Fanbois, moderate me down again, I don't fucking care. Apple has always been about control. They control hardware, software, and don't tolerate rivals.
But a feud between Apple and RealNetworks over music downloads is exposing Jobs' tragic flaw. Amazingly, he seems to be making the same devastating mistakes with the iPod that he made with the Mac 20 years ago.
The iPod has half the digital music player market, and iTunes sells 70% of all legitimate music downloads. Jobs practically willed the digital music business into being.
But around 1985, Jobs and his executives decided not to license Apple's technology or operating system to any other company. Apple wanted total control. It wanted to sell all the products itself. It wanted no competitors.
This was a yawning opening for Microsoft, Intel and the PC. Since anyone could buy the licenses and components to make a Windows-based PC, that technology took wing.
"Apple could have reaped the benefits of having dozens, even hundreds of imitators all adding their own unique value to the Mac," wrote Jim Carlton in his 1997 book, Apple: The Inside Story of Intrigue, Egomania, and Business Blunders. "Legions of suppliers would have sprung up all around the world to furnish components such as disk drives and memory. And since the software was light-years ahead of everybody else's, the Mac's, not Windows, might have come to dominate the personal computer market."
Instead, the opposite happened for Apple, and the PC crowd took advantage of those kinds of economics. This year, Apple is left with less than 4% of the market for personal computers -- basically a cult following.
More recently, Jobs has done for digital music what he once did for personal computing: He's made it appealing to non-techies. Once again, his design sets the pace. No device is as good as the iPod; no software solution works better than iTunes.
But like the Mac of 1985, it's a closed system. Other than open-source MP3 files, only music downloaded through iTunes will play on iPods, and iTunes music won't play on any portable device except an iPod. Apple refuses to license the technology to third parties. Instead of setting a standard for all, Apple wants to own it all. When Microsoft behaves that way, everybody screams antitrust.
So how comes that as a surprise that they are the major users of DMR technlology?
Just expect US intervention and maybe invasion of the island. It will not be the first time US goverment applies sanctions against those who don't respct corporations copyrights. After all US are the kings of the world.
Apple has always been about control: hardware control, sofftware control, etc. Interesting, people of course bashes MS when they say that "they are Worried that OEM 'Craplets' Will Harm Vista". But the same people applaud Apple here. Of course in the case of MS they get bashed whatever they say and do. In the case of Apple some people will just defend them whatever they do... It's all abbout doubble standards of course...
I try try to avoid anything Apple like the pest, even if I must use it at work. I've been using Macs (and Mac clowns) since forever at work. It was not a surprise when Appled decided that the mac clowns were making some money and they shut down the whole thing, those making the whole plattform more expensive and monopolistical just once more.
Oh.. and don't get me started about the "pretty" and "nice" overrated OSX. Pretty? Could be like all dumbed down Apple interfaces, but this is a real annoying mouse centric OS, let me tell you, but people just close their eyes being it Apple!
Windows 2k is...lets me see 6 years old... Well Adobe just gave us a big middle finger for a bug in their Photoshop CS that is 2 years old. Their answer? Upgrade to CS2 or find a workaround. No news here folk... Ford aint giving garantee for their 2000 models cars either.
people wonder why does Microsoft patent things... Here ladies and Gentllemen, you have the answer. If you have deep pockets, you better defend yourself.
At leat they are wasting their time and resources in something usefull to the majority of the user and not in a minority Linuzz obscure distro that only 4 cats can use. That is good use for tax money: invert it for the good of the majority of the society. And moderate down me, I don't fucking care.
It is hard to be sure that your code have no bugs or security holes. That's because even the Hello world program is using implicity a lot of libraries/dependences that are not written by you and are sometimes very complex. For example, writting Hello World to the console invokes a string handling unit in any hight level languge. String handling units are per se complex unit and there may be a lot of bugs there that may affect your code's security if those bugs are exploited.
Writting in C/C++ doesn't do the whole thing better. A strong/typed language like Delphi or a managed language like C# are less likely to have any buffer overflow type bugs, etc, but you never know. Code writting is not pizza baking.
The most secure product EVER is the product that nobody uses. OK, follow the so called "expert's" advice. If everybody follows them, MS will be the most secure in the world.
If you ask me and looking at Apples history of monopoly and abuse of power, it would not be a surprise to me that the story has a real base. I mean, look at the whole PowerPC situation when Apple just used his power to cut off the power to their competitors and remain the monopoly with the Macintosh hardware. Apple is a very closed company and clearly likes to use the advantage of their little monopoly (little by numbers , but a monopoly anyway). Anyway, time (and lawyers with tons of $$$) will tell.
Whatever MS does will be bad in the eyes of most slashsu..dotters, so... BTW, this is a great introduction to how (american, but much things can be applied to almost any country) copyright laws. Copyright laws (in software in particular) is a jungle and even lawyers have a hard time understanding some particularities, especially because a perfectly legal thing in the eyes of some lawyers can be interpreted wrong by other *lawyers* as well. But as a layman, this is a very good reading. And yes, it's MS, and what?
What a wonderful life will be when a computer will contain NO MOVABLE mechanical components. This is actually the real bottleneck in modern machines and not processor power as many people think.
Those things are ineffective , slow, power hungry,relative unreliable, etc. I wonder how they dis last so long.
Oh well, we are still using wheels in our cars so... maybe it's not so surprising after all.
So the same people who bash office for that (excellent by the ay) change are the same that then don't hesitate to recommend a migration to Linuzz , Step office or god knows what obscure system... Oh well, so changes are good depending on who implements it it seems....
The new ribbon is not only a really nice interface but it was not implemented over a night. Years and years of research are behind of this little nice innovation: See Jensen harris blog:
As a many years user of Borland Tools since the old Turbo Pascal days, it doesn't surprise me that Borland will not support Kylix anymore.
When Borland was investigating if Kylix was a viable product they did a poll betweenBorlands users. The poll gave an incredible 94 (or something similar) percents of the votes with people entusiasthically screaming: "Yes, we will get Kylix" "Cool, now I can code for Linuzzz". When the product was done and out there, only some miserable number of copies were sold. That was one of the problems: the Linuzzz crowd has a natural dislike for non-free products.
Borland (maybe Inprise back then) made then a move: made it free, but only if the code produced with Kylix would be GPL. Then the user base rised kind of, but many Windows coders realised that linuzz is not Windows and the dependence nightmare began. Borland was obligated to support only 2 distros (IIRC) because they could not guarantee that the rest of the distros would have the needed dependences.
Add to this that the IDE crashed badly, and here we have. A big flop.
Another problem was that VCL applications were no more, and you must use CLX which was somekind of a bastard for a Delphi user....Oh well....
There is actually a very interesting project that allowed programming in Windows with Delphi but deploying in Linux in a semiautomatical way... Forgot the name of the project but it was kind of officially supported by Borland.
On some levels, pitting two TV display technologies against each other is comparing apples and oranges. Plasma and LCD sets generate pictures in very different ways. In a plasma TV, the pixels consist of gas-filled cells coated with phosphorescent material. When an electrical current charges the gas in a cell, it makes the coating glow. In an LCD TV, the pixels are liquid-crystal cells over a fluorescent backlight. The opacity of the cells varies in response to an electrical signal, passing or blocking the light.
For a TV to be good, it needs to actually look good with a broad variety of programs -- everything from HDTV to VHS tapes. The modern plasma set handles most everything, delivering consistently crisp pictures with a smooth contrast range and clean, vivid colors, IMO. The only thing I miss is greater shadow depth, but I've had the same experience with many other plasma TVs in the past. Interestingly, shadow depth was an area where the LCD shined -- that and its incredibly bright image, which retained good contrast even with the lights turned on. But compared with the plasma, the LCD's picture lacks subtlety.
So the bottom line: it's just a matter of taste: There are incredibly good Plasma TVs that could be outshine by an even better LCD or viceversa. I *generally* prefer plasma image, though.
All those superheavy elements don't exist in natural form for a reason: they are incredibly unstable and their time of life is at max some milliseconds and their central nucleus will split into two or more smaller bits, creating "normal" elements instantly. This will occur freeing a lot of energy, so thei teorethcally could be used as a source of energy . The problem is that you need more energy to create those element than the energy you get from them...so forget it. Other uses can be found, but non only in small scale.
Hmmm... the word vaporware was used to describe a product that NEVER WILL be relleased and was just speculation... Those lists are describing products that often are late. Last year both Vista and IE7 made the list and guess what? They are out!
So many of those products may be "lateware" but not vaporware. Hell, even Duke Nukem may be out some day AFAIK.
Programs that install themelves? Hmm.. How is this an OS problem? If you run the system with the right permissions (non-admin account, etc) and have a normal using they will not "install themselves). There is NO magic.
Oh.. and which cryptic registries? How a "registry" can be more or less cryptical than a bunch of ini files? Ignorance is the mother of fear.
I understand, so the fact that you care doesn't mran that everyone must care.:-) Oh, and I am a freeware (and soon to be OS author), but I couldn't care less for the ideology.
You see, I don't care if a software I use is "free" or not. If not, I pay for it. I don't care for the "free" or OS ideology. Software for me is "useful or not". I don't divide the software in "free or not free".
Slashdot Mirror
But a feud between Apple and RealNetworks over music downloads is exposing Jobs' tragic flaw. Amazingly, he seems to be making the same devastating mistakes with the iPod that he made with the Mac 20 years ago.
The iPod has half the digital music player market, and iTunes sells 70% of all legitimate music downloads. Jobs practically willed the digital music business into being.
But around 1985, Jobs and his executives decided not to license Apple's technology or operating system to any other company. Apple wanted total control. It wanted to sell all the products itself. It wanted no competitors.
This was a yawning opening for Microsoft, Intel and the PC. Since anyone could buy the licenses and components to make a Windows-based PC, that technology took wing.
"Apple could have reaped the benefits of having dozens, even hundreds of imitators all adding their own unique value to the Mac," wrote Jim Carlton in his 1997 book, Apple: The Inside Story of Intrigue, Egomania, and Business Blunders. "Legions of suppliers would have sprung up all around the world to furnish components such as disk drives and memory. And since the software was light-years ahead of everybody else's, the Mac's, not Windows, might have come to dominate the personal computer market."
Instead, the opposite happened for Apple, and the PC crowd took advantage of those kinds of economics. This year, Apple is left with less than 4% of the market for personal computers -- basically a cult following.
More recently, Jobs has done for digital music what he once did for personal computing: He's made it appealing to non-techies. Once again, his design sets the pace. No device is as good as the iPod; no software solution works better than iTunes.
But like the Mac of 1985, it's a closed system. Other than open-source MP3 files, only music downloaded through iTunes will play on iPods, and iTunes music won't play on any portable device except an iPod. Apple refuses to license the technology to third parties. Instead of setting a standard for all, Apple wants to own it all. When Microsoft behaves that way, everybody screams antitrust.
So how comes that as a surprise that they are the major users of DMR technlology?
Just expect US intervention and maybe invasion of the island. It will not be the first time US goverment applies sanctions against those who don't respct corporations copyrights. After all US are the kings of the world.
I try try to avoid anything Apple like the pest, even if I must use it at work. I've been using Macs (and Mac clowns) since forever at work. It was not a surprise when Appled decided that the mac clowns were making some money and they shut down the whole thing, those making the whole plattform more expensive and monopolistical just once more.
Oh.. and don't get me started about the "pretty" and "nice" overrated OSX. Pretty? Could be like all dumbed down Apple interfaces, but this is a real annoying mouse centric OS, let me tell you, but people just close their eyes being it Apple!
Windows 2k is...lets me see 6 years old... Well Adobe just gave us a big middle finger for a bug in their Photoshop CS that is 2 years old. Their answer? Upgrade to CS2 or find a workaround. No news here folk... Ford aint giving garantee for their 2000 models cars either.
people wonder why does Microsoft patent things... Here ladies and Gentllemen, you have the answer. If you have deep pockets, you better defend yourself.
It's very sad to see the "yellow IT press" these days.
At leat they are wasting their time and resources in something usefull to the majority of the user and not in a minority Linuzz obscure distro that only 4 cats can use. That is good use for tax money: invert it for the good of the majority of the society. And moderate down me, I don't fucking care.
Writting in C/C++ doesn't do the whole thing better. A strong/typed language like Delphi or a managed language like C# are less likely to have any buffer overflow type bugs, etc, but you never know. Code writting is not pizza baking.
The most secure product EVER is the product that nobody uses. OK, follow the so called "expert's" advice. If everybody follows them, MS will be the most secure in the world.
If you ask me and looking at Apples history of monopoly and abuse of power, it would not be a surprise to me that the story has a real base. I mean, look at the whole PowerPC situation when Apple just used his power to cut off the power to their competitors and remain the monopoly with the Macintosh hardware. Apple is a very closed company and clearly likes to use the advantage of their little monopoly (little by numbers , but a monopoly anyway). Anyway, time (and lawyers with tons of $$$) will tell.
Whatever MS does will be bad in the eyes of most slashsu..dotters, so... BTW, this is a great introduction to how (american, but much things can be applied to almost any country) copyright laws. Copyright laws (in software in particular) is a jungle and even lawyers have a hard time understanding some particularities, especially because a perfectly legal thing in the eyes of some lawyers can be interpreted wrong by other *lawyers* as well. But as a layman, this is a very good reading. And yes, it's MS, and what?
Oh, so much innovation! I'm speechless!
Really, it's like driving a Ferrari with a Yugo steering wheel and Control Panel. Just what we need.
It was about time, really.
Those things are ineffective , slow, power hungry,relative unreliable, etc. I wonder how they dis last so long.
Oh well, we are still using wheels in our cars so... maybe it's not so surprising after all.
Firefox used a total of 6788665 TB memory last year. In comparation, IE use only 657 GB. So you thing this is a flamebait? So is the original article.
The new ribbon is not only a really nice interface but it was not implemented over a night. Years and years of research are behind of this little nice innovation: See Jensen harris blog:
http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/
More centralized information about everyone. Make it easier for the Big Brother to control everything! Exactly what we all need.
When Borland was investigating if Kylix was a viable product they did a poll betweenBorlands users. The poll gave an incredible 94 (or something similar) percents of the votes with people entusiasthically screaming: "Yes, we will get Kylix" "Cool, now I can code for Linuzzz". When the product was done and out there, only some miserable number of copies were sold. That was one of the problems: the Linuzzz crowd has a natural dislike for non-free products.
Borland (maybe Inprise back then) made then a move: made it free, but only if the code produced with Kylix would be GPL. Then the user base rised kind of, but many Windows coders realised that linuzz is not Windows and the dependence nightmare began. Borland was obligated to support only 2 distros (IIRC) because they could not guarantee that the rest of the distros would have the needed dependences.
Add to this that the IDE crashed badly, and here we have. A big flop.
Another problem was that VCL applications were no more, and you must use CLX which was somekind of a bastard for a Delphi user....Oh well....
There is actually a very interesting project that allowed programming in Windows with Delphi but deploying in Linux in a semiautomatical way... Forgot the name of the project but it was kind of officially supported by Borland.
For a TV to be good, it needs to actually look good with a broad variety of programs -- everything from HDTV to VHS tapes. The modern plasma set handles most everything, delivering consistently crisp pictures with a smooth contrast range and clean, vivid colors, IMO. The only thing I miss is greater shadow depth, but I've had the same experience with many other plasma TVs in the past. Interestingly, shadow depth was an area where the LCD shined -- that and its incredibly bright image, which retained good contrast even with the lights turned on. But compared with the plasma, the LCD's picture lacks subtlety.
So the bottom line: it's just a matter of taste: There are incredibly good Plasma TVs that could be outshine by an even better LCD or viceversa. I *generally* prefer plasma image, though.
All those superheavy elements don't exist in natural form for a reason: they are incredibly unstable and their time of life is at max some milliseconds and their central nucleus will split into two or more smaller bits, creating "normal" elements instantly. This will occur freeing a lot of energy, so thei teorethcally could be used as a source of energy . The problem is that you need more energy to create those element than the energy you get from them...so forget it. Other uses can be found, but non only in small scale.
So many of those products may be "lateware" but not vaporware. Hell, even Duke Nukem may be out some day AFAIK.
Oh.. and which cryptic registries? How a "registry" can be more or less cryptical than a bunch of ini files? Ignorance is the mother of fear.
I understand, so the fact that you care doesn't mran that everyone must care.:-) Oh, and I am a freeware (and soon to be OS author), but I couldn't care less for the ideology.
You see, I don't care if a software I use is "free" or not. If not, I pay for it. I don't care for the "free" or OS ideology. Software for me is "useful or not". I don't divide the software in "free or not free".