How would the 1st amendment have anything to do with the FBI tracking you? Freedom of speech doesn't equal freedom from being monitored. Or Freedom to whatever you please with no one noticing...
Actually, to a very large extent, yes. Yes it does.
Or at least it did until the frickin' USAPATRIOTACT.
There are all sorts of things that private citizens can do because it is in public, but the government is forbidden to do because it is based on speech.
Putting people in a suspect list with no connection to a crime, based entirely on their speech, that is clearly forbidden to them. Taking the picture isn't. I have no problem with the picture. I'm only talking about where they wrote down stuff about people, implying suspicion where everything they actually pointed to was protected speech, including simply that members of Food Not Bombs was seen at anti-war rallies where they also saw members of other groups such as Earth First!.
In the photo on the website, I also see a "regime change" sticker, and other stickers that could be either pure political speech, or threats. But those aren't the ones they wrote down in these files.
I didn't wave my hands and discount that the FBI might consider political speech to be suspicious; I said that the 1st Amendment says they're not supposed to.
And cutting their budgets? That might just mean they buy less toys they don't need, or do less lab testing of evidence. Reducing their budget does not in any way imply that you're going to improve what they spend money on, or curtail excessive interest in hippies.
And you forget that they really don't care what the legislators does with their budgets; because they just make it up with bogus civil forfeiture, not to mention all the drugs and guns they have been selling for decades.
Just realize that the managers at all these agencies don't work for the American people. The American people didn't give their okay to be spied upon. Cabinet members and agency directors answer to the people who handle their next lucrative assignment.
And of course, The damned USAPATRIOTACT (look it up) undid all the privacy protections that were instituted following the COINTELPRO blowup.
There are other reasons not to be too overt with your political opinions. I have a sister, living in Texas, who has at least a dozen lefty stickers on her car, and it has been vandalized multiple times.
Whaddya expect? We're talking about Texas, afterall.
I could see it as being something that's not only long-term fiscally advantageous but also something that enables them to push the envelope and thus give their products a lead. Part of the picture I have in my head means that they'd be selling the chips themselves instead of limiting them to their own devices. That sort of goes against business practices seen by Apple in the past but I guess it's possible, however unlikely. As a long-term strategy, it might be worthwhile.
I did mention one of the larger drawbacks in my earlier reply. It puts them at a place of a single point of failure - unless another company *also* has the tech and can spin up the fab style/tech quickly in case of a crisis. I'm thinking that's really antithetical to typical corporate behavior with regards to Apple.
But as I said before, fab lines are assininely-expensive, have to be continuously updated, and pretty-much have to be run 24/7/365 to make ends meet. Apple has wisely stayed out of that game, IMHO.
That said, if Apple made server hardware that was not a fashion accessory and had the longevity, durability, and build quality associated with the consumer lines then I'd absolutely consider purchasing it for my home use.
Apple has had many, many forays into the Server market throughout the years, including at least one home-grown variant of Unix, plus Dedicated (non-Mac) Server machines that ran IBM's AIX, and a short-lived Port of NEXTSTEP in 1999, branded as "OS X Server 1.0", and all of this long before the XServes. And I would hardly call any of them a "fashion accessory". That is a blatant slap-in-the-face to the hundreds of software and hardware engineers that worked long and hard to bring those very serious products to market.
I don't refresh nearly as often, as a home user, so it's okay for me to buy a server and expect to get five to seven years out of it. Quality isn't so valuable a metric (but is still a metric - just not as valuable) when you're going to refresh in 2-3 years already and have already factored in the MTBF with your purchase.
As a home user, that metric becomes more heavily weighted, at least it does in my choices, and I'd give Apple a serious consideration at that point. I'd SERIOUSLY want to be able to have some alternatives. I'd really rather a different operating system on the bare metal. It is BSD and is Unix-like so I could live with it but it is not my preferences. So long as it had a decent VNC server and I could get VMWare up and running then I'd almost certainly opt for it - if it were an option and I was in the market for one.
Well, Macs can run VMWare, and VNC is the built-in "Screen Sharing" feature of OS X, so...
Now the question remains: What do you really need from a home-server, and will you accept something that isn't in a 19" rackmount package as a "real server" (keeping in mind that HP and Dell sell many boxen they call "Servers" that are simply glorified tower designs).
I'm sure there's a VNC server application package that exists or could be converted easily enough. I want something better than SSH. RDP is nice but I prefer VNC. I'm not sure but I bet there's an RDP app for OS X so that's an option.
You can have all of that and more with OS X. Oh, and Apple has a spectacular Remote Admin package based on VNC, called "Apple Remote Desktop". It can also be used to admi
> Apple made some (non-rack-mount) Servers that ran AIX, and those were 68k-based.
PowerPC actually... 604/604e
Yes, you are correct; sorry. I was thinking of the even older ones that ran Apple's A/UX (which was actually pretty cool). I'm pretty sure those were 68k-based.
Apple's problem is that it is a premium company who doesn't have access to AMOLED panels (I guess Samsung Displays would probably sell to them, but then they end up dependent on them for a key component again).
I would imagine a couple of the biggest problems for Samsung in selling to Apple is getting past their approval process and sufficient yield. When a new Samsung phone comes out, there aren't generally lines around the block waiting for it. The distribution channel has time to get filled-up. But when a new Apple phone comes out, the raw-materials suppliers have to be ready to supply a BURST of product (and this product ALL has to meet specs), or everybody is in trouble, pronto!
I don't think that AMOLED still has the production yield to meet that kind of "initial burst" demand.
Plus, Samsung is kind of (understandably) proud of their proprietary advances in AMOLED technology, and I wouldn't be at ALL surprised to find that they simply priced their AMOLED quote to Apple out of the running, intentionally; knowing full-well that no one else could even come close to supplying enough "glass" to fulfill Apple's blanket-order requirements.
What??? Methinks you're mixing up your technologies.
Isn't that what the "AM" in AMOLED stands for?
LEDs are fast to turn-on, but MUCH slower to turn-off due to trapped-charge from junction capacitance (IIRC). The Active Matrix means the same thing it did for LCDs: There is a driver transistor (actually a push-pull pair of transistors) for EACH pixel, and the "pull" transistor is responsible for discharging the LED more quickly, this significantly decreasing ghosting, which we see as "motion blur".
Maybe not, but I have a cheaper Phillips LCD TV which is only about 5 years or so old and it has developed an odd tendency for some of the vertical lines to not function until the TV "warms up" (probably some failing components that have to heat to begin to function normally). Basically you have some random small black lines cutting through the picture for the first 5 minutes or so of operation. Not a major problem but LCD does have some wear/quality issues as well.
Sounds like some bad solder connections to the driver electronics. Blame that fucking EU and their fucking fucking RoHS initiative. There's a reason the automotive and Aerospace industries were exempt from RoHS.
Another important thing about OLEDs is that they have a far lower life expectancy. While that might be fine for a cell phone that you intend to replace every two years, it is not so good when buying that huge wide screen TV for the living room. Assuming that you don't like seeing lots of dead pixels or that you are willing to replace your TV every couple of years. Personally I have avoided OLED TVs for this reason (even more so than because of the previous higher price).
Is that still true? When I last spec'ed an OLED display into an industrial product I was designing (around 2008), there were some monochrome OLEDs that had around 50k hours of lifetime, but the color ones (particularly the Blue pixels, IIRC) had a little over 15k hour lifespans.
But even at that time, Samsung and (IIRC) Sharp were on the verge of some breakthroughs.
Cool. I knew they designed them but I'd thought they'd bought into a chip fab company.
Perhaps you are thinking of when they acquired PASemi, which was a Chip DESIGN (but still "fabless") company.
Personally, I think Apple has been smart to stay out of the "fabbing" business. At the quantities they commit-to, I am SURE they get best-pricing anyway, and fab lines are not only expensive, but they are a gigantic maintenance and upgrade nightmare. Apple is wise to leave that to the "experts".
Not to reply to my own post; but I see they could even be ordered with Redundant Power Supplies, negating one of the most-often-quoted memes regarding XServes.
Wow! I didn't know that they had given the XServe so much love during its all-too-short lifespan in the Intel world. Shame they killed it off; it sounded like it was really getting its act together near the end. I particularly like the idea of an SSD Boot Drive that didn't occupy a drive bay. That's pretty innovative...
They never made an Intel-Based XServe. In fact, the point at which they killed the product line was when they would have logically upgraded XServe to Intel.
Really? Wikipedia would disagree with you, and I seem to recall encountering them personally, so I disagree with you, too. In fact, the last model (released in 2009) is able to run El Capitan. XServe wasn't discontinued until January of 2011 (announced in late 2010 to give folks a couple of months to buy up as much hardware as they needed).
Huh, you're right! Ya learn something new every day! Thanks!
Does that genuinely change what I was saying? Arm and PowerPC are RISC based processors, which means that they are not Intel compatible. So, how is that really any different that I used the incorrect term? How is that full of shit? Is the system compatible with 90% of the software out there? Can you run Windows on it like the Intel based Macs?
Please don't try to rationalize your ignorance. Instead, embrace it and maybe you'll actually learn something.
BTW, it isn't just "Intel and then Everything Else". What are you, like 8 years old? Hand in your Geek Card, immediately.
Have you, ever run an apple product. And blocked the transmission to the Internet? Except for a tablet, they usually take seconds to respond to your request, not milliseconds, seconds, what is the device doing? It's playing ET.
What are you trying to use? iTunes Store? App Store? Safari? Mail? Help? Spotlight with the "Suggestions" feature enabled? iCloud-"Sharing"?
That's about "it" for OS X when it comes to "Applications that depend to some extent on the Internet".
What you MAY be experiencing is also a Third-Party App (or apps) that want to phone-home. Many do. Apple has no control over those, of course. Butyoucertainlycan.
The way everything is wave soldered, and with a cpu having hundreds of really small terminals, cpu swapout is not easy. They gave up IC sockets decades ago.
Not too much SMT soldering is done with wave. Most of it uses solder-paste and IR Reflow.
I believe they already make some of their own chips.
Apple has never had a fab line. They certainly design many of their own chips (even up to the SoC level); but do not "fab" any of them. But you're right, they certainly could purchase a fab-line if they wanted to get into that headache.
Depending on the model iDevice you got, you got either a Samsung(?) or a chip made by Apple themselves.
Nope. It was either you got an iPhone with an SoC that was fab-ed by Samsung or TSMC; both of which were simultaneously producing the same ARM SoC under contract from Apple to meet demand (and to give Apple the advantages of having a "second source").
I seem to recall that Apple doesn't always release the MHz on their CPUs
Nope. Look in the "Tech Specs" section of any Apple Product Page.
Their servers were ARM stuff, so wouldn't work with VMs like you are talking about because ARM is not compatible with 90% of the software out there. Very likely though, they would go Intel instead of ARM for a new offering.
You're full of shit.
Apple's Servers were NEVER ARM, they were PowerPC G5s running OS X Server. And LONG before the XServe, Apple made some (non-rack-mount) Servers that ran AIX, and those were 68k-based.
It will be interesting to see if they do but given the previous sales numbers I don't find it likely. With the x-server you could buy more for less in the PC space and that will likely remain true.
Remember, those were PPC-based. They never made an Intel-Based XServe. In fact, the point at which they killed the product line was when they would have logically upgraded XServe to Intel.
However, they MIGHT go against the grain, and build an ARM-based Server. The power usage (or lack thereof) is damn-nigh incredible on ARM, and if they are truly building purpose-built servers (rather than as a toe back into the XServe market), then they only have to get a certain number of software packages working on ARM, rather than an entire OS X or Linux stack. (And yes, I am aware that Linux exists for ARM already).
apple (and all non generic hardware pushers) needs consumers to continuously discard their old and buy its newest overpriced products with their much hyped latest features ( however unsubstantial ) in order to make profit.
this can only be achieved by social conditioning. a herd mentality is created where members of the herd feel fulfilled and happy, and be in a satisfactory social status, only when they have the latest.
so of course, they must laugh and mock at those outside the herd, make members of the herd join in laughing and mocking, more publicly the better.
Yeah, of course.
That's why they (pretty) consistently make older models (everything has a cutoff-point!) eligible for OS X and iOS Upgrades.
Riiiiight.
Now, of course, you or someone will "counter" with "Yes, but my 5-year-old iPad runs Sooooo Slow on iOS9!!!"
To which I say: "So, which way do you want it?" "Change that is no change", "No Updates at all", or "An attempt to bring-forward as much old hardware as possible under a new version"???
Yep. The first link is from Andy's own site, and the second is Raskin's own words from an interview in Susan Lammers's Programmers at Work.
Not to say Raskin never changed his mind about anything... whether he argued for 1, 2, or 5, it's dead certain that he had an opinion!
However, he championed simplicity in interface design. I can't see him arguing for a 5-button mouse with a straight face.:)
I still think it was SOMEBODY on the original Lisa and/or Mac Team; but I may also be thinking of something I read about when Doug Englebart was playing-around with different designs of prototype-mice.
Slashdot Mirror
Sony have been doing this since 2006 on their PS3. Apple "invents" eh?
1. Japan does seem to have realized/believed-in this effect significantly ahead of the rest of the world.
2. I haven't seen/heard of Apple claiming to INVENT or DISCOVER anything here; just that it is a feature they added to iOS 9.3.
Now go Troll somewhere else, fool.
As for the PATRIOT act, the gov't was breaking the laws the PATRIOT act suspended before the act was drafted.
You are correct. I just didn't have the time/energy to type a real history lesson.
How would the 1st amendment have anything to do with the FBI tracking you? Freedom of speech doesn't equal freedom from being monitored. Or Freedom to whatever you please with no one noticing...
Actually, to a very large extent, yes. Yes it does.
Or at least it did until the frickin' USAPATRIOTACT.
There are all sorts of things that private citizens can do because it is in public, but the government is forbidden to do because it is based on speech.
Putting people in a suspect list with no connection to a crime, based entirely on their speech, that is clearly forbidden to them. Taking the picture isn't. I have no problem with the picture. I'm only talking about where they wrote down stuff about people, implying suspicion where everything they actually pointed to was protected speech, including simply that members of Food Not Bombs was seen at anti-war rallies where they also saw members of other groups such as Earth First!.
In the photo on the website, I also see a "regime change" sticker, and other stickers that could be either pure political speech, or threats. But those aren't the ones they wrote down in these files.
I didn't wave my hands and discount that the FBI might consider political speech to be suspicious; I said that the 1st Amendment says they're not supposed to.
As another Poster said: COINTELPRO. Look it up.
And cutting their budgets? That might just mean they buy less toys they don't need, or do less lab testing of evidence. Reducing their budget does not in any way imply that you're going to improve what they spend money on, or curtail excessive interest in hippies.
And you forget that they really don't care what the legislators does with their budgets; because they just make it up with bogus civil forfeiture, not to mention all the drugs and guns they have been selling for decades.
On the other hand, why the hell is the FBI bothering with these people.
Because they are sick, power-hungry, paranoid motherfuckers with nothing better to do with our tax money, that's why.
Next question?
COINTELPRO, look it up.
Just realize that the managers at all these agencies don't work for the American people. The American people didn't give their okay to be spied upon. Cabinet members and agency directors answer to the people who handle their next lucrative assignment.
And of course, The damned USAPATRIOTACT (look it up) undid all the privacy protections that were instituted following the COINTELPRO blowup.
There are other reasons not to be too overt with your political opinions. I have a sister, living in Texas, who has at least a dozen lefty stickers on her car, and it has been vandalized multiple times.
Whaddya expect? We're talking about Texas, afterall.
I could see it as being something that's not only long-term fiscally advantageous but also something that enables them to push the envelope and thus give their products a lead. Part of the picture I have in my head means that they'd be selling the chips themselves instead of limiting them to their own devices. That sort of goes against business practices seen by Apple in the past but I guess it's possible, however unlikely. As a long-term strategy, it might be worthwhile.
I did mention one of the larger drawbacks in my earlier reply. It puts them at a place of a single point of failure - unless another company *also* has the tech and can spin up the fab style/tech quickly in case of a crisis. I'm thinking that's really antithetical to typical corporate behavior with regards to Apple.
But as I said before, fab lines are assininely-expensive, have to be continuously updated, and pretty-much have to be run 24/7/365 to make ends meet. Apple has wisely stayed out of that game, IMHO.
That said, if Apple made server hardware that was not a fashion accessory and had the longevity, durability, and build quality associated with the consumer lines then I'd absolutely consider purchasing it for my home use.
Apple has had many, many forays into the Server market throughout the years, including at least one home-grown variant of Unix, plus Dedicated (non-Mac) Server machines that ran IBM's AIX, and a short-lived Port of NEXTSTEP in 1999, branded as "OS X Server 1.0", and all of this long before the XServes. And I would hardly call any of them a "fashion accessory". That is a blatant slap-in-the-face to the hundreds of software and hardware engineers that worked long and hard to bring those very serious products to market.
I don't refresh nearly as often, as a home user, so it's okay for me to buy a server and expect to get five to seven years out of it. Quality isn't so valuable a metric (but is still a metric - just not as valuable) when you're going to refresh in 2-3 years already and have already factored in the MTBF with your purchase.
As a home user, that metric becomes more heavily weighted, at least it does in my choices, and I'd give Apple a serious consideration at that point. I'd SERIOUSLY want to be able to have some alternatives. I'd really rather a different operating system on the bare metal. It is BSD and is Unix-like so I could live with it but it is not my preferences. So long as it had a decent VNC server and I could get VMWare up and running then I'd almost certainly opt for it - if it were an option and I was in the market for one.
Well, Macs can run VMWare, and VNC is the built-in "Screen Sharing" feature of OS X, so...
Now the question remains: What do you really need from a home-server, and will you accept something that isn't in a 19" rackmount package as a "real server" (keeping in mind that HP and Dell sell many boxen they call "Servers" that are simply glorified tower designs).
I'm sure there's a VNC server application package that exists or could be converted easily enough. I want something better than SSH. RDP is nice but I prefer VNC. I'm not sure but I bet there's an RDP app for OS X so that's an option.
You can have all of that and more with OS X. Oh, and Apple has a spectacular Remote Admin package based on VNC, called "Apple Remote Desktop". It can also be used to admi
> Apple made some (non-rack-mount) Servers that ran AIX, and those were 68k-based.
PowerPC actually... 604/604e
Yes, you are correct; sorry. I was thinking of the even older ones that ran Apple's A/UX (which was actually pretty cool). I'm pretty sure those were 68k-based.
Apple's problem is that it is a premium company who doesn't have access to AMOLED panels (I guess Samsung Displays would probably sell to them, but then they end up dependent on them for a key component again).
I would imagine a couple of the biggest problems for Samsung in selling to Apple is getting past their approval process and sufficient yield. When a new Samsung phone comes out, there aren't generally lines around the block waiting for it. The distribution channel has time to get filled-up. But when a new Apple phone comes out, the raw-materials suppliers have to be ready to supply a BURST of product (and this product ALL has to meet specs), or everybody is in trouble, pronto!
I don't think that AMOLED still has the production yield to meet that kind of "initial burst" demand.
Plus, Samsung is kind of (understandably) proud of their proprietary advances in AMOLED technology, and I wouldn't be at ALL surprised to find that they simply priced their AMOLED quote to Apple out of the running, intentionally; knowing full-well that no one else could even come close to supplying enough "glass" to fulfill Apple's blanket-order requirements.
Aren't the LG OLED TVs Active Matrix?
What??? Methinks you're mixing up your technologies.
Isn't that what the "AM" in AMOLED stands for?
LEDs are fast to turn-on, but MUCH slower to turn-off due to trapped-charge from junction capacitance (IIRC). The Active Matrix means the same thing it did for LCDs: There is a driver transistor (actually a push-pull pair of transistors) for EACH pixel, and the "pull" transistor is responsible for discharging the LED more quickly, this significantly decreasing ghosting, which we see as "motion blur".
Maybe not, but I have a cheaper Phillips LCD TV which is only about 5 years or so old and it has developed an odd tendency for some of the vertical lines to not function until the TV "warms up" (probably some failing components that have to heat to begin to function normally). Basically you have some random small black lines cutting through the picture for the first 5 minutes or so of operation. Not a major problem but LCD does have some wear/quality issues as well.
Sounds like some bad solder connections to the driver electronics. Blame that fucking EU and their fucking fucking RoHS initiative. There's a reason the automotive and Aerospace industries were exempt from RoHS.
Another important thing about OLEDs is that they have a far lower life expectancy. While that might be fine for a cell phone that you intend to replace every two years, it is not so good when buying that huge wide screen TV for the living room. Assuming that you don't like seeing lots of dead pixels or that you are willing to replace your TV every couple of years. Personally I have avoided OLED TVs for this reason (even more so than because of the previous higher price).
Is that still true? When I last spec'ed an OLED display into an industrial product I was designing (around 2008), there were some monochrome OLEDs that had around 50k hours of lifetime, but the color ones (particularly the Blue pixels, IIRC) had a little over 15k hour lifespans.
But even at that time, Samsung and (IIRC) Sharp were on the verge of some breakthroughs.
Cool. I knew they designed them but I'd thought they'd bought into a chip fab company.
Perhaps you are thinking of when they acquired PASemi, which was a Chip DESIGN (but still "fabless") company.
Personally, I think Apple has been smart to stay out of the "fabbing" business. At the quantities they commit-to, I am SURE they get best-pricing anyway, and fab lines are not only expensive, but they are a gigantic maintenance and upgrade nightmare. Apple is wise to leave that to the "experts".
Not to reply to my own post; but I see they could even be ordered with Redundant Power Supplies, negating one of the most-often-quoted memes regarding XServes.
Wow! I didn't know that they had given the XServe so much love during its all-too-short lifespan in the Intel world. Shame they killed it off; it sounded like it was really getting its act together near the end. I particularly like the idea of an SSD Boot Drive that didn't occupy a drive bay. That's pretty innovative...
Really? Wikipedia would disagree with you, and I seem to recall encountering them personally, so I disagree with you, too. In fact, the last model (released in 2009) is able to run El Capitan. XServe wasn't discontinued until January of 2011 (announced in late 2010 to give folks a couple of months to buy up as much hardware as they needed).
Huh, you're right! Ya learn something new every day! Thanks!
Does that genuinely change what I was saying? Arm and PowerPC are RISC based processors, which means that they are not Intel compatible. So, how is that really any different that I used the incorrect term? How is that full of shit? Is the system compatible with 90% of the software out there? Can you run Windows on it like the Intel based Macs?
Please don't try to rationalize your ignorance. Instead, embrace it and maybe you'll actually learn something.
BTW, it isn't just "Intel and then Everything Else". What are you, like 8 years old? Hand in your Geek Card, immediately.
Have you, ever run an apple product. And blocked the transmission to the Internet? Except for a tablet, they usually take seconds to respond to your request, not milliseconds, seconds, what is the device doing? It's playing ET.
What are you trying to use? iTunes Store? App Store? Safari? Mail? Help? Spotlight with the "Suggestions" feature enabled? iCloud-"Sharing"?
That's about "it" for OS X when it comes to "Applications that depend to some extent on the Internet".
What you MAY be experiencing is also a Third-Party App (or apps) that want to phone-home. Many do. Apple has no control over those, of course. But you certainly can .
The way everything is wave soldered, and with a cpu having hundreds of really small terminals, cpu swapout is not easy. They gave up IC sockets decades ago.
Not too much SMT soldering is done with wave. Most of it uses solder-paste and IR Reflow.
I believe they already make some of their own chips.
Apple has never had a fab line. They certainly design many of their own chips (even up to the SoC level); but do not "fab" any of them. But you're right, they certainly could purchase a fab-line if they wanted to get into that headache.
Depending on the model iDevice you got, you got either a Samsung(?) or a chip made by Apple themselves.
Nope. It was either you got an iPhone with an SoC that was fab-ed by Samsung or TSMC; both of which were simultaneously producing the same ARM SoC under contract from Apple to meet demand (and to give Apple the advantages of having a "second source").
I seem to recall that Apple doesn't always release the MHz on their CPUs
Nope. Look in the "Tech Specs" section of any Apple Product Page.
Their servers were ARM stuff, so wouldn't work with VMs like you are talking about because ARM is not compatible with 90% of the software out there. Very likely though, they would go Intel instead of ARM for a new offering.
You're full of shit.
Apple's Servers were NEVER ARM, they were PowerPC G5s running OS X Server. And LONG before the XServe, Apple made some (non-rack-mount) Servers that ran AIX, and those were 68k-based.
It will be interesting to see if they do but given the previous sales numbers I don't find it likely. With the x-server you could buy more for less in the PC space and that will likely remain true.
Remember, those were PPC-based. They never made an Intel-Based XServe. In fact, the point at which they killed the product line was when they would have logically upgraded XServe to Intel.
However, they MIGHT go against the grain, and build an ARM-based Server. The power usage (or lack thereof) is damn-nigh incredible on ARM, and if they are truly building purpose-built servers (rather than as a toe back into the XServe market), then they only have to get a certain number of software packages working on ARM, rather than an entire OS X or Linux stack. (And yes, I am aware that Linux exists for ARM already).
apple (and all non generic hardware pushers) needs consumers to continuously discard their old and buy its newest overpriced products with their much hyped latest features ( however unsubstantial ) in order to make profit. this can only be achieved by social conditioning. a herd mentality is created where members of the herd feel fulfilled and happy, and be in a satisfactory social status, only when they have the latest. so of course, they must laugh and mock at those outside the herd, make members of the herd join in laughing and mocking, more publicly the better.
Yeah, of course.
That's why they (pretty) consistently make older models (everything has a cutoff-point!) eligible for OS X and iOS Upgrades.
Riiiiight.
Now, of course, you or someone will "counter" with "Yes, but my 5-year-old iPad runs Sooooo Slow on iOS9!!!"
To which I say: "So, which way do you want it?" "Change that is no change", "No Updates at all", or "An attempt to bring-forward as much old hardware as possible under a new version"???
Yep. The first link is from Andy's own site, and the second is Raskin's own words from an interview in Susan Lammers's Programmers at Work.
Not to say Raskin never changed his mind about anything... whether he argued for 1, 2, or 5, it's dead certain that he had an opinion!
However, he championed simplicity in interface design. I can't see him arguing for a 5-button mouse with a straight face. :)
I still think it was SOMEBODY on the original Lisa and/or Mac Team; but I may also be thinking of something I read about when Doug Englebart was playing-around with different designs of prototype-mice.