If I only had access to the full Money story, I could get some juicy quotes and find the name of the author. Here are a few oldies but goodies from my archive of absurd punditry:
"Stick a fork in 'em - this Apple is cooked."
Robert Thomson, Financial Post, 2/20/2003
"While praising Apple's service, analysts caution that its success won't necessarily transfer completely to the Windows environment." John Borland, c|net news, 7/28/03
"Folks, the Mac platform is through...." John C. Dvorak, 1998
"The iPod, with its backward-looking feature set and dramatically inflated price, has only its good looks going for it." Lukas Hauser, the MacCommunist, 10/23/2001
From the article: "The Post quoted Time Warner spokesman Ed Adler as saying 'such speculation is silly and pointless.'"
I love it. People are discussing the possibility that one of the most powerful brands on the Internet, a company that served as training wheels for the Interet to countless millions of people, may be sold to *the* dominant corporation in information technology.
My guess is there are more than a few stockholders in both companies who don't think this speculation is "silly and pointless."
"and would also impair the delivery of local, targeted ads.."
Gee, wouldn't THAT suck. Allowing people to use the 'Net without constant harrassment from marketers would surely provoke an outcry from the outraged Net populace.
Dude, that was like... um... not even in this DECADE! How can it matter if, like, MTV wasn't even around yet? You prolly read that crap in a BOOK, you weirdo.
Apple can probably get a lot of mileage out of this. Pixar is not some smalltime outfit running a few XServes. As one of Apple's biggest customers, even without Steve connection, they'll likely be getting their hands on a lot of beta stuff before the rest of the world sees it. Pixar is obviously a company built around delivering a quality product, and having them as a testing ground will certainly help Apple improve their entertainment/multimedia offerings.
Everyone is giving Apple a hard time because they haven't rolled out the iTMS across the globe yet. Gee, I wonder why it's been so difficult for Apple to get this done?
Thank God the world isn't run by those who predict, semi-predict, or produce weasel-word predictions that can be plausibly denied.
"While praising Apple's service, analysts caution that its success won't necessarily transfer completely to the Windows environment." - John Borland, c|net news, 7/28/03
What makes you say that? I'm curious. If you're upset because the Bradley doesn't go up well against MBTs, you're barking up the wrong tree, because the Bradley wasn't designed for that purpose.
If you're saying that the Bradley suffers as a personnel carrier because of its armament, I'd be interested in your sources. I'm not saying this with sarcasm - I've just never heard anyone badmouth the Bradley since the infamous 60 Minutes piece back when the Bradley was still under development.
I have heard mech guys talk about how much they love their Bradley, including one track commander whose Bradley took a T-72 round and kept fighting.
Helicopters are rather handy weapons platforms, but they're also vulnerable as hell. Any platform that loiters over the battlefield, no many how many stealthy features you give it, will be vulnerable to small arms fire, missiles, you name it.
The Army needs helicopters to move soldiers around the battlefield, but with so many other ways of directing fire (much more accurate indirect fire through Paladin systems, for example), and better coordination with the fast-movers (the Air Force and Army have a ways to go in this regard, but they're getting better), the days of the wannabe Hind are over.
Say what you will about Rumsfeld, but he has at least made the top brass look long and hard at all the systems in the pipeline to be sure they match future needs.
When you're talking about search sites that require no login and there is no friction associated with changing your preferred site, users are even more fickle.
Sure, Google has strong brand presence, but remember that Google obtained that stature purely through ease of use and effectiveness of their product. They spent no money on marketing.
The brand followed the product, which is in stark contrast to most new brands, where marketing positions the product.
If SearchCompanyX comes along with an easy to use engine that supports stemming, eliminates spamming, indexes zillions documents of all types, and provides some form of advanced site thumbnailing so users have more of an idea of their destination before they follow a link, Google will go down hard.
On the Web, branding and performance are much more intertwined than in the offline world..
No technology solution will replace the value of your human contacts. They know you and can vouch for you. They'll pass you on to other people they know whom they trust. They won't give you PR-speak or HR-speak. They'll scratch your back, with the expectation that somewhere down the road you'll scratch theirs.
If you don't have a solid network of people in your industry, a job board is better than nothing. But if you want a job you'll really like, a nod in the right direction from someone who knows you is the way to get it. Would you rather hire a number, or someone who has been recommended to you by one of your contacts?
Learn Java. Become a Linux whiz. Build servers in your spare time. All of these things are useful in getting a job, but building a solid human network is more important by far in an extremely competitive job market.
What matters for bluetooth is not whether a pundit thinks...
Waitaminnit! That would imply that the pundits are actually not the all-seeing oracles they make themselves out to be!
Take note of this pronouncement by Enderle and make sure to use it as a sig file a few years from now, just to remind folks that pundits ain't always right.
Sorta like this: "Stick a fork in 'em - this Apple is cooked."
Robert Thomson, Financial Post, 2/20/2003
Where are the Wired magazine articles about how to "save" Apple?
Where in the hell is Dvorak when you need him?!
The Real Five Reasons
on
SCOoby Snacks
·
· Score: 5, Funny
1) SCO UNIX(R) is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform - just like our experienced, capable, and truly ferocious attorneys.
2) SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor - and Lord knows, vendor lock-in is a GOOD thing!
3) SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap - who cares if it's a highway to Hell.
4) SCO UNIX(R) is Secure - from legal attacks, unlike you, you friggin' thief! Give us your money! You owe us! Give it to us!
5) SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered - and we truly believe that IBM's counteroffensive will do nothing to harm us. Really! It's all sunshine here at SCO!
"If people weren't in front of their computers 24/7 maybe they wouldn't be isolated and lonely.."
said the man with a link to babehunt.org on his post.
Sorry, I couldn't help it. Nothing against you, nnnneedles.
Google as a business competitor
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This isn't just about technology, folks.
Microsoft has a monopoly to leverage, to be sure. But their history shows that in general Microsoft doesn't make many business mistakes. They instead wait for their competition (like Netscape - a company that practically handed the lead to Microsoft on a silver platter) to shoot themselves in the foot. Every time they've faced a competitor that's in truly top form, Microsoft hasn't won.
Intuit has held off against repeated attacks from Microsoft.
The PlayStation hasn't been demolished by the XBox.
Microsoft hasn't even bothered trying to take on Adobe.
Oracle is not being destroyed by Microsoft.
In all of these cases, aggressive, competent companies have held off attacks from Microsoft by minimizing their mistakes and playing against Microsoft's weaknesses.
Google is not just about smart technology. This is a company that figured out how to make money with search. Remember back in the late 90s, when all of the kingpins of search decided that portals were the way to go? They were all wrong. Google, the late entrant, actually had it right and stuck to their core competency.
Microsoft faces a tough competitor in Google - one that's not likely to make the same kind of mistakes its predecessors did.
So if you use phone sex hotlines you deserve to have your money stolen? If you use a dating service do you deserve the same thing? If you subscribe to a right-wing or left-wing newspaper do you deserve to be ripped off by someone?
As for ripping off a government-sponsored radio station, who do you think is paying for it? Where does the government's money come from? It's not takin money from mom and pop directly, but it's not as though their not hurting the general public. People like to rail against government inefficiency and complain of mismanaged tax dollars. It's odd to me that someone would not be outraged by criminals directly stealing those tax dollars.
When I hear the term "bleak future" my thoughts turn to Malthus, the crass commercial culture of America, the poisoning of the earth's fresh water supply, the quality of life in most of sub-Saharan Africa, and things of that sort.
Slashdot Mirror
Your logic: "It is not my purpose to avenge the United States for 9-11. But, we have not been avenged for 9-11" is quite compelling.
"Stick a fork in 'em - this Apple is cooked."
Robert Thomson, Financial Post, 2/20/2003
"While praising Apple's service, analysts caution that its success won't necessarily transfer completely to the Windows environment."
John Borland, c|net news, 7/28/03
"Folks, the Mac platform is through... ."
John C. Dvorak, 1998
"The iPod, with its backward-looking feature set and dramatically inflated price, has only its good looks going for it."
Lukas Hauser, the MacCommunist, 10/23/2001
I love it. People are discussing the possibility that one of the most powerful brands on the Internet, a company that served as training wheels for the Interet to countless millions of people, may be sold to *the* dominant corporation in information technology.
My guess is there are more than a few stockholders in both companies who don't think this speculation is "silly and pointless."
Gee, wouldn't THAT suck. Allowing people to use the 'Net without constant harrassment from marketers would surely provoke an outcry from the outraged Net populace.
"While praising Apple's service, analysts caution that its success won't necessarily transfer completely to the Windows environment." - John Borland, c|net news, 7/28/03
Hmm.. I wonder if Netflix has it...
As a former ground-pounder, I'm so with you there.
What makes you say that? I'm curious. If you're upset because the Bradley doesn't go up well against MBTs, you're barking up the wrong tree, because the Bradley wasn't designed for that purpose.
If you're saying that the Bradley suffers as a personnel carrier because of its armament, I'd be interested in your sources. I'm not saying this with sarcasm - I've just never heard anyone badmouth the Bradley since the infamous 60 Minutes piece back when the Bradley was still under development.
I have heard mech guys talk about how much they love their Bradley, including one track commander whose Bradley took a T-72 round and kept fighting.
The Army needs helicopters to move soldiers around the battlefield, but with so many other ways of directing fire (much more accurate indirect fire through Paladin systems, for example), and better coordination with the fast-movers (the Air Force and Army have a ways to go in this regard, but they're getting better), the days of the wannabe Hind are over.
Say what you will about Rumsfeld, but he has at least made the top brass look long and hard at all the systems in the pipeline to be sure they match future needs.
On the Web, loyalty changes like the wind.
When you're talking about search sites that require no login and there is no friction associated with changing your preferred site, users are even more fickle.
Sure, Google has strong brand presence, but remember that Google obtained that stature purely through ease of use and effectiveness of their product. They spent no money on marketing.
The brand followed the product, which is in stark contrast to most new brands, where marketing positions the product.
If SearchCompanyX comes along with an easy to use engine that supports stemming, eliminates spamming, indexes zillions documents of all types, and provides some form of advanced site thumbnailing so users have more of an idea of their destination before they follow a link, Google will go down hard.
On the Web, branding and performance are much more intertwined than in the offline world..
No technology solution will replace the value of your human contacts. They know you and can vouch for you. They'll pass you on to other people they know whom they trust. They won't give you PR-speak or HR-speak. They'll scratch your back, with the expectation that somewhere down the road you'll scratch theirs.
If you don't have a solid network of people in your industry, a job board is better than nothing. But if you want a job you'll really like, a nod in the right direction from someone who knows you is the way to get it. Would you rather hire a number, or someone who has been recommended to you by one of your contacts?
Learn Java. Become a Linux whiz. Build servers in your spare time. All of these things are useful in getting a job, but building a solid human network is more important by far in an extremely competitive job market.
Waitaminnit! That would imply that the pundits are actually not the all-seeing oracles they make themselves out to be!
Take note of this pronouncement by Enderle and make sure to use it as a sig file a few years from now, just to remind folks that pundits ain't always right.
Sorta like this: "Stick a fork in 'em - this Apple is cooked."
Robert Thomson, Financial Post, 2/20/2003
Where are the Wired magazine articles about how to "save" Apple?
Where in the hell is Dvorak when you need him?!
2) SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor - and Lord knows, vendor lock-in is a GOOD thing!
3) SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap - who cares if it's a highway to Hell.
4) SCO UNIX(R) is Secure - from legal attacks, unlike you, you friggin' thief! Give us your money! You owe us! Give it to us!
5) SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered - and we truly believe that IBM's counteroffensive will do nothing to harm us. Really! It's all sunshine here at SCO!
said the man with a link to babehunt.org on his post.
Sorry, I couldn't help it. Nothing against you, nnnneedles.
Microsoft has a monopoly to leverage, to be sure. But their history shows that in general Microsoft doesn't make many business mistakes. They instead wait for their competition (like Netscape - a company that practically handed the lead to Microsoft on a silver platter) to shoot themselves in the foot. Every time they've faced a competitor that's in truly top form, Microsoft hasn't won.
Intuit has held off against repeated attacks from Microsoft.
The PlayStation hasn't been demolished by the XBox.
Microsoft hasn't even bothered trying to take on Adobe.
Oracle is not being destroyed by Microsoft.
In all of these cases, aggressive, competent companies have held off attacks from Microsoft by minimizing their mistakes and playing against Microsoft's weaknesses.
Google is not just about smart technology. This is a company that figured out how to make money with search. Remember back in the late 90s, when all of the kingpins of search decided that portals were the way to go? They were all wrong. Google, the late entrant, actually had it right and stuck to their core competency.
Microsoft faces a tough competitor in Google - one that's not likely to make the same kind of mistakes its predecessors did.
OK, I'll buy that argument. Their actions have internal consistency, whether you agree with them or not.
So if you use phone sex hotlines you deserve to have your money stolen? If you use a dating service do you deserve the same thing? If you subscribe to a right-wing or left-wing newspaper do you deserve to be ripped off by someone?
As for ripping off a government-sponsored radio station, who do you think is paying for it? Where does the government's money come from? It's not takin money from mom and pop directly, but it's not as though their not hurting the general public. People like to rail against government inefficiency and complain of mismanaged tax dollars. It's odd to me that someone would not be outraged by criminals directly stealing those tax dollars.
These guys aren't exactly Robin Hoods.
Guess my priorities are truly misplaced.