Most of their software stack is a mix of open and closed.
"Only the OS UI and non-OS applications are closed."
Define "OS UI" and "non-OS applications".
"It's slightly less secure than the average Linux distro, slightly more secure than Vista, and *radically* more secure than XP"
It's not even close to as secure as Vista, and probably on par with XP SP2. The number of exploits demonstrating that is artificially low because the target base is lower.
"If Apple were to completely revamp their OS or even get rid of it, it wouldn't have that much affect on their sales."
It really depends on what replaces it.
"If they went all Wintell and just slapped an Apple logo on a Dell, but still have their iPod and other products completely integrated, I still don't think there would be much of an affect on their sales."
I don't agree.
"I think the only folks who would care are the die hard Apple Computer fans - the iPod and fashion crowd wouldn't care."
The vast majority of the people I've talked to who want to, or have, switched to Macs... hate Windows. Rabidly. More than any Apple fanatics I've encountered, save one or three. The iPod people you're talking about just don't even buy Macs, in my experience. Though that may be changing.
"What business is Harley Davidson in? Not Motorcycles.... What business is McDonald's in? Business process."
But if they dropped their respective core businesses, where would they end up?
"Estee Lauder was famous for saying that she was in the business of hope not cosmetics. She sold women the hope that they can look young and beautiful like her models."
Well, that can describe every single corporation with a marketing department.
"My point is that if Apple were a computer company, they'd be making the crappy margins that Dell and the other PC makers are making."
Like IBM? Define "computer company". Hell, define "computer". This can get interesting.
Apple doesn't compete in the market segments that have those margins. Dell et al have margins almost identical to Apple's in the segments in which they compete. I don't see how margins define the core business any more than the core product which is sold and around which the rest of the business is centered, anyhow.
While it's possible Microsoft will recover their reputation, it's been pretty severely damaged in recent years, and Apple has been making business inroads, mostly without even trying. I'd even argue that "necessity" isn't what it seems, and the future of business necessity isn't as easy to predict as people think.
Which isn't to say I think Apple will take Microsoft's business lead. I just imagine it'll be more balanced in the future.
I keep hearing this but... their software, especially their operating system, is at the core of their business and of everything they pursue. And their software, especially their operating system, has always been what distinguishes them from the rest of the computer hardware market. Even if it's an artificial distinction, being that the software can technically run on their competitors' hardware.
The problem is there's a few things at work there: 1. Apple seems to have accumulated a cult-like following of people who self-identify with the corporation. It's weird. 2. Apple only competes in high-margin markets, where they often are price-competitive. 3. Apple doesn't disclose internal costs like R&D.
I was with you til your last paragraph. It's not that I don't think the powers that be are fascists (yeah, all of them; well, with rare exception), but the culture of the US dictates that a slide into that sort of obvious police state will be excruciatingly slow, to the point that anyone who notices is a chicken little. And this is why the powerful in the US have developed much more subtle and clever control techniques, such as the public relations industry, death by a thousand regulations, death by a thousand litigations, and so on.
Moreover, that's a point all its own: it long since happened. Just with less jackboots and more social manipulation.
"The market" is: - not a homogenous force (there are wildly divergent attitudes on the subject, but they aren't reflected in dry statistics) - not a rational force (there are huge forces like inertia which aren't reflected in dry statistics) - not a force which quickly adapts to a context that's changing (more inertia) - not a decentralized and egalitarian force (inertia favors attitudes of the few with the most; the most with the least don't have much voice in the market)
The most we can conclude from "the market" is the attitudes of people with weight to throw around, and even then it's questionable.
Almost all "linux" (*nix) software can compile on OS X, or is already distributed for OS X. And quite a lot of it can run on Windows as well. Why hasn't Linux gained traction from that? In fact, if anything, I think the availability of OS X has probably minimized interest that might have grown in Linux.
More than that, the problem with your "what if" is that it's based on a premise that will likely not happen in the foreseeable future: it's completely unprovable.
'Some people notice that "science" is often used as a "proof by intimidation" and consequently lose their trust in scientific results.'
This. Or, it could be put: and consequently lose their trust in scientists and their advocates. As both a religious person and a skeptic, I've encountered far too much in the way of religious fervor from Science advocatesâ"as in, Science, as something the advocate believes is a homogenous whole which is impenetrable by definition.
Where "true" science is constantly evolving, constantly reassessing assumptions, constantly questioning all observations and conclusions, Science is Truth and Unquestionable.
One only need read many of the comments above to see this at work. When science lacks skepticism, skepticism of science is a logical proposition.
Slashdot Mirror
"Most of their software stack is open."
Most of their software stack is a mix of open and closed.
"Only the OS UI and non-OS applications are closed."
Define "OS UI" and "non-OS applications".
"It's slightly less secure than the average Linux distro, slightly more secure than Vista, and *radically* more secure than XP"
It's not even close to as secure as Vista, and probably on par with XP SP2. The number of exploits demonstrating that is artificially low because the target base is lower.
What, because I admitted it?
Oh well, I don't really care how people on /. view me.
Huh? I'm not even understanding how that's a response to my comment.
The former; did you see my first and second points? That's sucking Apple's dick?
I was shooting from the hip ;)
"If Apple were to completely revamp their OS or even get rid of it, it wouldn't have that much affect on their sales."
It really depends on what replaces it.
"If they went all Wintell and just slapped an Apple logo on a Dell, but still have their iPod and other products completely integrated, I still don't think there would be much of an affect on their sales."
I don't agree.
"I think the only folks who would care are the die hard Apple Computer fans - the iPod and fashion crowd wouldn't care."
The vast majority of the people I've talked to who want to, or have, switched to Macs... hate Windows. Rabidly. More than any Apple fanatics I've encountered, save one or three. The iPod people you're talking about just don't even buy Macs, in my experience. Though that may be changing.
"What business is Harley Davidson in? Not Motorcycles. ... What business is McDonald's in? Business process."
But if they dropped their respective core businesses, where would they end up?
"Estee Lauder was famous for saying that she was in the business of hope not cosmetics. She sold women the hope that they can look young and beautiful like her models."
Well, that can describe every single corporation with a marketing department.
"My point is that if Apple were a computer company, they'd be making the crappy margins that Dell and the other PC makers are making."
Like IBM? Define "computer company". Hell, define "computer". This can get interesting.
Apple doesn't compete in the market segments that have those margins. Dell et al have margins almost identical to Apple's in the segments in which they compete. I don't see how margins define the core business any more than the core product which is sold and around which the rest of the business is centered, anyhow.
They're not a web business. They're a marketing and datamining business, which happens to use the web to capture and distribute their data.
It really depends how much of Apple's target market is severely affected by a recession. Not everyone is affected equally.
While it's possible Microsoft will recover their reputation, it's been pretty severely damaged in recent years, and Apple has been making business inroads, mostly without even trying. I'd even argue that "necessity" isn't what it seems, and the future of business necessity isn't as easy to predict as people think.
Which isn't to say I think Apple will take Microsoft's business lead. I just imagine it'll be more balanced in the future.
I keep hearing this but... their software, especially their operating system, is at the core of their business and of everything they pursue. And their software, especially their operating system, has always been what distinguishes them from the rest of the computer hardware market. Even if it's an artificial distinction, being that the software can technically run on their competitors' hardware.
Can it be understood?
Google gears?
The problem is there's a few things at work there:
1. Apple seems to have accumulated a cult-like following of people who self-identify with the corporation. It's weird.
2. Apple only competes in high-margin markets, where they often are price-competitive.
3. Apple doesn't disclose internal costs like R&D.
Is that a new feature? I hope it's not in beta...
Fuck it what's on tv
I was with you til your last paragraph. It's not that I don't think the powers that be are fascists (yeah, all of them; well, with rare exception), but the culture of the US dictates that a slide into that sort of obvious police state will be excruciatingly slow, to the point that anyone who notices is a chicken little. And this is why the powerful in the US have developed much more subtle and clever control techniques, such as the public relations industry, death by a thousand regulations, death by a thousand litigations, and so on.
Moreover, that's a point all its own: it long since happened. Just with less jackboots and more social manipulation.
I, for one, welcome... you insensitive clod!
"The market" is:
- not a homogenous force (there are wildly divergent attitudes on the subject, but they aren't reflected in dry statistics)
- not a rational force (there are huge forces like inertia which aren't reflected in dry statistics)
- not a force which quickly adapts to a context that's changing (more inertia)
- not a decentralized and egalitarian force (inertia favors attitudes of the few with the most; the most with the least don't have much voice in the market)
The most we can conclude from "the market" is the attitudes of people with weight to throw around, and even then it's questionable.
Almost all "linux" (*nix) software can compile on OS X, or is already distributed for OS X. And quite a lot of it can run on Windows as well. Why hasn't Linux gained traction from that? In fact, if anything, I think the availability of OS X has probably minimized interest that might have grown in Linux.
More than that, the problem with your "what if" is that it's based on a premise that will likely not happen in the foreseeable future: it's completely unprovable.
Oh I forgot Xobox si hueg11!eleven
All Your Base Are Longcat Is Long You're Doing It Wrong No Yuo?
Can you name... five popular hosts that don't offer PHP 5 support?
With all due respect, why was PHP 4 being around preventing you from getting real work done (in 4 or 5)?
What
'Some people notice that "science" is often used as a "proof by intimidation" and consequently lose their trust in scientific results.'
This. Or, it could be put: and consequently lose their trust in scientists and their advocates. As both a religious person and a skeptic, I've encountered far too much in the way of religious fervor from Science advocatesâ"as in, Science, as something the advocate believes is a homogenous whole which is impenetrable by definition.
Where "true" science is constantly evolving, constantly reassessing assumptions, constantly questioning all observations and conclusions, Science is Truth and Unquestionable.
One only need read many of the comments above to see this at work. When science lacks skepticism, skepticism of science is a logical proposition.