why not cut out food.
Again, doing without culture is not literally going to kill you. Regardless, we aren't even talking about doing without culture - we are talking about not consuming specific pieces of culture or, in choosing to consume, not being able to do everything we'd care to do with them (at least legally).
would you tolerate it if the government mandated we eat nothing but kibble for food? dog food is more nutritious than our food but would you tolerate it?
No, but you are again comparing apples to oranges. See previous comment regarding people with guns vs buying a CD.
It would be more like telling McDonald's you were not going to buy their product anymore because the Big Mac had a device which only allowed you to eat it inside the McDonald's and would not allow you to share it with your friends.
....which is just another way of saying that the product is crap. In fact, "DeffectiveByDesign" says it all - the product _is_ sub-standard if it has DRM. However, I am no more forced to eat a Big Mac because it tastes bad than if it tastest good but has some sort of DRM in it.
The way in which something is deffective is irrelevant - if I don't like a product, I don't have to buy it.
Culture is as essential to humanity as air, food, shelter and water, and like it or not the RIAA and their related organizations have a near monopoly control over the most popular and dominant expressions of our culture. If we do not own our culture and have a right to participate in it I say our "sentience" is highly overrated, and we need to go back to the trees where we belong.
Holy hyperbole batman. Culture is not as essential as air, food, shelter or water. Try not buying a CD or DVD for a month and then try not breathing, eating or drinking anything for a month. Why in that order? Because the second will kill you whereas the first will - what? Make you a little bored? I wouldn't even go that far. There is far more to culture then what the major music and movie companies offer - and that's not going to change anytime soon.
Why not? Because people _are_ free to participate in culture. If what exists sucks (or at least does in your opinion) you can go out and create your own works or, if your talents don't lay in that area, can support someone who does make something to your liking. Modern technology has even made this (arguably) easier to do nowadays then ever before.
Seriously, you need to stop over-dramatising DRM - sure, it sucks, but you dont have to deal with it.
As such, they have now found a new way of stripping away our right to own and govern property using technology and the great constitutional end-run known as contract law.
I'll say it again - DRM sucks. But I really dont see how it is stripping away your right to own and govern property. It may be restricting your ability to use the property they are trying to sell you - but guess what? You don't have to buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy music from major record labels. Even if they were the only show in town (which they aren't) you still wouldn't have to buy a single CD from them.
That's where your analogy colapses. Whereas the British had soldiers with guns that actually did force you to do something (i.e. pay taxes) the only one you have to blame for buying a Britney Spears (or whatever) CD with DRM is yourself.
If you don't like their policies, DON'T BUY THEIR MUSIC!
I couldn't agree more. Nobody is being forced to buy their stuff. Even if the big labels were the only outlet of music (and they're most certainly not) you _still_ wouldn't have to buy anything from them. You don't see me protesting McDonalds because the Big Mac is a piece of crap - I take my business elsewhere.
Call me cynical, but does anyone else find it sad that this is promoted as such a "cause" to fight for? Has consumerism come so far that we are now protesting the things we buy? This isn't really the context that I think of when I think of a 'freedom fighter' (their label, not mine).
Though, I suppose, it's not like there are any wars or civil liberty issues to protest nowadays.....
What he actually said was "In the next six months, we'll catch Google in terms of relevancy" (first article) and "I think we will have passed Google in terms of the relevance of the answers we give to people's searches over the next six months, at least in the U.S. and Canada, not necessarily in all markets" (second article).
I don't think that's the same as what you seemed to be implying (at least to me), which was that he was promising to catch their market share.
Based on the stats this article is based on they're mostly windows (72 out of 74 are Windows): http://andrewhitchcock.org/companystats/ (someone linked to this above).
I'd guess that shows how accurate these stats are.
Sure, in theory - but I think there may have been security vulnerabilities in OSS before. Also, I don't think people examine the source code for every Firefox extension they install - I sure don't.
Is this "Unique" in terms of "unexpected, enlightening and nuanced" or "Unique" in terms of "The 'Unique' Opinion Held By This Guy As Well As Everyone Else Who Has Been Immersed in Microsoft's Corporate Culture For Two Decades!"?
I'd say it's unique in that's it's a fairly candid hour and twenty minute discussion (used loosely since he does most of the talking) with an (allegedly) bright developer who has worked for Microsoft for the past 18 years.
You mean Microsoft doesn't internally hold the opinion that they're evil, world-dominating bastards? Wow! And here I always thought that bad things were only done by people who go home at night, polish their monocles, and cackle gleefully at their own evil while murdering cats.
Yup, that's actually one of his points - people in Microsoft don't think of themselves as evil and don't have "World Domination" on their todo lists - they're too busy doing their jobs. The people responsible for the whole IE debacle (he actually uses this as an example) didn't integrate IE that way because they wanted to destroy the competition - they made an engineering decision at the time that they thought made sense and ended up causing a big brouhaha.
Since then, he says, people have obviously tried to be more careful with stuff like that, but the bottomline is that the people that do the bulk of the work at Microsoft are not bent on World Domination - they are bent on programming.
By the way, I like how you disclaimered yourself saying you didn't watch it at all and then went on to blast it. If it was because he was black, I'd call you a racist; since it's because he works for Microsoft, I'll just call you a Slashdot reader:)
Not that I don't find that comment funny, but I'm curious why AOL adopting a 3rd party addon model is seen as a security hazard (I'd wager a decent chunk of/. feels that way - could be wrong) whereas Firefox is considered a secure browser.
Do you actually know someone who wants to use their computer to videochat at the same time they're talking to someone and IMing a third while downloading something?
Yes, I do - young people. Based on your ID, I'd guess you don't fit into that demographic (but I could be wrong).
Slashdot Mirror
You'd do well to follow your own advice. I've already posted this, but what the heck:
Q1 2001 (roughly 5.4% worldwide) and Q1 2006 (roughly 2.0% worldwide)
Oops, first one is actually 2001.
Sure, how about 2001 vs 2005? A quick Google found this from 2002 and this for 2005 (hint: they are basically the same, maybe even lower). The rest of your post hit the nail on the head (though maybe unintentionally) - Mac's are all about perception and appearance. They seem to have a far larger market share than they actually do.
That being said, I'm also considering getting a Macbook :) (why no integrated video, why?!?).
Well, based on this review of the Noka N90 (which uses Symbian OS) it sounds like it resets itself enough without a reset button ("The N90 would also reset itself about 70% of the time when I was using Voice Commands" and "and I encountered numerous resets when accessing certain functions").
In all seriousness though, Microsoft isn't perfect, but the alternatives aren't perfect either - claiming otherwise is just plain ignorance.
Agreed. It's not even like you'd need to edit a whole article - you're editing the summary of an article.
(emphasis mine)I found that pretty amusing. Since when is a 10% (plus or minus; feel free to correct me with solid info) marketshare remarkable?
Also, from the actual article itself:
Is this actually a new OS like the article suggests, or just a new revision of OSX (10.5 or what have you)? If it's not supposed to be completely brand new, I find this article somewhat questionable.
As opposed to what (seriously)? Is linux/osx/etc somehow better at educating young children? What am I missing here - I dont think the operating system has much to do with education aside from learning how to use the operating system and/or associated apps. If that's what you're referring to, then there is easily an advantage in teaching people about the most prevalent software that they will likely deal with in the future (near term at least).
I'd agree that Microsoft advertising is typically somewhat misleading - but what advertisment isn't? Companies want to put the best spin on their products. Microsoft bashing aside, I don't see how that's +5 insightful.
Not familiar with irony?
FYI, I use Shaw as well and find that uTorrent can get around Ellacoya just fine using protcol encryption. Went from around 10k to hitting the caps with that one setting.
Cheers
Now somebody else will be able to idle as sk8trgrl69!!!!11111one
Call me a commie then - I hardly think the free market is perfect, and I don't believe that it should be completely unregulated. I'm also Canadian :)
However, the notion that everything should be free is also flawed. If I create a work, i should be free to do with it as I choose - I should not be _forced_ to share it if that isnt what I want to do. If I want to share it, sell it or sell it with DRM - that should be my choice. It is also the choice of the 'consumer' whether they want to consume my work - however it is provided.
Also, the free speech mention is weak at best. Please clarfiy how it is a free speech issue if I use a CD precisely how I want to.
So you are suggesting that all cultural work should be free to everyone to do with as they wish? I respectfully disagree - I am quite content in a world in which the artist is able to choose what they do with their work (and going with a label that believes in DRM is a choice) - whether that be selling it, giving it away for free or doing nothing.
If I sing a song or write a play or paint a picture and I don't share it with you, am I violating your rights? I find that notion absurd. Creators should have the right to do as they will with their creations.
Again, doing without culture is not literally going to kill you. Regardless, we aren't even talking about doing without culture - we are talking about not consuming specific pieces of culture or, in choosing to consume, not being able to do everything we'd care to do with them (at least legally).
No, but you are again comparing apples to oranges. See previous comment regarding people with guns vs buying a CD.
....which is just another way of saying that the product is crap. In fact, "DeffectiveByDesign" says it all - the product _is_ sub-standard if it has DRM. However, I am no more forced to eat a Big Mac because it tastes bad than if it tastest good but has some sort of DRM in it.
The way in which something is deffective is irrelevant - if I don't like a product, I don't have to buy it.
Holy hyperbole batman. Culture is not as essential as air, food, shelter or water. Try not buying a CD or DVD for a month and then try not breathing, eating or drinking anything for a month. Why in that order? Because the second will kill you whereas the first will - what? Make you a little bored? I wouldn't even go that far. There is far more to culture then what the major music and movie companies offer - and that's not going to change anytime soon.
Why not? Because people _are_ free to participate in culture. If what exists sucks (or at least does in your opinion) you can go out and create your own works or, if your talents don't lay in that area, can support someone who does make something to your liking. Modern technology has even made this (arguably) easier to do nowadays then ever before.
Seriously, you need to stop over-dramatising DRM - sure, it sucks, but you dont have to deal with it.
I'll say it again - DRM sucks. But I really dont see how it is stripping away your right to own and govern property. It may be restricting your ability to use the property they are trying to sell you - but guess what? You don't have to buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy music from major record labels. Even if they were the only show in town (which they aren't) you still wouldn't have to buy a single CD from them.
That's where your analogy colapses. Whereas the British had soldiers with guns that actually did force you to do something (i.e. pay taxes) the only one you have to blame for buying a Britney Spears (or whatever) CD with DRM is yourself.
I couldn't agree more. Nobody is being forced to buy their stuff. Even if the big labels were the only outlet of music (and they're most certainly not) you _still_ wouldn't have to buy anything from them. You don't see me protesting McDonalds because the Big Mac is a piece of crap - I take my business elsewhere.
Call me cynical, but does anyone else find it sad that this is promoted as such a "cause" to fight for? Has consumerism come so far that we are now protesting the things we buy? This isn't really the context that I think of when I think of a 'freedom fighter' (their label, not mine).
Though, I suppose, it's not like there are any wars or civil liberty issues to protest nowadays.....
All that being said, DRM sucks.
What he actually said was "In the next six months, we'll catch Google in terms of relevancy" (first article) and "I think we will have passed Google in terms of the relevance of the answers we give to people's searches over the next six months, at least in the U.S. and Canada, not necessarily in all markets" (second article).
I don't think that's the same as what you seemed to be implying (at least to me), which was that he was promising to catch their market share.
Based on the stats this article is based on they're mostly windows (72 out of 74 are Windows): http://andrewhitchcock.org/companystats/ (someone linked to this above).
I'd guess that shows how accurate these stats are.
Does IE 7 though (honest question)? I'd imagine that most are likely using that.
An inspired diagram. Here's a picture of the some of the technologies that this will usher in.
How long before I can get a kit like that for my P4?
Sure, in theory - but I think there may have been security vulnerabilities in OSS before. Also, I don't think people examine the source code for every Firefox extension they install - I sure don't.
I'd say it's unique in that's it's a fairly candid hour and twenty minute discussion (used loosely since he does most of the talking) with an (allegedly) bright developer who has worked for Microsoft for the past 18 years.
Yup, that's actually one of his points - people in Microsoft don't think of themselves as evil and don't have "World Domination" on their todo lists - they're too busy doing their jobs. The people responsible for the whole IE debacle (he actually uses this as an example) didn't integrate IE that way because they wanted to destroy the competition - they made an engineering decision at the time that they thought made sense and ended up causing a big brouhaha.
Since then, he says, people have obviously tried to be more careful with stuff like that, but the bottomline is that the people that do the bulk of the work at Microsoft are not bent on World Domination - they are bent on programming.
By the way, I like how you disclaimered yourself saying you didn't watch it at all and then went on to blast it. If it was because he was black, I'd call you a racist; since it's because he works for Microsoft, I'll just call you a Slashdot reader :)
Cheers
Not that I don't find that comment funny, but I'm curious why AOL adopting a 3rd party addon model is seen as a security hazard (I'd wager a decent chunk of /. feels that way - could be wrong) whereas Firefox is considered a secure browser.
Then again, it is AOL.
Yes, I do - young people. Based on your ID, I'd guess you don't fit into that demographic (but I could be wrong).