or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Editorial: Apple, Google and the failure of Android's open
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Editorial: Apple, Google and the failure of Android's open - Page 6

post #201 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgwebb1469 View Post

Another point is that Apple didn't bring down the Wintel hegemony alone. Linux on the desktop was an absolute failure that never materialized, but Linux in the server room has continued to grow and gain acceptance from big IT shops. I'd argue that Windows the consumer operating system matters less to the Microsoft bottom line than Windows Server with it's lucrative user access licences and SQL Server with it's 5k per processor license. The stagnation of Microsoft was a two front battle with Mac and iOS devices on the consumer side and LAMP stack on the enterprise IT side.

 

Linux in the server room is vastly overrated.  It dominates web servers and HPC but the mid and low tier business servers are dominated by MS (45.8%) and big iron is still big iron (Unix and System Z = 29.9%).  VMWare is the primary opponent for Microsoft in the server room and not Red Hat.

 

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23974913

 

Microsoft didn't have a server business until Sun screwed the pooch with the help of HP and SGI.

post #202 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Linux in the server room is vastly overrated.  It dominates web servers and HPC but the mid and low tier business servers are dominated by MS (45.8%) and big iron is still big iron (Unix and System Z = 29.9%).  VMWare is the primary opponent for Microsoft in the server room and not Red Hat.

 

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23974913

 

Microsoft didn't have a server business until Sun screwed the pooch with the help of HP and SGI.

Firstly, you realise that VMWare esx uses the Linux kernel?

Secondly, VMWare is for virtualisation. It's competition to Microsoft's hypervisor, but that's about it.

Thirdly, there's far more to the Linux world than just Redhat (although personally for a server, I won't touch anything else)

Fourthly, I'd imagine what most of the mid and low tier business servers are running is Exchange and that's about it. (Which is commonly all they need. Exchange is bloody wonderful and does suit the requirements of pretty much every non-IT company)

 

Also, was that link a source for the information you posted?
I was reading through it and I couldn't find anything of relevance to your post in it. In case I'd missed something, are you able to quote the relevant bits from it?

post #203 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by runbuh View Post

For example, your original back and forth with other posters in this thread was related to your comments about Google "stealing" open source.  For most people, the very definition of open source is something which is freely shared.  Freely shared, but usually some sort of requirements for attribution if the open source is incorporated into something else.  Therefore, theft of open source (like Microsoft did a few years back) would be the incorporation of open source into something proprietary without attribution (or some other act which breaks the terms/license of the open source).  Do you know, for fact, that this is what Google has done with some open source?

 

If your basis of the back and forth about "stealing" open source was that it is somehow easier because it's freely/readily available, then your logic is flawed.  It's actually quite hard to steal open source and get away with it.  Just ask Microsoft.

 

Meh, the WUDT thing was a mistake done by a third party.  That happens all the time when you contract out and it's one of those things you have to check for.

 

As far as Google "stealing" they do, sorta.  See, the open source folks that actually really care about "open source theft" are GPL proponents.  Google uses a ton of GPL software without giving back because of the ASP loophole that Affero was meant to solve for the "OMG MS might be using our code" cadre.  Only since it was Google and even RMS was leery of pissing off google the Affero clause got dropped from GPL 3.

 

Likewise Google stole Sun's Java syntax and APIs but case law on the copyrightability of API's is still working through appeals (so far Google's winning).

 

Apache/BSD/MIT (aka permissive license) folks don't care if their code get used in icky evil proprietary software.

 

Fortunately today GPL is losing both market and mindshare and permissive licenses like Apache and BSD are gaining market and mindshare.

post #204 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

ITunes was NOT originally for organising ripped music onto iPods.

How soon YOU forget!

yes it was, i can remember being Intrigued by the AAC codec and was looking for free encoders... before that mp3 players, real player, win amp, liquid audio player... i settled on iTunes, not because of an iPod with because in was easy to organize the music. (i hated real player, had to pay for it (i did still dont use it)
) winamp had the folder Arrangement thing(i dislike), yet great for transfering files off ofthe old iPods.
when i was looking at the mpeg2', mpeg4,encoder i was using quicktime on windows... slow and i could not automate the encoding so i learned Avisyth, meigui...
(hindsight being 20/20, and with the computer upgrade fever i had(lol), should have bought a mac, but mac was expensive and i didn't need to get any work done, so it was the free meigui thing (the deinteracers of avisyth sold me on it)

TL;DR iTunes was great for ripping from CD's to your iPod!... and it did not add DRM to the music, or transfer limits like WINDOWS wma!, or that awful liquid audio AAC encoder.
post #205 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

 

This illustrates my previous question about why one must close up a product (in the sense of restricting community modifications) to make it supportable. How exactly would this user's (clearly unauthorized) hack hinder Porsche's customer support? Here's another concrete example.

 

Red Hat develops and professionally supports its own enterprise linux distribution (RHEL). They know a thing or two about delivering a focused product and supporting their customers, and they seem to have done quite well, with clients like the New York Stock Exchange. As required by the GPL, Red Hat publishes every line of code that they write. Someone is perfectly at liberty to fork RHEL and sell their own spin, and Oracle has been doing that for years. Now, how do Oracle's activities have any bearing on Red Hat's ability to provide software updates to Red Hat's customers? 

 

Red Hat does pretty well in certain areas like web servers and mainframe.  Web servers are evenly split between Linux based, Unix based and Windows based.  They have 28% (part of that goes to SLES) of the mainframe OS with z/OS (IBM) at 72%.  IBM is the main player in mainframes, they have a 5.5 Ghz processor based mainframe.  Wouldn't that be a processor Apple could use in a MacPro?  They can port it, but they would freak people out having to switch processors, again.

 

The problem with Linux,  Unix and any other flavor based OSs, is that they have to have an actual company that has a decent financial background, tech support, etc. and enough marketing and partnerships with hardware companies to have half a chance at making it successful, otherwise they won't be taken seriously.  

 

Android's success has been as good as it is because they have a lot of hardware players that don't have their own OS that want something they can modify and market to look like it's an iPhone, but through a ton of models in every country possible with every carrier as fast as possible and they have total marketing dollars more than Apple by themselves. Android is the shotgun approach and Apple is the highly focused sniper.  But Apple makes the most profits because they have the most complete and advanced eco-system, which is also supported in ways by Windows users with providing content. The question is can they hold on to the markets and make any money because none of the hardware makers have the ecosystem to obtain more profits, etc.  Too much competition among themselves is a problem, since it becomes a price war and they will lose profits that way.  A lot of big companies like LG and Sony and others have smartphones and tablets trying to act like Apple which is successful, so they are all wannabes, since desktop and laptops aren't in a growth scenario like they used to.   I can see a lot of Android phone/tablet mfg dropping out over time just a lot of PC mfg have done due to not enough business and profits to compete against the big players.  Obviously Samsung is about the only one making any profits because they make a lot of the own components which allows them to make a profit, and since they don't spend as much time in development of the OS, their overhead is lower than Apple.  Their only problem is getting their products updated to keep them at the latest OS  and they are just using their low cost phones as a means to dump old chips instead of throwing them in landfill. They probably think it's better to break even on the low cost models to gain market share rather than writing off a ton of inventory or shutting down a plant.  I'm wondering if Samsung is going to drop all of the phones if they can't update the OS to fix this latest security problem on anything that doesn't or can't run 4.2.2.  It would probably be in their best interest from an integrity standpoint, but I don't know if they'll do that since Samsung doesn't display much integrity to begin with.  Most honest companies would NOT knowingly sell a product that can't updated to fix a security problem. It's either fix it or drop it from the price list.

 

Ubuntu and others have only about 1% of the laptop and desktop OS market.  They just don't have a chance as Microsoft won't port Office over to it, they already decided to partner with Apple.  It's futile to think that LInux for the desktop and laptop is ever going to be taken seriously.  Apple is just in a position to grab market share mostly through their laptops, which are rated as the best consistently.

post #206 of 310
The most successful beneficiaries of the open source development model have been the companies that harvest OSS and turn it into a service or offering of value. Google, Twitter, Amazon, etc. are leveraging the heck out of open source software. The OSS development model is a collaboration that results in better technology, a business model it is not.
post #207 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

This illustrates my previous question about why one must close up a product (in the sense of restricting community modifications) to make it supportable. How exactly would this user's (clearly unauthorized) hack hinder Porsche's customer support? Here's another concrete example.

Red Hat develops and professionally supports its own enterprise linux distribution (RHEL). They know a thing or two about delivering a focused product and supporting their customers, and they seem to have done quite well, with clients like the New York Stock Exchange. As required by the GPL, Red Hat publishes every line of code that they write. Someone is perfectly at liberty to fork RHEL and sell their own spin, and Oracle has been doing that for years. Now, how do Oracle's activities have any bearing on Red Hat's ability to provide software updates to Red Hat's customers? 

Have you used CentOS?
Edited by Relic - 7/8/13 at 9:20am
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #208 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

OT rant - thanks for intro drblank !

What gets my goat is the 4wd market with these car companies - hell, you're off road out the back of nowhere and your vehicle breaks down. You can't diagnose it - you are screwed !
There are places here in NZ and all over the globe that are going to cost you a freakn fortune just to get your computer driven pos to a garage - let alone an authorised service centre. They FAIL in this regard, totally.

Fwiw - I'm still locked in 1992 and prior for this type of vehicle. At least I can identify all the engine parts and have been able to get going even if somewhat crippled,

Really, really need an aftermarket diagnostic tool for the newer vehicles.

OT rant finished.

You can get a OBD II plug in device and get the codes on your iDevice but it can't transmit it directly, they would have to be on the same wifi network unless you have a Android device and it'll just transmit and receive via bluetooth.
post #209 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by designguybrown View Post

Nice read - especially the mostly-chronological set of episodes to reminisce to in support of the benefits of closed platform/systems.

 

The point I think that was mostly missed is that it doesn't matter (as much) who wins - but that different types of both 'open' and 'closed' exist. This eco-system, whether it be conflict, co-dependency, scavenging, or parasitical, is bigger because of the variety, the choice, the two (or more) sides. Different demographic groups in society, however you define them - economic, social, ideological - whatever (and that changes internally constantly), will demand different 'experiences' and then that will change and morph over time - but you need something to change into - a void or lack of choice (no matter how well designed) would hasten decline and even future development. So cheer that there exists people who will develop and champion one or the other. Apple's walled garden (or gilded cage, as many might see it) is appealing in so many ways, but only as much as it is because you can always go out into the wide west outside temporarily or to stay - and that there are people willing to pay for the exclusivity and other perks (likely) - and even more that might come in for the first time than there was before.

 

The jab at China was a bit weird seeing as they are likely to be the dominant and most successful economical model in the coming decades and generations due to the 'mostly closed' almost corporate nature of their system (communalism was the society's teenage pre-pubescent phase - confining but necessary). As they continue to build their own walled garden AND allow certain pockets of open chaos (known as capitalism) to co-exist and mingle, we will see that the economic 'freedom' that many countries aspire to ( which seems to manifest itself mostly as 'freedom from responsibility, freedom from duty, freedom from co-operation, freedom from cohesive vision') starts to become less important as those governments (and their societies in general) fail to respond to crises, provide its citizens a middle class standard of living, and no longer form a dominant economic super power position in the world. And don't think for a moment that these free-market pockets in China are spreading from their own 'goodness' momentum - they can be reigned in at any time if deemed contrary to the vision of the country - but for now, good.

With middling and B-level prospects, most economically 'wild west free market' societies tend to become complacent, which diminishes innovation - not bad, just retirement-like. Of course, the human rights abuses, tech stealing, and environmental inattention is outrageous, but it is not out of scale of most large American-style corporation practices - and will come in line with int'l values with increased citizen wealth and personal success - which i think is the real measure of a system's desirability and success. Combine that with China's openness to let more people travel and migrate abroad - and continually return and attract others - and you have the makings of a system that can actually deliver wealth to the citizens and keep them dynamic and productive. Not savoury to pro-free marketers.

 

Also, shocking that you dared to say 'free attracts lower value customers' to the readers here. Lower value customers? like: Lower class citizens? Fine, and likely true, but unnecessarily antagonistic.

 

Nothing says "pretentious" like insisting on your own font.  1smile.gif

 

It tells me that you are the kind of person who thinks they are pretty much always right about everything and doesn't really appreciate input from others. For that reason, I didn't even read this comment.  I'm sure many others passed it by as well.  

post #210 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Bray View Post

Firstly, you realise that VMWare esx uses the Linux kernel?

 

They steadfastly claim that vmkernel is not a linux kernel derivative.  It does use Linux for their service console in ESX but Busybox on ESXi.  The 2007 controversy was that it used linux as a bootstrap but given the ESX code was leaked by anon in 2012 and nobody has screamed for the vmkernel to be GPL'd then it's fairly clear that VMWare isn't linux.

 

 

Quote:

Secondly, VMWare is for virtualisation. It's competition to Microsoft's hypervisor, but that's about it.

 

The point is that MS is competing against VMWare in the server space as the host with Hyper-V a lot more than MS is competing against RHEL as the client.  

 

Linux didn't kill MS in the server world.  Linux killed Unix in the server world.

 

 

Quote:

Thirdly, there's far more to the Linux world than just Redhat (although personally for a server, I won't touch anything else)

 

 

After the Novell implosion I'd say that RedHat is really the last real linux server OS provider.  As for the rest of the Linux world who still matters for business servers?  Ubuntu LTS?  LOL.

 

Quote:
Fourthly, I'd imagine what most of the mid and low tier business servers are running is Exchange and that's about it. (Which is commonly all they need. Exchange is bloody wonderful and does suit the requirements of pretty much every non-IT company)

 

ActiveDirectory, Sharepoint, BizTalk, SQLServer, Lync Server, etc.  Maybe Project Server for some shops.  When you say "that's about it" you mean these too right?

 

 

Quote:
Also, was that link a source for the information you posted?
I was reading through it and I couldn't find anything of relevance to your post in it. In case I'd missed something, are you able to quote the relevant bits from it?

 

Server OS percentages.

 

"Top Server Market Findings

  • Linux server demand was positively impacted by high performance computing (HPC) and cloud infrastructure deployments, as hardware revenue improved 12.7% year over year in 4Q12 to $3.0 billion. Linux servers now represent 20.4% of all server revenue, up 1.7 points when compared with the fourth quarter of 2011.
  • Microsoft Windows server demand continued to increase in 4Q12 as hardware revenue increased 3.2% year over year. Quarterly revenue of $6.7 billion for Windows servers represented 45.8% of overall quarterly factory revenue, the same share as in the prior year's quarter.
  • Unix servers experienced a revenue decline of 24.1% year over year to $2.6 billion representing 17.6% of quarterly server revenue. This was the sixth consecutive quarter of revenue decline in the Unix server market and all major Unix server vendors experienced a revenue decline when compared with the fourth quarter of 2011.
  • After five consecutive quarters of revenue declines, IBM's System z mainframe running z/OS increased revenue 55.6% year over year to $1.8 billion, representing 12.3% of all server revenue in 4Q12."

 

The contention is that Linux is killed Windows on the server side.  No, not so much.

post #211 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Nothing says "pretentious" like insisting on your own font.  1smile.gif

It tells me that you are the kind of person who thinks they are pretty much always right about everything and doesn't really appreciate input from others. For that reason, I didn't even read this comment.  I'm sure many others passed it by as well.  

Ooh, an Arial vs. Times New Roman debate. I think he was using an external editor, I've seen this font before when I used OpenOffice.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #212 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Bray View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Yeah, both my husband and I drive BMW's and though the iDrive system has gotten better over the years it still sucks. Mercedes isn't any better with their system either. I would like to see a in dash iPad solution of some sort.
I was having a discussion about this a few days ago. Find some way of integrating things that won't or doesn't need to change (IE: Cabling and bluetooth can be done for the longer term.)

The basic problem is is that cars have lifespans of anything up to 20+ years. Computer devices such as tablets and phones have lifespans of 1/10th of that. They need to modularise car computing and entertainment systems so that they can be easily upgraded or replaced entirely as new technology comes out, rather than thinking that what they put in will still be good in a couple of decades time. (Seriously, imagine having to use something that still used Windows 3.11)

Having someone like BMW give you "the complete package" doesn't ensure that you're going to receive the best experience. It ensures that your experience will become increasingly outdated without a single thing you can do about it.

Very good point. Even during the roughly 10 years of the "universal dock adapter" each new device ended up incompatible with the previous: no charging, no FW, no this, no that.

Unless Apple starts openly licensing iOS for embedded devices, and guarantees to support iOS versions for at least 15 years, this won't work.

Example: a friend of mine (not so well off, in Russia) bought a used iPhone 3G while in the US a couple of years ago. Even at that, it was quite an expense. Had to reset the device, and now can't reinstall Skype and Facebook, because iTunes happily kept updating the iOS apps in the library to the latest versions, regardless if they would still install on the iPhone linked to the library.
So something as simple as a hardware reset, and you lose utility in real, measureable ways, because the AppStore doesn't keep milestone releases of software for devices that can't upgrade to the latest iOS versions.
My original iPhone, which I still have, is essentially useless, even though it works perfectly, because almost no apps install on it anymore, it can't be upgraded to work with iCloud, etc.

My car is a 2004 model year, has just about 26k miles on it, and hopefully will serve me at least another 10 years.

Apple needs to support their products for much longer for them to mesh into the automotive fabric.
post #213 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezwits View Post

Well the only thing, I can see not mentioned, is that Open and Free Linux, is now used for tons of servers and server farms. In which Linux basically crushed Apples chances at selling enterprise hardware like Xserves. And the fact that Apple didn't allow it's OS to be installed on non-proprietary servers, didn't help. That huge segment of the Computer Industry is now gone, I don't see how Apple could ever get back in...

 

Well, don't bet on Apple never getting back into the server farm space. When Apple abandoned Xserve, Xserve wasn't doing too shabby. They were selling decently, and prices were also not much higher that alternatives. Even if the volumes were not that great, I don't think there was much sense in Apple completely terminating Xserve, at a time when Apple was becoming more relevant in the enterprise, because of iOS.

 

There is more to this story than the general public knows about, and the last chapter in this story has not been written yet.

 

I believe, Apple is going to announce a new Xserve platform in the next 18 months, that will blow away existing servers. The new Xserve will be based off massively parallel ARM multitasking, and will be based on Hybrid drives for super fast data access. They will run 64 bit versions of a specially optimized version of MacOS with all the user interface elements removed - probably called xOS. These will be quad core 2.0 GHz and higher processors, with 16GB RAM, all on an integrated SoC, The main advantage of this architecture would be extremely low power consumption.

 

Over 90% of the heavy servers today are ultimately split up into smaller virtual servers. These heavy servers consume large amounts of power, and are mostly under-utilized despite virtualization. ARM quad core 2GHz processors running 64 bit software can easily perform the tasks that most of these virtual servers can perform, at significantly lower up front cost, and power usage. Quite obviously, ARM is already capable of running web servers, mail servers, and small app servers. The next generation of ARM will easily handle the power needs of mid level servers, databases, etc. Eventually, only seriously heavy tasks, that cannot be easily parallelized would need heavy machines.

post #214 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

"Top Server Market Findings
Linux server demand was positively impacted by high performance computing (HPC) and cloud infrastructure deployments, as hardware revenue improved 12.7% year over year in 4Q12 to $3.0 billion. Linux servers now represent 20.4% of all server revenue, up 1.7 points when compared with the fourth quarter of 2011.
Microsoft Windows server demand continued to increase in 4Q12 as hardware revenue increased 3.2% year over year. Quarterly revenue of $6.7 billion for Windows servers represented 45.8% of overall quarterly factory revenue, the same share as in the prior year's quarter.
Unix servers experienced a revenue decline of 24.1% year over year to $2.6 billion representing 17.6% of quarterly server revenue. This was the sixth consecutive quarter of revenue decline in the Unix server market and all major Unix server vendors experienced a revenue decline when compared with the fourth quarter of 2011.
After five consecutive quarters of revenue declines, IBM's System z mainframe running z/OS increased revenue 55.6% year over year to $1.8 billion, representing 12.3% of all server revenue in 4Q12."

The contention is that Linux is killed Windows on the server side. No, not so much.

Comparing "revenue increases" is not a useful measure, when you're talking about a product that's available for free.
You'd have to compare number installations, not revenue, particularly when e.g. people might be switching from RHEL to CentOS, or people just get more comfortable using free distros after they start realizing how rarely they need that "professional support" that they thought they needed.
post #215 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


Have you used CentOS?

 

No I haven't, but I'm not sure what CentOS has to do with my question. CentOS is basically a rebuild of RHEL with Red Hat trademarks stripped out. I'm aware that they've had some trouble keeping up with the RHEL releases, particularly when RHEL 6 was released, but that's because they are understaffed. I just don't see how they would be affected by changes downstream of CentOS.


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 7/8/13 at 3:26pm
post #216 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post


Because a company doesn't make money based on its stock price, but based on its profits.
Long term investors could care less about the price of Apple stock, they care about sustainable profits and sustainable dividend payments as well as no debt, plenty of reserves.

Speculators on the other hand, don't care about how healthy a company is, they just care about the stock price moving such as to generate a trading profit. As such the volatility of the stockprice, which is a nightmare for non-seasoned long-term investors, is what drives their profits. A stock that stays high is boring to a trader, and while traders could make a lot of money in a quick run-up to 700, they couldn't make much money if Apple had stayed there, and slowly had crept up to 725 or 750 with mostly sideways movement.

Shorting the stock or holding put options, and then talking the price down, that however generates massive profits, just as gaining again on the way up once people realize that all the analysts were producing was unfounded rumors and hot air.

The stock market, except for very long-term moving averages, is a horrible indicator of the success of a company in real terms.

 

Temporary thread topic divergence:

 

Stock valuation is volatile because every investor weights factors differently, but there is one overarching theme: a stock's price reflects investors' expectations of all future performance.  When Apple stock crashed, it wasn't based on current annual profits.  Instead it was based on an enormous downgrade in expected future performance.

 

You cannot blame the crash on speculators intentionally driving it down with shorts.  They would be just as happy with the price continuing to fly upward as it had been.  In fact, the real scenario was the reverse.  Investor expectations widely fell, and a selloff began, prompting some investors to gamble on a short.  Speculators could short the stock all they wanted without greatly affecting the price because their trading volume is so low.  When a stock falls by close to half its price it's because the market was flooded with sellers to the point that they were willing to sell to anyone willing to buy and at any price.  The current price reflects the equilibrium at which the volume of buyers equals the volume of sellers, and in Apple's case, the volume of sellers was considerably greater than the buyers.

 

Finally, a stock's price at any moment indicates nothing about the performance of a company, but the trend in that price does.  Apple was rising at a rate above almost all other stocks because they released innovative products that were changing market segments.  When the price collapsed, it reflected broad views that Apple's future performance would likely fall below Jobs-era expectations.  Now the price is seemingly stable, reflecting that investors think its current share price is appropriate given their expectations of performance.

post #217 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

Well, don't bet on Apple never getting back into the server farm space. When Apple abandoned Xserve, Xserve wasn't doing too shabby. They were selling decently, and prices were also not much higher that alternatives. Even if the volumes were not that great, I don't think there was much sense in Apple completely terminating Xserve, at a time when Apple was becoming more relevant in the enterprise, because of iOS.

There is more to this story than the general public knows about, and the last chapter in this story has not been written yet.

I believe, Apple is going to announce a new Xserve platform in the next 18 months, that will blow away existing servers. The new Xserve will be based off massively parallel ARM multitasking, and will be based on Hybrid drives for super fast data access. They will run 64 bit versions of a specially optimized version of MacOS with all the user interface elements removed - probably called xOS. These will be quad core 2.0 GHz and higher processors, with 16GB RAM, all on an integrated SoC, The main advantage of this architecture would be extremely low power consumption.

Over 90% of the heavy servers today are ultimately split up into smaller virtual servers. These heavy servers consume large amounts of power, and are mostly under-utilized despite virtualization. ARM quad core 2GHz processors running 64 bit software can easily perform the tasks that most of these virtual servers can perform, at significantly lower up front cost, and power usage. Quite obviously, ARM is already capable of running web servers, mail servers, and small app servers. The next generation of ARM will easily handle the power needs of mid level servers, databases, etc. Eventually, only seriously heavy tasks, that cannot be easily parallelized would need heavy machines.

Wishful thinking, I would like to see them return too but I highly doubt it.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #218 of 310

It might be fun to watch Richard Stallman read this article aloud and hear his comments. He's got some good ideas and great principles with the exception of sharing. Sharing can become piracy and is wrong when it takes away money from the author or developer of something that isn't freely given away by them. I think he's nuts on that point.

 

Both free software and proprietary software need to exist. They can and do exist together. They both are advancing the world of computing and technology.

 

If Android is serving its purpose of getting advertising dollars for Google then it is doing its job even though it is free. It is not failing. It is a tool for generating revenue. Not all tools last forever as technology and the world evolve. Google will need to make new tools to generate revenue. It is doing so with the Nexus 7, the Google Play Store, Chromebooks, Google's online services (gmail, Google Docs), and Motorola. Will it be successful in all areas? No. Apple and Microsoft fail at things too.

 

How do Novell and Canonical earn money with SUSE and Ubuntu? I'm now using Open SUSE 12.3 and I've used Ubuntu too. I do believe that both are innovative and lead Apple in different ways. It might take a bit of work to get these OSs working well but when they do they rock. I like both better than OS X.

post #219 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

Comparing "revenue increases" is not a useful measure, when you're talking about a product that's available for free.
You'd have to compare number installations, not revenue, particularly when e.g. people might be switching from RHEL to CentOS, or people just get more comfortable using free distros after they start realizing how rarely they need that "professional support" that they thought they needed.

 

Not revenue increases, revenue share.

 

"Linux servers now represent 20.4% of all server revenue ..."

 

"... Windows servers represented 45.8% of overall quarterly factory revenue"

 

"Unix servers ... representing 17.6% of quarterly server revenue."

 

"IBM's System z mainframe running z/OS ... representing 12.3% of all server revenue in 4Q12."

 

Jeez.  

 

And no, I don't have to compare installations and not revenue until you or someone produces some installed base metrics.

post #220 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post

I think the root cause of the iOS vs Android all originates from the fact that Android wouldn't have been born, if not for iOS.

 

Interesting theory that would require a time machine, given that Android was born and acquired by Google before iOS was announced.

post #221 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

ITunes was NOT originally for organising ripped music onto iPods.

How soon YOU forget!
 
yes it was, i can remember being Intrigued by the AAC codec and was looking for free encoders... before that mp3 players, real player, win amp, liquid audio player... i settled on iTunes, not because of an iPod with because in was easy to organize the music. (i hated real player, had to pay for it (i did still dont use it)
) winamp had the folder Arrangement thing(i dislike), yet great for transfering files off ofthe old iPods.
when i was looking at the mpeg2', mpeg4,encoder i was using quicktime on windows... slow and i could not automate the encoding so i learned Avisyth, meigui...
(hindsight being 20/20, and with the computer upgrade fever i had(lol), should have bought a mac, but mac was expensive and i didn't need to get any work done, so it was the free meigui thing (the deinteracers of avisyth sold me on it)

TL;DR iTunes was great for ripping from CD's to your iPod!... and it did not add DRM to the music, or transfer limits like WINDOWS wma!, or that awful liquid audio AAC encoder.

I didn't say iTunes couldn't do all of that. I wrote that iTunes was not *originally* developed for doing all that, which was the claim I was refuting. 

post #222 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa
Quote:
Comparing "revenue increases" is not a useful measure, when you're talking about a product that's available for free.
You'd have to compare number installations, not revenue, particularly when e.g. people might be switching from RHEL to CentOS, or people just get more comfortable using free distros after they start realizing how rarely they need that "professional support" that they thought they needed.

Not revenue increases, revenue share.

"Linux servers now represent 20.4% of all server revenue ..."

"... Windows servers represented 45.8% of overall quarterly factory revenue"

"Unix servers ... representing 17.6% of quarterly server revenue."

"IBM's System z mainframe running z/OS ... representing 12.3% of all server revenue in 4Q12."

Jeez.

And no, I don't have to compare installations and not revenue until you or someone produces some installed base metrics.

I don't have to do anything, because I don't make a claim. However revenue based metrics are meaningless when trying to look at the penetration of what's essentially a free product. Also revenue based metrics say nothing about market dominance, because if one vendor sells a server for $2.5/k for 5 users, and then asks for $500/additional 5 users, while another vendor asks $250 for unlimited users, and their competition makes available the same product minus branding for $0, then the only thing this tells you is who has more revenue share. Since this doesn't even account for profit margins and the vendor's costs, it doesn't even say who wins in terms of profitability, and much less does any of it say anything about market share.

Even if all market entrants were for pay systems, it would say little, unless the product prices remain constant from period to period. But if one raises prices and the other lowers prices, it could well be that one raises revenue share even as their market share declines, and vice versa.

Bottom line: the metric you quoted has little to no value to support the claims you were trying to support with them.
post #223 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post

I think the root cause of the iOS vs Android all originates from the fact that Android wouldn't have been born, if not for iOS.
Interesting theory that would require a time machine, given that Android was born and acquired by Google before iOS was announced.

Hard to say, because Android pretending to be open, and being the subject of a take-over was in the public eye long before there was a viable product.
On the other hand, iOS wasn't even called iOS until quite some time after iPhone and iPod touch were available.

Also, Android pre-iOS was a very different beast, more like a feature phone OS. It was quickly adapted to look and work much like the iPhone, once the iPhone's success became clear.

So from that point of view, it's legitimate to say, that Android pre-iOS was actually a different product that shared some underlying technologies with what's known as Android now. The pre-iOS Android is about as similar to what's Android now, as OS X is to iOS. Same underpinnings, very different Gestalt.
post #224 of 310
What a strange read. I guess it's all true if the only thing you care about is money. So if you're Wikipedia, for example, or any of the important changes that have come about thanks to the Internet, it's quite weird. And it's a big surprise to many people that the iTunes store is overshadowing the mobile web. Big surprise as in completely different than their experience.

Methinks some people need to get out of their bubbles. Putting together pieces of history does not make for a true story.
post #225 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

Because a company doesn't make money based on its stock price, but based on its profits.

Long term investors could care less about the price of Apple stock, they care about sustainable profits and sustainable dividend payments as well as no debt, plenty of reserves.


Speculators on the other hand, don't care about how healthy a company is, they just care about the stock price moving such as to generate a trading profit. As such the volatility of the stockprice, which is a nightmare for non-seasoned long-term investors, is what drives their profits. A stock that stays high is boring to a trader, and while traders could make a lot of money in a quick run-up to 700, they couldn't make much money if Apple had stayed there, and slowly had crept up to 725 or 750 with mostly sideways movement.


Shorting the stock or holding put options, and then talking the price down, that however generates massive profits, just as gaining again on the way up once people realize that all the analysts were producing was unfounded rumors and hot air.


The stock market, except for very long-term moving averages, is a horrible indicator of the success of a company in real terms.

Temporary thread topic divergence:

Stock valuation is volatile because every investor weights factors differently, but there is one overarching theme: a stock's price reflects investors' expectations of all future performance.  When Apple stock crashed, it wasn't based on current annual profits.  Instead it was based on an enormous downgrade in expected future performance.

You cannot blame the crash on speculators intentionally driving it down with shorts.  They would be just as happy with the price continuing to fly upward as it had been.  In fact, the real scenario was the reverse.  Investor expectations widely fell, and a selloff began, prompting some investors to gamble on a short.  Speculators could short the stock all they wanted without greatly affecting the price because their trading volume is so low.  When a stock falls by close to half its price it's because the market was flooded with sellers to the point that they were willing to sell to anyone willing to buy and at any price.  The current price reflects the equilibrium at which the volume of buyers equals the volume of sellers, and in Apple's case, the volume of sellers was considerably greater than the buyers.

Finally, a stock's price at any moment indicates nothing about the performance of a company, but the trend in that price does.  Apple was rising at a rate above almost all other stocks because they released innovative products that were changing market segments.  When the price collapsed, it reflected broad views that Apple's future performance would likely fall below Jobs-era expectations.  Now the price is seemingly stable, reflecting that investors think its current share price is appropriate given their expectations of performance.

I'm quite familiar with what drives regular volatility. It's however not regular volatility when a stock tumbles from over 700 to a little bit more than half its price "because of growth concerns" when the stock would be valued fairly even at 0% growth given the fundamentals. Apple wasn't a stock that was overhyped on overly optimistic growth expectations, it was always quite conservatively valued even near its peak.

To anyone doing technical trading, it was however clear that after such a steep run up to 700, the stock would make a pause, and a stock making a pause is useless for trading. So generating a lot of negative analyst coverage is bound to kick the stock down somewhat, so there's a profitable trade. And that the stock created a surprisingly large downward momentum is likely due to the fact that a lot of non-savvy investors bought into Apple, maybe even leveraged or otherwise overextended with their investments, who got margin squeezed or did panic sales, which created a positive feedback cycle.

None of that comes at a surprise for professional investors, who have access to statistics on holdings, margin borrowing, etc.

Just like during the tech bubble analysts talked stocks up way past any reasonable price for the purpose of generating trading profits, so analysts can drive profits by talking a stock down. Analysts role in the stock market is just as questionable as that of the ratings agencies in the mortgage backed securities market that brought the financial crisis upon us. They create a false sense of security and stampedes in either direction depending on which side they come down, and they are not the disinterested parties they pretend to be, because they need to get paid; they are not tenured college professors who occasionally give some friendly advice, they write their reports for profit, and are not paid by the line like a freelance reporter in the local newspaper...
post #226 of 310
Saying Samsung is not successful because of Android is like saying that Apple is not successful because of Intel.

It is precisely because of Android's open source nature that Samsung's software additions and modifications actually exist. Think about it; you don't see many of the same features on Samsung's Windows mobile and Windows 8 devices, and Samsung does not market those devices nearly as much around features. That Samsung isn't marketing its smartphones around its add-on features rather than Android does not necessarily have anything to do with that.

In the same way, Apple's use of Intel to augment its technology has created application compatibility and enabled better performance that are part of what give Apple reasonable success today, because the Intel technology inside Apple's products is an integral part of providing the experience that Apple buyers want.

With that, your opinion on how open doesn't always win is invalid.

When you look at what open source can create and do, even if the end result from a venture into working with what is (or was at one point) open source is proprietary, open always wins.

And honestly, droidftw's comment. Success doesn't revolve around making the most money, and the amount of global Android market-share is more than disproving that outdated theory.
post #227 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

I don't have to do anything, because I don't make a claim. However revenue based metrics are meaningless when trying to look at the penetration of what's essentially a free product. Also revenue based metrics say nothing about market dominance, because if one vendor sells a server for $2.5/k for 5 users, and then asks for $500/additional 5 users, while another vendor asks $250 for unlimited users, and their competition makes available the same product minus branding for $0, then the only thing this tells you is who has more revenue share. Since this doesn't even account for profit margins and the vendor's costs, it doesn't even say who wins in terms of profitability, and much less does any of it say anything about market share.

Even if all market entrants were for pay systems, it would say little, unless the product prices remain constant from period to period. But if one raises prices and the other lowers prices, it could well be that one raises revenue share even as their market share declines, and vice versa.

Bottom line: the metric you quoted has little to no value to support the claims you were trying to support with them.

Wrong. The original assertion was that Linux killed Windows in the server space which if true MS would have a small share of the revenue, not the largest share of server revenue. I assert that Linux did nothing of the sort and windows server revenue shows that MS retains huge market share for business servers. There is zero metrics that show that Linux killed windows on servers.

And yes, you do have to provide installed base numbers if you wish to say that revenue doesn't matter and installed base does. THAT was your "claim". For all you know windows server installed base is larger than linux anyway and you can't show otherwise.
post #228 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

I don't have to do anything, because I don't make a claim. However revenue based metrics are meaningless when trying to look at the penetration of what's essentially a free product. Also revenue based metrics say nothing about market dominance, because if one vendor sells a server for $2.5/k for 5 users, and then asks for $500/additional 5 users, while another vendor asks $250 for unlimited users, and their competition makes available the same product minus branding for $0, then the only thing this tells you is who has more revenue share. Since this doesn't even account for profit margins and the vendor's costs, it doesn't even say who wins in terms of profitability, and much less does any of it say anything about market share.

Even if all market entrants were for pay systems, it would say little, unless the product prices remain constant from period to period. But if one raises prices and the other lowers prices, it could well be that one raises revenue share even as their market share declines, and vice versa.

Bottom line: the metric you quoted has little to no value to support the claims you were trying to support with them.

Wrong. The original assertion was that Linux killed Windows in the server space which if true MS would have a small share of the revenue, not the largest share of server revenue. I assert that Linux did nothing of the sort and windows server revenue shows that MS retains huge market share for business servers. There is zero metrics that show that Linux killed windows on servers.

And yes, you do have to provide installed base numbers if you wish to say that revenue doesn't matter and installed base does. THAT was your "claim". For all you know windows server installed base is larger than linux anyway and you can't show otherwise.

I made no claims regarding the relative market share or usage penetration of either system. I only pointed out that the data you provided is useless in supporting any claims regarding that particular debate.

To show this in an extreme example: if there are one billion Linux server using a free distribution, and only a single, paid Windows Server installation, Windows Server will have 100% revenue share, even though it has only a one-billionth of the installed base.
While in reality, the figures won't be that slanted, it clearly shows that the kind of statistic cited does not provide conclusive evidence in regards to the matter discussed.

Since I made no claims on either side of this argument, I don't have to do anything but show the plainly obvious that the numbers quoted are meaningless in the context of the particular debate.
post #229 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxdaka View Post

Saying Samsung is not successful because of Android is like saying that Apple is not successful because of Intel.

It is precisely because of Android's open source nature that Samsung's software additions and modifications actually exist. Think about it; you don't see many of the same features on Samsung's Windows mobile and Windows 8 devices, and Samsung does not market those devices nearly as much around features. That Samsung isn't marketing its smartphones around its add-on features rather than Android does not necessarily have anything to do with that.

In the same way, Apple's use of Intel to augment its technology has created application compatibility and enabled better performance that are part of what give Apple reasonable success today, because the Intel technology inside Apple's products is an integral part of providing the experience that Apple buyers want.

With that, your opinion on how open doesn't always win is invalid.

When you look at what open source can create and do, even if the end result from a venture into working with what is (or was at one point) open source is proprietary, open always wins.

And honestly, droidftw's comment. Success doesn't revolve around making the most money, and the amount of global Android market-share is more than disproving that outdated theory.

Android by itself didn't make Sammy successful. Sammy added proprietary features to its phones while also copying a successful closed OS. If it were just Android, why is no one making any money selling it.

And market share doesn't make a success. If it did, Sammy would be giving away its phones. That's even more outdated.
post #230 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

I made no claims regarding the relative market share or usage penetration of either system. I only pointed out that the data you provided is useless in supporting any claims regarding that particular debate.
 

 

 

You made a claim.  These are your exact words:

Quote:
You'd have to compare number installations, not revenue,

 

Why do I need to compare number installations vs revenue to disprove that Linux killed Windows in the server space?  The data provided completely disproves the death of Windows in the server space unless you consider the largest share of revenue to be dead. 

 

 

Quote:
To show this in an extreme example: if there are one billion Linux server using a free distribution, and only a single, paid Windows Server installation, Windows Server will have 100% revenue share, even though it has only a one-billionth of the installed base.
While in reality, the figures won't be that slanted, it clearly shows that the kind of statistic cited does not provide conclusive evidence in regards to the matter discussed.

Since I made no claims on either side of this argument, I don't have to do anything but show the plainly obvious that the numbers quoted are meaningless in the context of the particular debate.

 

The fact is that you couldn't read a simple paragraph and determine that revenue share was the relevant fact and not "revenue increases".  Given that you seem to have no clue as to what the hell the "debate" is about your opinion means little.  To refresh the original assertion by rgwebb1469 was:

 

 

Quote:
"The stagnation of Microsoft was a two front battle with Mac and iOS devices on the consumer side and LAMP stack on the enterprise IT side."

 

Even in the LAMP stronghold MS/IIS retain 30% share and ASP .NET remains a major server stack technology.  There was no two front battle any more than iOS and Android was engaged in a head to head battle in the US market until recently.  Both Apple and Android was destroying Nokia and RIM share.  Likewise both Windows Server and Linux was destroying Solaris, HPUX, AIX and IRIX share.  When the market stabilized you have pretty much what we have today.  Old school IBM and old school unix on big iron, linux for web servers and HPC and windows everywhere else.  The US smartphone market has stabilized and you see the same iOS creep upwards against Android that you see OSX vs Windows.  Small but upward.

 

Frankly, the school is still out whether Windows is dead at all.  It will certainly maintain majority share on workstations and professional desktop and laptops.  OSX is not about to dethrone it.  As far as tablets go it's still a race for 2nd place.  I think Wintel has legs for the business tablet market.  Haswell will make for a good hybrid ultrabook/tablet combo and if Win8 looks like Vista remember that Win7 followed relatively quickly after Vista.

 

Microsoft has not stagnated as much as stumble badly on new execution.  Who, other than Apple, is actually well positioned to take advantage of that stumble?  Virus infected Android?  No.  Linux?  The only contender is Ubuntu and that's as much a forlorn hope as on the desktop.  Chrome?  Not likely.  

 

Even iOS isn't THAT well positioned to take massive share of the business tablet market.

post #231 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

I made no claims regarding the relative market share or usage penetration of either system. I only pointed out that the data you provided is useless in supporting any claims regarding that particular debate.

 


You made a claim.  These are your exact words:
Quote:
You'd have to compare number installations, not revenue,

This is a statement about methodology, not about whether or not Linux did or didn't kill Windows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Why do I need to compare number installations vs revenue to disprove that Linux killed Windows in the server space?  The data provided completely disproves the death of Windows in the server space unless you consider the largest share of revenue to be dead. 

I don't consider anything, because I didn't make any claims regarding whether or not Linux did or didn't kill Windows.
However, largest revenue share means nothing when the opponent of matter is a free product, as I amply illustrated by taking it ad absurdum with only a single-for-pay server installation in the world left, while billions of free Linux servers are running the rest of the compute universe: in that case Windows enjoys a 100% revenue share, but it's still very dead.

Besides, for Linux to kill Windows it doesn't have to be dead, just beaten: when the Yankees kill the Red Sox, there are no bodies in the ball park, and the Red Sox franchise is far from bankrupt afterwards. But the Yankees still kill the Red Sox, as is evident when comparing the number of won Championships.

Further, as you point out yourself, the original claim (not made by me) is:
Quote:
"The stagnation of Microsoft was a two front battle with Mac and iOS devices on the consumer side and LAMP stack on the enterprise IT side."

and STAGNATION is about lack of growth, massively slowed growth, shrinkage of market share/installed base. All of these can be true all the while Windows still is able to hold the largest revenue share when the opposing product is free. I make no assertions as to whether that is the case or not, but that your measure of relative success is inadequate to make any point in this discussion.

Not sure about which part of "free is not measurable in revenue" is so hard to understand?
post #232 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

Not sure about which part of "free is not measurable in revenue" is so hard to understand?

 

Because free doesn't exist.  There is always cost or there simply isn't investment.  Linux exists in the enterprise primarily because of IBM and to a lesser degree HP.  Linux market penetration can be see in the form of linux server sales and linux support contracts for IBM, HP, Dell and Oracle.

 

Businesses pay for Linux and linux servers.  Even in the case of "free" Linux there is significant TCO numbers that are measurable.

post #233 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

Not sure about which part of "free is not measurable in revenue" is so hard to understand?

Because free doesn't exist.  There is always cost or there simply isn't investment.  Linux exists in the enterprise primarily because of IBM and to a lesser degree HP.  Linux market penetration can be see in the form of linux server sales and linux support contracts for IBM, HP, Dell and Oracle.

Businesses pay for Linux and linux servers.  Even in the case of "free" Linux there is significant TCO numbers that are measurable.

The TCO numbers were measureable if they were reasonably standardized and published, but that's not in the numbers you quoted. And even if measured, they don't say much about the relative market penetration, since e.g. an internet start up may have a regular employee who does server management on the side, while a similar sized other company pays for the same server management a massive maintenance contract fee. Further, similar contracts for different products have vastly different fees, both based on perceived reputation, market power, etc. of the vendor, and on how troublesome a product is, essentially precluding any meaningful conclusions about installed base of products based on these numbers.

If someone buys a Dell server, and installs Linux on it, it counts as Dell hardware sales, not as "Linux revenue". If the same hires a Linux sysadmin it won't be reflected in Linux revenue share, either, even though both of these are part of the TCO equation.

So all you try to do here is win some points with the "nothing is free" red herring while distracting from the fact that a free product (in terms of sale price) will not register in revenue statistics.

I'd love to see some people here in any sort of even semi-rigorous philosophy class, given the illogical reasoning displayed. Sort of reminds me of the infamous Monty Python scene about the witch and wood...

People who are in a whole should stop digging.
post #234 of 310
"Nothing ain't worth nothing but it's free." Ad-noid is open and free. Consequently Google feels free. Free to take no responsibility for heaps of cheap phones bound nowhere but landfills the size of Everest. Ad-noid is a global plague.

The iOS is not free, but Apple is responsible. It uses lifecycle pricing: pay more up front; get it back upon resale. Even broken. See gazelle.com. Samsung Galaxies? Not worth a penny broken. Cheap landfill garbage. As are the millions of Chinese knockoffs.
post #235 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgwebb1469 View Post

Gazoobee is correct that this article does a poor job of framing it's argument. In generalities, I agree with some of the statements but it was tied together poorly. The explanation of why open is a failure is almost nonexistent. Honestly, I think the biggest problem with the Android v. iOS arguments across the web is the very idea that for one of the platforms to win then the other has to be losing. I think Android is winning in the areas they want to win while Apple is winning in the areas they want to win. 

 

 

The explanation of why seemed pretty damn clear to me, maybe you didn't read it good enough. He isn't saying that open is a failure in and of itself, only that banking your business on "openness" is a failure because companies that use proprietary means are the ones that make money....Since making money is what every business is usually in business for why would you bank your business on being open and lose money instead of make money? What's so hard about that?

Also, in what areas does Android "want" to be winning in??? Android is just an OS, it really doesn't care about "winning". Now on the other hand if you were to say that Google, HTC, Motorola, LG etc are winning in the areas they want to be winning in because of Android, then really you need to go back and read this article again because that's exactly what it was talking about. If those companies themselves aren't winning in profits because of Android's "openness," then how are they winning at all from a business perspective??? NOT from the perspective of Android itself......

post #236 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

If someone buys a Dell server, and installs Linux on it, it counts as Dell hardware sales, not as "Linux revenue". If the same hires a Linux sysadmin it won't be reflected in Linux revenue share, either, even though both of these are part of the TCO equation.

 

Show me how often this happens in the business IT environment without a corresponding an SLES or RHEL sale. 1%?  10%?  99%? Show me that there are more Linux sysadmins than Windows admins positions.  Show me a discrepancy between OS revenue share and the number of sysadmin jobs for each OS.  You haven't and probably can't even if the data was readily available because server revenue IS a relevant indication of size and health of server operating system installed base/overall marketshare.  Unless you want to make the laughable assertion that Linux doesn't require as many sys admins as windows because it's so easy to administer.

 

You keep bringing up hypotheticals or ad absurdum arguments and no supporting data that "revenue has no relevance for a free server OS".  Show me ANY data that supports this assertion.  Not dubious logic based on the OS being "free".  If this was such an elementary fact there should be obvious supporting evidence that revenue has little or no correlation with installed base.  Show me data not handwaving and I'll happily agree that Linux killed Windows in the server market and revenue share means nothing.

 

Your reading comprehension was poor and you've been scrambling ever since to make some kind of point.

post #237 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechManMike View Post

The explanation of why seemed pretty damn clear to me, maybe you didn't read it good enough. He isn't saying that open is a failure in and of itself, only that banking your business on "openness" is a failure because companies that use proprietary means are the ones that make money....Since making money is what every business is usually in business for why would you bank your business on being open and lose money instead of make money? What's so hard about that?

 

The counterpoint is where IBM used Linux to destroy Sun to gain both hardware and service revenue and Google used Android to destroy Nokia and RIM to gain ad and service revenue.  WinPhone share was pretty marginal even at it's peak.

 

FOSS can be a very effective weapon to destroy a rivals revenue stream.  Of course, the inability for open source databases to destroy Oracle's revenue stream or open source office suites to destroy MS Office's revenue stream are arguments against that assertion.  I guess the statement is more "FOSS can be a very effective weapon to destroy a rival's revenue stream if you can make them f*ck up even more in reaction".  Something the management at Nokia, RIM and Sun managed spectacularly but then almost anything can be effective weapons in that scenario...

post #238 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

The counterpoint is where IBM used Linux to destroy Sun to gain both hardware and service revenue and Google used Android to destroy Nokia and RIM to gain ad and service revenue.  WinPhone share was pretty marginal even at it's peak.

 

FOSS can be a very effective weapon to destroy a rivals revenue stream.  Of course, the inability for open source databases to destroy Oracle's revenue stream or open source office suites to destroy MS Office's revenue stream are arguments against that assertion.  I guess the statement is more "FOSS can be a very effective weapon to destroy a rival's revenue stream if you can make them f*ck up even more in reaction".  Something the management at Nokia, RIM and Sun managed spectacularly but then almost anything can be effective weapons in that scenario...

What's disturbing is the use of words like "weapons", "destroying", "rival", etc. in terms of computers and the companies that make these things. That OVERLY competitive attitude to make a living gets real old.  People don't go into business to try to destroy someone else.  They should be going into business to make a living and provide a cost effective long term solution to a customer's needs where the customer doesn't feel like they are a pawn between to ASSHOLE companies. Did Apple make the iPhone to "destroy" some one else's business?  NO.  They did it, because they felt that the iPhone touchscreen format was better or more efficient than the BB, Palm etc.  physical keyboard and that it would be better to address the needs of those that didn't like the physical keyboard paradigm.

 

Then Samsung, Google & co. come around and try to go after Apple's market THEY created.  They try to make Apple out to be the assholes as if they were trying to start a war for money and customers.

 

Here's what is childish, is listening to those that treat these companies and products like its war and that the company that is "winning' the market share share war is LOSING THEIR COLLECTIVE ASSES in the financial profits war.   To that, I laugh when someone THINKS that Android is winning or wants them to win because the OS is supposedly FREE and OPEN, and Customizable, as if that's better.  It's not better. It's a collective mess of crap that has no one in charge of guiding the direction of the OS in a professional manner where products are supported, upgraded, and maintained like a professional company would do that has integrity.  If I had a phone that wasn't loaded up with the latest version OS, and that phone is less than 2 years old, then whomever sells that phone should not be in business.  In my experience, companies that try to "BUY' the business by purposely lowering the price to "BUY' market share usually end up either going out of business or losing the business they were "buying" because they don't focus on making a better product instead.  Same thing goes with people that make a cheaper product because another is grabbing business because of too much competition.  I've seen all of this happen with PC mfg and it's GOING to happen with Android mfg. If a company purposely makes a cheaper product to compete on price, they'll eventually lose customers because people eventually get sick of cheap products, same goes with not updating the OS, not providing good customer service, etc.  "Buying" market share with lost leader products that don't make a profit will catch up to the mfg since they can't run a business from products sold with no profit.  I"ve seen IBM, Compaq, Dell, Gateway, and other PC mfg get kicked out from a customer's site for various types of business practices that some might think were either kind of sleazy or not using sound business fundamentals.  It's sucks to be in the middle of that and even worse if you are a customer that gets victimized because of it.  I don't know why some that like Open Source OSs that are FREE try to use it as a means to DESTROY the "competition'.  What's THAT all about?

post #239 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

If someone buys a Dell server, and installs Linux on it, it counts as Dell hardware sales, not as "Linux revenue". If the same hires a Linux sysadmin it won't be reflected in Linux revenue share, either, even though both of these are part of the TCO equation.

Show me how often this happens in the business IT environment without a corresponding an SLES or RHEL sale. 1%?  10%?  99%? Show me that there are more Linux sysadmins than Windows admins positions.  Show me a discrepancy between OS revenue share and the number of sysadmin jobs for each OS.  You haven't and probably can't even if the data was readily available because server revenue IS a relevant indication of size and health of server operating system installed base/overall marketshare.  Unless you want to make the laughable assertion that Linux doesn't require as many sys admins as windows because it's so easy to administer.

You keep bringing up hypotheticals or ad absurdum arguments and no supporting data that "revenue has no relevance for a free server OS".  Show me ANY data that supports this assertion.  Not dubious logic based on the OS being "free".  If this was such an elementary fact there should be obvious supporting evidence that revenue has little or no correlation with installed base.  Show me data not handwaving and I'll happily agree that Linux killed Windows in the server market and revenue share means nothing.

Your reading comprehension was poor and you've been scrambling ever since to make some kind of point.

I don't have to show anything, because I make no quantitative claims. You do. You make your claims with data that does not support these claims directly. You then claim that the data you cite supports your claim indirectly. If you make that claim, show the studies, the math, the statistics, the correlation between the data you use, and the claim you make. You don't do any of that. Therefore, unless you can make such an analysis, "revenue share percentage" is not a measure of "installed base" when one of the products is free.

And stop using the sysadmin and TCO side tracks: these are not reflected in "revenue share", and therefore are just an attempt to distract from your bad reasoning.

My reading comprehension is just fine, and I'm not scrambling to make any point, besides having exposed that the numbers you cite have no significant bearing in the case you're trying to make, a fact you don't seem to be able to stomach, which is why you have to create distracting side lines of reasoning and resort to baseless attacks.

The point of taking a line of reasoning ad absurdum is to show how absurd that line of reasoning is, despite being superficially sound. If we count active server numbers, there's no "ad absurdum" because we're comparing apples with apples, and oranges with oranges.There are X number of Windows servers, and Y number of Linux servers. That sort of comparison speaks for itself. Revenue share measures revenue share, it's a measure of cash flow, not even profitability, and even less of numbers of installed servers in total or number of new servers.

Bad data can't support any side of an argument, regardless if it's the winning or the losing side of the argument, and I don't care which side of the Linux vs. Windows argument wins, because I have no stake in it, nor did I make any claims in that matter.
post #240 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

And people wonder why android fanboys are drawn to this site... If you go on androidcentral.com or XDA you rarely see any mention of apple.

 

Except the standard <insert Android-based phone vendor> is better than ios/apple forum babble:

 

http://forums.androidcentral.com/samsung-galaxy-s4/292372-apple-samsung-ios-android.html

 

And where androidcentral devoted an entire forum section to iOS:

 

http://forums.androidcentral.com/iphone-ios/

 

... and these news pieces:

 

http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-s-ios-7-copied-everyone-and-s-good-thing

http://www.androidcentral.com/competition-follow-apple-s-wwdc-keynote-imore

http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-removes-youtube-app-ios-6-its-not-shot-google

http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-can-t-add-galaxy-s4-samsung-patent-suit-judge-rules

 

Or this one, it's a peach:

 

http://www.androidcentral.com/what-android-features-will-apple-invent-tomorrow

 

Or any of over several hundred (no exaggeration) articles that mention iOS or Apple here:

 

http://www.androidcentral.com/tags/ios

http://www.androidcentral.com/tags/apple

 

... Just sayin' ...  ;)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Editorial: Apple, Google and the failure of Android's open