I've checked out certain industries and in many of them, the actually developer support for more high end apps for Android is almost non-existent. The music creation and production industry with companies like yamaha, Alesis, Mackie, and a bunch of others that are coming out with iOS apps for iPads and iPhones don't even support Android, the support iOS. They don't even support Windows RT tablets and WIndows phones. Guess what? If I were a developer of software, I might just support iOS, that is where most of the money is being spent on apps by users anyway.
I wonder how this security issues and lack of updating the OS is going to attract or deter more Android developers? People have to chose which platform is the best to support with as little headaches as possible.
Probably the biggest and only reason why I have an iPod, the music creation apps are just simply fantastic. Everything else though I prefer using a Windows 8 tablet, none RT version of course.
You're completely missing the whole point of open. Open isn't about profit, it's about creating a commodity that everyone can benefit from. If you judge it by the rules of a different game, of course it's going to fail.
Open means that something that has become a commodity can be shared and updated for minimal expenditure. Everyone can then spend their R&D budget on the next layer, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.
Why do you think that WebKit was open sourced? Why do you think that OS X and iOS use an open source kernel?
This is the kind of article I expect to see from someone who has "equivalent of a Masters degree in Computer Science".
... and by "everyone" clearly in Google's case "everyone" actually means Google shareholders and executives. Open source computing isn't exactly the wide open-armed and welcoming circle the granola eaters think it is.
I believe DED once pointed out that both Google and Apple open-source items they know they can't make money on but steadfastly protect their software technologies that make them large amounts of money.
Without a sugardaddy of some sort, most FOSS projects end up jumbled messes, with geekdom assured that they know best and deluge users with trivialities and ungodly bad interface design(s). It's very much a "we know what's best and if you can't keep up it's your fault" mentality. A good example of this is Blender. Horrible interface that's unduly overcomplicated and makes it WORTH buying a commercial modelling package. You can argue the same to a large degree with Linux. Most people don't want to bother rebuilding their kernel or forever tweaking or learning to script in ksh or whatever. These are the two biggest reasons why "open" won't really go anywhere. Quality software requires skill, and in our current economic model and reality, a person needs to pay the bills. Working for free can't do that.
I see "open software" as a wash when it comes to benefits on a grande scale.
The music creation and production industry with companies like yamaha, Alesis, Mackie, and a bunch of others that are coming out with iOS apps for iPads and iPhones don't even support Android, the support iOS. They don't even support Windows RT tablets and WIndows phones.
In this case there are actual technical reasons for the lack of android and winRT adoption. As of right now, neither android nor winRT supports low-latency audio.
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?
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.
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.
WINNER! - both platforms attract different audiences - there is no perfect phone - just a phone that is PERFECT for the user.
These them vs us battles applies to cars, homes, tv's washer machines etc.
I love technology = both Apple and Android, although the jury is still out with Microsoft - but all these vendors are needed (for the nsa ) no but really they are needed to keep each other to create more useful products for us to throw our money at.
Now i saw earlier that someone said - Apple will only create for a profit - GOOD - that means that its something that i see a use for and will want to buy.
I also saw that Android is of no profit and basically sucks - again, false - if there is something of value and use of it - i will buy it from the vendor offering it.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nothing says "pretentious" like insisting on your own font. :)
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Probably the biggest and only reason why I have an iPod, the music creation apps are just simply fantastic. Everything else though I prefer using a Windows 8 tablet, none RT version of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
You're completely missing the whole point of open. Open isn't about profit, it's about creating a commodity that everyone can benefit from. If you judge it by the rules of a different game, of course it's going to fail.
Open means that something that has become a commodity can be shared and updated for minimal expenditure. Everyone can then spend their R&D budget on the next layer, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.
Why do you think that WebKit was open sourced? Why do you think that OS X and iOS use an open source kernel?
This is the kind of article I expect to see from someone who has "equivalent of a Masters degree in Computer Science".
... and by "everyone" clearly in Google's case "everyone" actually means Google shareholders and executives. Open source computing isn't exactly the wide open-armed and welcoming circle the granola eaters think it is.
I believe DED once pointed out that both Google and Apple open-source items they know they can't make money on but steadfastly protect their software technologies that make them large amounts of money.
Without a sugardaddy of some sort, most FOSS projects end up jumbled messes, with geekdom assured that they know best and deluge users with trivialities and ungodly bad interface design(s). It's very much a "we know what's best and if you can't keep up it's your fault" mentality. A good example of this is Blender. Horrible interface that's unduly overcomplicated and makes it WORTH buying a commercial modelling package. You can argue the same to a large degree with Linux. Most people don't want to bother rebuilding their kernel or forever tweaking or learning to script in ksh or whatever. These are the two biggest reasons why "open" won't really go anywhere. Quality software requires skill, and in our current economic model and reality, a person needs to pay the bills. Working for free can't do that.
I see "open software" as a wash when it comes to benefits on a grande scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
The music creation and production industry with companies like yamaha, Alesis, Mackie, and a bunch of others that are coming out with iOS apps for iPads and iPhones don't even support Android, the support iOS. They don't even support Windows RT tablets and WIndows phones.
In this case there are actual technical reasons for the lack of android and winRT adoption. As of right now, neither android nor winRT supports low-latency audio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
This is neat, a guy installed an iPod in his 04' Porshe 996, http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/996/301123-ipad-mini-dash-install-996-mkii.html.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgwebb1469
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.
WINNER! - both platforms attract different audiences - there is no perfect phone - just a phone that is PERFECT for the user.
These them vs us battles applies to cars, homes, tv's washer machines etc.
I love technology = both Apple and Android, although the jury is still out with Microsoft - but all these vendors are needed (for the nsa
Now i saw earlier that someone said - Apple will only create for a profit - GOOD - that means that its something that i see a use for and will want to buy.
I also saw that Android is of no profit and basically sucks - again, false - if there is something of value and use of it - i will buy it from the vendor offering it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgwebb1469
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by runbuh
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf
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.
Have you used CentOS?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by designguybrown
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Bray
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezwits
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.