Why is it so difficult for people to understand that in order to make a profit, a company has to have a MEANS OF MAKING A PROFIT!
You won't make money if people don't want to pay for what you're bringing to the table, no matter how "cool" it is. And if it costs you more to deliver your product or service than people are willing to pay, then you still lose.
The VC community is such an amazing bunch of lemmings. I've been involved in several roundtable discussions with VCs, and one thing I took away from those meetings is that VCs rarely go against the grain. It's a hive mind.
So they've decided that WiFi is cool technology that will become ubiquitous in some fashion or another. They've therefore opted to invest in companies that offer WiFi products and services. But how many of these companies actually know how to turn a profit? How many of them have a bona-fide business plan that goes beyond, "get WiFi out to the masses and hope we somehow make money off it."
In the mean time, VCs are shutting out a lot of good ideas that don't have the "sexiness" (I'm serious, a lot of VCs actually talk like that) of WiFi. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, "this VC system needs an enema!"
The profile of MacDonald on the Manhattan Institute site also provides links to many of her op-ed pieces.
She looks fairly young judging by her photograph. I wonder if she's ever read about COINTELPRO, as just one example of government snooping gone too far.
Whether your opponent surrenders peacefully or you kill them all in a war of attrition, when you walk into their capital city and raise the flag you've conquered them.
Microsoft is very good at waiting for their opponents (Apple and Netscape spring to mind) to make mistakes. They are relentless competitors. Say what you will about their technology, but companies that underestimate Microsoft usually wind up regretting thier miscalculation.
What you are missing are a few very important point
Perhaps I should have been more clear in my initial post. I understand and agree with everything you've said. But my point was that from the perspective of view of the artist, why would you want to sign on with a label, since everyone knows that the labels screw artists?
You may have seen this already, but Courtney Love has done the math. She puts the production figure at $500k.
But I wonder if it really has to cost $500k to produce an album. How much did it cost Wilco to produce "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot?" According to this article it cost $300k. But according to this story, it only cost $85k.
The labels have until now had a cartel on album production, which has kept both production and distribution prices artificially high. So if you can cut production costs and cut distribution costs, why do you need the labels at all?
Ah, for promotion!
But what if you're not one of the top ten stars in a label's roster? What sort of promotion do you get? Go into a music store and see how many of the hundreds of artists whose albums are on the shelves actually have any promotional posters or other advertising. The percentage is quite small.
From what I've read, even the multiplatinum musicians make most of their money from live performances. I've always gone to see live acts based on their recorded work. If more recorded work were available (perhaps even for free), wouldn't that improved exposure give an artist the ability to pull in larger crowds and therefore make more money at live gigs?
I'm sure I'm missing something, but why do artists need labels any more?
Very astute of you to point out that marketing the product, rather than, say, improving it over time, is what actually drives Microsoft's bottom line.
You know, you're right. Marketing is actually secondary to wielding monopoly power on the desktop. With all the benefits of monopoly rents, Microsoft can afford to come out with a crappy version 1, followed by successively better versions over time.
Most software companies don't have that luxury. If version 1 sucks, they don't sell software. They go out of business.
Apologies for my wildly off-base initial post, AC.
The corporate culture at Microsoft is such that they see themselves as the underdog. Really. Everything I've read and everything I've heard from anyone who works there indicates that the company has a very strong sense of "us against the world."
Also, this is a company that is driven by conquests. They conquered the desktop. What now? You have to expand in order to keep your stock moving upward. It's never enough to stay big; you need to be bigger.
So as with Sidewalk, MSN, XBox, et. al., Microsoft is attacking Google and moving into the moviehouse business because to their way of thinking there is no other option.
For those of you who scoff at these latest attempts, remember that these guys have tremendously deep pockets. They can afford to pour money down a profitless hole for years, knowing that eventually they'll figure out how to market the product. Notice I said "market the product."
The best product doesn't always win. Microsoft's continued dominance is proof of that. Laugh at them all you want, but they're dangerous in almost any arena.
swb has it exactly right. The biggest obstacle with bullet launchers today is that aiming them to deadly effect is a skill. Regardless of what you see on TV and in movies, it takes a skilled practitioner to hit exactly what they want when they want to with a rifle of any kind.
For example, with an M-16, you actually have to "zero" the weapon to your particular aiming style and body geometry. It's a time-consuming and annoying process. Ask any ground-pounder what they'd like most, and they'll tell you a weapon that's lightweight, easy to aim, and packs a punch is where it's at.
You're right! Just roll over. Give in. Do what they tell you. Don't try for something better. Give your money to monopolists. Vote with your dollars! Tell the world that it's OK to just become one with the Borg!
Take a step out of the moment and think about this. I'm not a Moms Against Violence type of person, and I'm not a heavy-duty FPS lover. However, I've played my fair share of wargames, RPGs, and so on, online and offline.
Doesn't the introduction of a game like this just seem even a *tad* surreal, especially in light of the war going on right now on our TV screens and abso-fucking-lutely for real in Iraq?
Go online and place bets with other players regarding whose digital alter-ego will blast the other one in the brain with a virtual bullet. I'm not opposed to it, per se, but it makes me wonder about what our gameplaying is doing to our perceptions of reality.
I'm just asking the question, and I'd be interested in your responses. Is this sort of gameplay just simple fun, a sign of a disturbed society, or something else?
Good points, eyefish. I didn't intend to bash you, but I may have come across a bit harshly. It's just that I've been hearing arguments about Apple's impending irrelevance for many years now.:-)
For some time I was behind the idea that Apple should move to x86, but I then came to the conclusion that if they did so, they'd be chopping themselves off at the knees. Apple is able to innovate on the software side because of their hardware sales.
Imagine if anyone could build an Intel or AMD box and run OS X on it. Because Apple doesn't enjoy the monopoly position that Microsoft does with Office and Windows, they'd have to raise prices on OS X itself, just to recoup the losses from the rampant piracy of OS X that would result.
Microsoft is still able to make money (their two only truly profitable divisions are the Office and Windows divisions) because they can charge monopoly rents on their software, and consumers just put up with it. Apple would not be able to do this, so when they raised prices on the OS itself, consumers would be driven even more torwards pirated copies of the OS.
So Apple would lose its hardware revenue base and deprive itself of the opportunity to make any money off of OS software.
If you can find a way around this dilemma, I'd seriously love to hear it, because the idea of a Mac running a scorching Athlon is very enticing. I just can't see how Apple can move into the x86 environment without slitting their own throats.
Arguments about Apple's impending obsolecence have been with us for years. I vividly remember purchasing a PowerMac 8100/100 AV back in '95. It was kick-ass fast, and handily smoked the PCs I worked with in the computer lab.
But nobody in the PC press, none of my Windows-using friends, *nobody* would believe that this excellent machine was anything but the last, dying gasp of Apple as it sputtered to oblivion.
This was when Apple's marketshare was higher than it is now. Mosaic and Netscape products were released for the Mac at the same time as their Windows bretheren. Apple hadn't blown its lead in schools.
My point is not that things are worse for Apple now than they were then. I'd say that Apple is moving forward quite well. But there is this continuing background murmuring, of which eyefish's comments are an example, that say Apple is doomed.
Taken point by point:
WiFi "g" for PCs much cheaper than on the Mac: That may be true, but it seems to me it wasn't until Apple released its line of AirPort products that "b" started moving. I think the same thing is true of "g". Everyone was on the fence until Apple announced support.
all PCs nowdays come with USB 2.0, and FireWire is almost standard or really cheap to add: Apples and oranges. USB 2.0 is only slowly catching on, and FireWire is the standard for consumer digital media, particularly DV. It's cheap to add on to a PC, but some folks don't want to have to add it on. Time and effort equal money and frustration.
FireWire 800 (and I bet you'll eventually find it cheaper on PCs): This is a classic example of what I'm talking about. "Sure, it's on the Mac, but soon it will be on the PC, so pay attention to how fast my PC's CPU is now, but when discussing FireWire, pay attention to what *may* be on my PC in six months."
the iApps, which are very easy to use, but I bet Microsoft or someone else will copy them soon enough: More of the same, but even worse. Building applications isn't like painting by numbers. The iApps could have been built a long time ago by Microsoft or someone else, but they weren't. Apple is continuing to upgrade the iApps, while Microsoft talks about computer watches.
iPod (competitors are getting close also on copying it and improving it as well): Let's see. The iPod has been out since October, 2001. It made everyone's "best of" lists that holiday season. It made everyone's "best of" lists for the 2002 holiday season. Apple keeps improving it. So how far in the future does something have to be before it's just vapor?
Mac OS/X, which is a nice piece of work: I agree with you there. And it's no small feat, bringing your installed user base into a completely new OS, while attracting new UNIX users and a few Windows converts.
One more thing. Apple's business model is built around innovation, rather than building the cheapest systems. Dell's model of selling commodity hardware more cheaply than the competition works for them. But the thing is, that model only works for one or two companies at any given time, because anyone else who competes with that model will eventually die because they won't be able to continue operating on razor-thin margins.
The Information Superhighway is littered with the remains of companies that tried the one size fits all model of commodity hardware sales. In the mean time, Apple, the company that started the ball rolling, is still very much alive and providing some sweet (non-vapor) products.
Why not "untethered, and allowed to float free into the stratosphere," or "set free, to gambol and frolic in the fields with all the other happy, furry distros?"
I remember back when software was soft and cuddly, with short little legs; we didn't need leashes for it. And we *liked* it that way!
Will they be treated as motorized vehicles at McDonalds? Will I be able to use the drive-up lane to order by super-sized double quarter-pounder meal with a side order of lard?
I really don't understand why every few years we hear about a newer, spiffier method of motorizing a bicycle. If you want a motorized bicycle, haul out your old copy of "All Mod Cons" and start driving a Vespa, or get an E-Bike.
If you want to actually use your legs and run the risk of (shrieks of horror!) helping your heart out a bit, ride a bicycle. They're actually quite fun, in spite of the fact that you have to move your body to use them.
Gawd, we've got SUVs running amok, huge Ticonderoga-class diesel trucks everywhere, and now we have to smoggify one of the most elegant of transportation solutions. Go ahead, mod me down. At least I won't be accused of karma-whoring with this one.
Granted, my 400mhz may run OSX nicely, It'd prolly crawl on an iBook of the equiv.
Actually OS X does quite well on laptops. My G3/400 iBook isn't going to win any speed records, but it runs OS X just fine.
While an OS vendor could make a desktop-oriented OS and a separate laptop-oriented OS, the problem is that people these days use laptops as essentially mobile desktop computers. They expect to do as much with their laptop as they can with their desktop machine.
So if a vendor comes out with a "laptop-optimized" OS, odds are laptop users wouldn't use it, because they don't want the stripped-down OS, they want all the features of the desktop OS.
If the "fastest, smallest OS" won, do you think Microsoft would control even a fraction of the OS market?
China's purchasing power is #2, but their GDP is still 7th. But by comparing purchasing power parity as the primary measure of overall economic power, you're still ignoring other factors.
Your belief seems to be that purchasing power parity should be used as the primary indicator of an economy's relative power, when it is actually a component of GDP that is used to compare the purchasing power (the demand side of the economy) in nations. It ignores the suppy side altogether, which is why you never hear it used as the sole measure of overall economic strength.
Side note: All of my statistics are pulled from The Economist's Pocket World in Figures 2002 Edition.
The country with the larger population will have the biggest market and thus the strongest economy.
That's a far too simplistic analysis.
Myth 1) Population rules all, which is why China (#1 population) and India (#2 population) should have the most powerful economies in the world.
Reality) China's GDP ranks 7th, behind that of the US, Japan, Germany, UK, France, and Italy. India's is 12th.
Myth 2) The United States, because of all of those damned immigrants and teenage mothers, is increasing its population at a staggering rate.
Reality) The predicted population ranking in 2015 will still be in order of size: China, India, the United States. The annual population growth rates of these nations between 1995 and 2000 are.90%, 1.69%, and 1.05% respectively. Accurate predictions for, say 2040, are hamstrung by the repeated failures of earlier population forecasts, as this paper delineates.
Larger population does not equal strongest economy. Japan has the 9th largest population and 2nd largest economy. Enormous Russia has the 6th largest population and 15th largest economy.
Population densities, education, economic infrastructure, and a variety of other factors are far more imporant than simple comparisons of size.
of Canada's Financial Post, or you're just a plagiarist.;-)
Thomson's brainless analysis was posted on February 20th in the Financial Post. As for the analysis itself:
1) Revenue fell from a year earlier. Making Apple the only computer company to have been hit by the sagging economy.
2)... the same time Apple's sales were falling, PC sales rose. This tells us nothing about Apple's performance in comparison with competing companies. It only reveals Apple's performance vs. the aggregate of all competing companies. This includes not only Dell, Gateway, and HP, but also Bob's Cheep Komputer Shack. Such comparisons don't tell us whether the overal PC sales growth was fueled by one or two companies or was solid across the board (which it wasn't).
3)... there aren't any new iMacs in Apple's future. I'll reread that statement and laugh when the next iMac (or the next consumer Mac, whatever it's called) ships. Does this crystal ball have a "reset" button?
4)...has recently undergone a restructuring and is slowly fading into nothingness. I'm not sure what restructuring he's referring to here, but I'm also not sure how restructuring equals a slow fade to nothingness. Restructuring happens all the time in large organizations, and it can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how and why it is implemented. As to nothingness, why are there so many new O'Reilly books about OS X, so much interest in Apple on Slashdot (vs. 3 years ago), and so many positive reviews of Apple products in publications that include PC Magazine and InfoWorld?
As a final point, Apple, like any large company, engages in intellectual property development and protection as a matter of habit. It's not as if someone at Apple says, "Oh, shit! We'd better get off our asses and come up with a design patent on the trashcan!" The process can take *years* to implement, and at any given time, I'm sure Apple, like any other computer hardware/software company, is pursuing dozens of claims.
I followed the link. Quite interesting. I found this to be perhaps the most revealing item. The contrarian view is that: "A stream of psychological research (associated with Amos Tversky and David Kahneman (see this glossary entry)) has shown that judgements of many kinds are distorted in the direction of 'availability'; the ease with which something comes to mind."
That assumes that you want all of the songs on a CD. Most CDs, even ones I really like, have at least four or five tracks that are of no interest to me.
Part of the problem the RIAA has been struggling with is that they can't seem to pull themselves away from the "play a single on the radio, get people to buy the single AND another ten songs on a CD for $16" model.
This *may* be a better method. Pay $6 for the songs you really want, and don't pay for the songs you don't want.
Time will tell. After all, this is still just a rumor.
Why is 25 cents always the magic number for people?
You can read whatever you like into my comments, but for a moment let's focus on the original point of my comment.
Microsoft's track record on security is pathetic. This is not my uninformed opinion. I've administered NT 4 and a wide variety of Linux distros, as well as Mac OS 9, OS X, and OpenBSD. I haven't admin'd Windows 2000 or XP, but from what I understand, Microsoft is slowly getting better at making their OSes more secure by default.
But you make it sound as if there is some sort of security equivalency between Windows and every other OS out there. Are you trying to tell me that OpenBSD (without constant patches) is as prone to vulnerabilities as Windows 2000? Most of the services that can lead to security problems are left off by default in a basic OS X installation. Mac OS 9 servers, while not as capable as Windows servers, are much more difficult to crack.
Every OS vendor has to emphasize one aspect of perceived value over another. In the pre-OS X days, Apple prioritized on maintaining rigid adherence to user interface and proprietary standards, which made their machines less-capable as servers, but far less exposed as well. Sun has optimized Solaris around scalability and robustness.
I would argue that Microsoft has for years emphasized including as many features as possible into all of their software. The company's DNA is based on acquiring marketshare. "Embrace and extend" is a term that applies to *features*, and it's not by accident. But by emphasizing features over a more methodical development strategy, they have given rise to the expectation that frequent patches are to be expected and proper.
Not once did I mention that I'm a disciple of RedHat. In fact, I'd argue that their methodology is becoming more like Microsoft's, which is leading to increased bloat in their distributions. They're trying to be all things to all people, just as Microsoft has for years.
The infamous "Trustworthy Computing" initiative at Microsoft came about for a reason. They know their record on security sucks. They're working to change that, and I applaud them for it. But doesn't the fact that Microsoft execs have publicly admitted the need to pay more attention to building secure products tell you that they are trying to shift their DNA?
Slashdot Mirror
You won't make money if people don't want to pay for what you're bringing to the table, no matter how "cool" it is. And if it costs you more to deliver your product or service than people are willing to pay, then you still lose.
The VC community is such an amazing bunch of lemmings. I've been involved in several roundtable discussions with VCs, and one thing I took away from those meetings is that VCs rarely go against the grain. It's a hive mind.
So they've decided that WiFi is cool technology that will become ubiquitous in some fashion or another. They've therefore opted to invest in companies that offer WiFi products and services. But how many of these companies actually know how to turn a profit? How many of them have a bona-fide business plan that goes beyond, "get WiFi out to the masses and hope we somehow make money off it."
In the mean time, VCs are shutting out a lot of good ideas that don't have the "sexiness" (I'm serious, a lot of VCs actually talk like that) of WiFi. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, "this VC system needs an enema!"
She looks fairly young judging by her photograph. I wonder if she's ever read about COINTELPRO, as just one example of government snooping gone too far.
Semantics.
Whether your opponent surrenders peacefully or you kill them all in a war of attrition, when you walk into their capital city and raise the flag you've conquered them.
Microsoft is very good at waiting for their opponents (Apple and Netscape spring to mind) to make mistakes. They are relentless competitors. Say what you will about their technology, but companies that underestimate Microsoft usually wind up regretting thier miscalculation.
Perhaps I should have been more clear in my initial post. I understand and agree with everything you've said. But my point was that from the perspective of view of the artist, why would you want to sign on with a label, since everyone knows that the labels screw artists?
But I wonder if it really has to cost $500k to produce an album. How much did it cost Wilco to produce "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot?" According to this article it cost $300k. But according to this story, it only cost $85k.
The labels have until now had a cartel on album production, which has kept both production and distribution prices artificially high. So if you can cut production costs and cut distribution costs, why do you need the labels at all?
Ah, for promotion!
But what if you're not one of the top ten stars in a label's roster? What sort of promotion do you get? Go into a music store and see how many of the hundreds of artists whose albums are on the shelves actually have any promotional posters or other advertising. The percentage is quite small.
So again I ask, why does anyone need the labels?
I'm sure I'm missing something, but why do artists need labels any more?
You know, you're right. Marketing is actually secondary to wielding monopoly power on the desktop. With all the benefits of monopoly rents, Microsoft can afford to come out with a crappy version 1, followed by successively better versions over time.
Most software companies don't have that luxury. If version 1 sucks, they don't sell software. They go out of business.
Apologies for my wildly off-base initial post, AC.
Also, this is a company that is driven by conquests. They conquered the desktop. What now? You have to expand in order to keep your stock moving upward. It's never enough to stay big; you need to be bigger.
So as with Sidewalk, MSN, XBox, et. al., Microsoft is attacking Google and moving into the moviehouse business because to their way of thinking there is no other option.
For those of you who scoff at these latest attempts, remember that these guys have tremendously deep pockets. They can afford to pour money down a profitless hole for years, knowing that eventually they'll figure out how to market the product. Notice I said "market the product."
The best product doesn't always win. Microsoft's continued dominance is proof of that. Laugh at them all you want, but they're dangerous in almost any arena.
For example, with an M-16, you actually have to "zero" the weapon to your particular aiming style and body geometry. It's a time-consuming and annoying process. Ask any ground-pounder what they'd like most, and they'll tell you a weapon that's lightweight, easy to aim, and packs a punch is where it's at.
Then again, many analysts are the same self-serving fucking morons who assisted the Dot-Bomb Economy.
Doesn't the introduction of a game like this just seem even a *tad* surreal, especially in light of the war going on right now on our TV screens and abso-fucking-lutely for real in Iraq?
Go online and place bets with other players regarding whose digital alter-ego will blast the other one in the brain with a virtual bullet. I'm not opposed to it, per se, but it makes me wonder about what our gameplaying is doing to our perceptions of reality.
I'm just asking the question, and I'd be interested in your responses. Is this sort of gameplay just simple fun, a sign of a disturbed society, or something else?
For some time I was behind the idea that Apple should move to x86, but I then came to the conclusion that if they did so, they'd be chopping themselves off at the knees. Apple is able to innovate on the software side because of their hardware sales.
Imagine if anyone could build an Intel or AMD box and run OS X on it. Because Apple doesn't enjoy the monopoly position that Microsoft does with Office and Windows, they'd have to raise prices on OS X itself, just to recoup the losses from the rampant piracy of OS X that would result.
Microsoft is still able to make money (their two only truly profitable divisions are the Office and Windows divisions) because they can charge monopoly rents on their software, and consumers just put up with it. Apple would not be able to do this, so when they raised prices on the OS itself, consumers would be driven even more torwards pirated copies of the OS.
So Apple would lose its hardware revenue base and deprive itself of the opportunity to make any money off of OS software.
If you can find a way around this dilemma, I'd seriously love to hear it, because the idea of a Mac running a scorching Athlon is very enticing. I just can't see how Apple can move into the x86 environment without slitting their own throats.
But nobody in the PC press, none of my Windows-using friends, *nobody* would believe that this excellent machine was anything but the last, dying gasp of Apple as it sputtered to oblivion.
This was when Apple's marketshare was higher than it is now. Mosaic and Netscape products were released for the Mac at the same time as their Windows bretheren. Apple hadn't blown its lead in schools.
My point is not that things are worse for Apple now than they were then. I'd say that Apple is moving forward quite well. But there is this continuing background murmuring, of which eyefish's comments are an example, that say Apple is doomed.
Taken point by point:
WiFi "g" for PCs much cheaper than on the Mac: That may be true, but it seems to me it wasn't until Apple released its line of AirPort products that "b" started moving. I think the same thing is true of "g". Everyone was on the fence until Apple announced support.
all PCs nowdays come with USB 2.0, and FireWire is almost standard or really cheap to add: Apples and oranges. USB 2.0 is only slowly catching on, and FireWire is the standard for consumer digital media, particularly DV. It's cheap to add on to a PC, but some folks don't want to have to add it on. Time and effort equal money and frustration.
FireWire 800 (and I bet you'll eventually find it cheaper on PCs): This is a classic example of what I'm talking about. "Sure, it's on the Mac, but soon it will be on the PC, so pay attention to how fast my PC's CPU is now, but when discussing FireWire, pay attention to what *may* be on my PC in six months."
the iApps, which are very easy to use, but I bet Microsoft or someone else will copy them soon enough: More of the same, but even worse. Building applications isn't like painting by numbers. The iApps could have been built a long time ago by Microsoft or someone else, but they weren't. Apple is continuing to upgrade the iApps, while Microsoft talks about computer watches.
iPod (competitors are getting close also on copying it and improving it as well): Let's see. The iPod has been out since October, 2001. It made everyone's "best of" lists that holiday season. It made everyone's "best of" lists for the 2002 holiday season. Apple keeps improving it. So how far in the future does something have to be before it's just vapor?
Mac OS/X, which is a nice piece of work: I agree with you there. And it's no small feat, bringing your installed user base into a completely new OS, while attracting new UNIX users and a few Windows converts.
One more thing. Apple's business model is built around innovation, rather than building the cheapest systems. Dell's model of selling commodity hardware more cheaply than the competition works for them. But the thing is, that model only works for one or two companies at any given time, because anyone else who competes with that model will eventually die because they won't be able to continue operating on razor-thin margins.
The Information Superhighway is littered with the remains of companies that tried the one size fits all model of commodity hardware sales. In the mean time, Apple, the company that started the ball rolling, is still very much alive and providing some sweet (non-vapor) products.
"Folks, the Mac platform is through..." - John C. Dvorak, 1998
I remember back when software was soft and cuddly, with short little legs; we didn't need leashes for it. And we *liked* it that way!
I really don't understand why every few years we hear about a newer, spiffier method of motorizing a bicycle. If you want a motorized bicycle, haul out your old copy of "All Mod Cons" and start driving a Vespa, or get an E-Bike.
If you want to actually use your legs and run the risk of (shrieks of horror!) helping your heart out a bit, ride a bicycle. They're actually quite fun, in spite of the fact that you have to move your body to use them.
Gawd, we've got SUVs running amok, huge Ticonderoga-class diesel trucks everywhere, and now we have to smoggify one of the most elegant of transportation solutions. Go ahead, mod me down. At least I won't be accused of karma-whoring with this one.
Actually OS X does quite well on laptops. My G3/400 iBook isn't going to win any speed records, but it runs OS X just fine.
While an OS vendor could make a desktop-oriented OS and a separate laptop-oriented OS, the problem is that people these days use laptops as essentially mobile desktop computers. They expect to do as much with their laptop as they can with their desktop machine.
So if a vendor comes out with a "laptop-optimized" OS, odds are laptop users wouldn't use it, because they don't want the stripped-down OS, they want all the features of the desktop OS.
If the "fastest, smallest OS" won, do you think Microsoft would control even a fraction of the OS market?
Your belief seems to be that purchasing power parity should be used as the primary indicator of an economy's relative power, when it is actually a component of GDP that is used to compare the purchasing power (the demand side of the economy) in nations. It ignores the suppy side altogether, which is why you never hear it used as the sole measure of overall economic strength.
Side note: All of my statistics are pulled from The Economist's Pocket World in Figures 2002 Edition.
That's a far too simplistic analysis.
Myth 1) Population rules all, which is why China (#1 population) and India (#2 population) should have the most powerful economies in the world.
Reality) China's GDP ranks 7th, behind that of the US, Japan, Germany, UK, France, and Italy. India's is 12th.
Myth 2) The United States, because of all of those damned immigrants and teenage mothers, is increasing its population at a staggering rate.
Reality) The predicted population ranking in 2015 will still be in order of size: China, India, the United States. The annual population growth rates of these nations between 1995 and 2000 are .90%, 1.69%, and 1.05% respectively. Accurate predictions for, say 2040, are hamstrung by the repeated failures of earlier population forecasts, as this paper delineates.
Larger population does not equal strongest economy. Japan has the 9th largest population and 2nd largest economy. Enormous Russia has the 6th largest population and 15th largest economy.
Population densities, education, economic infrastructure, and a variety of other factors are far more imporant than simple comparisons of size.
Thomson's brainless analysis was posted on February 20th in the Financial Post. As for the analysis itself:
1) Revenue fell from a year earlier. Making Apple the only computer company to have been hit by the sagging economy.
2) ... the same time Apple's sales were falling, PC sales rose. This tells us nothing about Apple's performance in comparison with competing companies. It only reveals Apple's performance vs. the aggregate of all competing companies. This includes not only Dell, Gateway, and HP, but also Bob's Cheep Komputer Shack. Such comparisons don't tell us whether the overal PC sales growth was fueled by one or two companies or was solid across the board (which it wasn't).
3) ... there aren't any new iMacs in Apple's future. I'll reread that statement and laugh when the next iMac (or the next consumer Mac, whatever it's called) ships. Does this crystal ball have a "reset" button?
4) ...has recently undergone a restructuring and is slowly fading into nothingness. I'm not sure what restructuring he's referring to here, but I'm also not sure how restructuring equals a slow fade to nothingness. Restructuring happens all the time in large organizations, and it can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how and why it is implemented. As to nothingness, why are there so many new O'Reilly books about OS X, so much interest in Apple on Slashdot (vs. 3 years ago), and so many positive reviews of Apple products in publications that include PC Magazine and InfoWorld?
As a final point, Apple, like any large company, engages in intellectual property development and protection as a matter of habit. It's not as if someone at Apple says, "Oh, shit! We'd better get off our asses and come up with a design patent on the trashcan!" The process can take *years* to implement, and at any given time, I'm sure Apple, like any other computer hardware/software company, is pursuing dozens of claims.
That assumes that you want all of the songs on a CD. Most CDs, even ones I really like, have at least four or five tracks that are of no interest to me.
Part of the problem the RIAA has been struggling with is that they can't seem to pull themselves away from the "play a single on the radio, get people to buy the single AND another ten songs on a CD for $16" model.
This *may* be a better method. Pay $6 for the songs you really want, and don't pay for the songs you don't want.
Time will tell. After all, this is still just a rumor.
Why is 25 cents always the magic number for people?
You can read whatever you like into my comments, but for a moment let's focus on the original point of my comment.
Microsoft's track record on security is pathetic. This is not my uninformed opinion. I've administered NT 4 and a wide variety of Linux distros, as well as Mac OS 9, OS X, and OpenBSD. I haven't admin'd Windows 2000 or XP, but from what I understand, Microsoft is slowly getting better at making their OSes more secure by default.
But you make it sound as if there is some sort of security equivalency between Windows and every other OS out there. Are you trying to tell me that OpenBSD (without constant patches) is as prone to vulnerabilities as Windows 2000? Most of the services that can lead to security problems are left off by default in a basic OS X installation. Mac OS 9 servers, while not as capable as Windows servers, are much more difficult to crack.
Every OS vendor has to emphasize one aspect of perceived value over another. In the pre-OS X days, Apple prioritized on maintaining rigid adherence to user interface and proprietary standards, which made their machines less-capable as servers, but far less exposed as well. Sun has optimized Solaris around scalability and robustness.
I would argue that Microsoft has for years emphasized including as many features as possible into all of their software. The company's DNA is based on acquiring marketshare. "Embrace and extend" is a term that applies to *features*, and it's not by accident. But by emphasizing features over a more methodical development strategy, they have given rise to the expectation that frequent patches are to be expected and proper.
Not once did I mention that I'm a disciple of RedHat. In fact, I'd argue that their methodology is becoming more like Microsoft's, which is leading to increased bloat in their distributions. They're trying to be all things to all people, just as Microsoft has for years.
The infamous "Trustworthy Computing" initiative at Microsoft came about for a reason. They know their record on security sucks. They're working to change that, and I applaud them for it. But doesn't the fact that Microsoft execs have publicly admitted the need to pay more attention to building secure products tell you that they are trying to shift their DNA?