1.64-bit Ultimate is the only Ultimate offered by HP. If there is a 32-bit Ultimate, I would accept that. If you are going to claim that an HP is less expensive than a Macbook, then you have to equip the HP with the maximum OS you can get, since that is what the Macbook comes with (the Macbook also comes with a full development environment.)
2. If the question is "Is the cheapest HP less expensive than the cheapest Apple notebook?" then obviously the answer is yes - Apple is not interested in Celeron-based $500 notebooks, probably because there is no profit in them. I wager that if you could listen in on marketing meetings at HP, they aren't really interested in selling them either.
However, the remark is not made that way - it is always "Apple hardware is more expensive." I am merely showing that it is not more expensive for the same features and same thickness and weight. This USED not to be true, so it is important that people understand that today it IS true.
And the guy getting root on a machine that he has physical access to - ....
I agree. The reference to the 30 years was in no way demeaning. And in fact, is one of the great things that makes Mac OS X good.
I remember reading about NeXT during the late eighties. Wikipedia says that the first release of NeXTSTEP is from 1989. My first contact with a UNIX workstation was in 1995, an HP 700 running HP-UX 9.X. Unfortunately, I never got to use a NeXT workstation, although the screenshot that wikipedia shows (it seems from 1995, v 3.3) is indeed very impressive. If it was like that right from release 1.0 (assuming of course all the other things we have been talking about the system stability because of its UNIX roots, etc were present), it was a very deep innovation.
Yep! And that the guy (Jobs) has an incredible ability to turn technology into useful products. A concept, product, that seems to be forgotten in these days of web 2.0 and web-service talking. Except for his lack of contributions to charity (which I don't know if he does in private, although when he was explicitly asked about it earlier during the year during his co-interview with Gates he kind of hinted that philanthropy is not one of his priorities), I have deep respect for Jobs. And that he was able to rise so high from such humble origins is simply astonishing.
Anyway, I am still unable to relate to the Mac religion. It doesn't turn me on.
Maybe the way you describe is better for Apple, but for geeks like me the feeling of owning an A500 during the late eighties (and I assume that the same can be said for those who were able to afford a NeXT WS in 1989 or 1990) doesn't match the feeling of owning an iPhone today, despite the fact that the iPhone is, in my view, the most "ahead of its time" product that Apple has in the market at this time. Let alone the the thing of owning a Mac OS X computer vs owning its equivalent running Windows XP or Vista.
Cheers!
Charity is overrated. His presence has allowed Apple to grow by over 12,000 more full-time employees. Jobs created alone should be considered a Charity, but that's not the case.
Donating money in bulk to write down future taxes and seeing most of it go to administrative costs has always given me very little respect for the notion of charity.
Take that $30 Billion Buffett and put it into replacing the Oil Industry. Invest in arid lands where algae bio fuel can prosper [Africa has tons of arid land], create jobs giving people confidence and security, produce a solution to resolve hundreds of billions yearly wasted on "fear and terror" and then I'd say someone that rich has done the world justice.
1.64-bit Ultimate is the only Ultimate offered by HP. If there is a 32-bit Ultimate, I would accept that. If you are going to claim that an HP is less expensive than a Macbook, then you have to equip the HP with the maximum OS you can get, since that is what the Macbook comes with (the Macbook also comes with a full development environment.)
I disagree. I always made the comparison from the consumer point of view, not from the seller point of view. For a consumer deciding between buying a low end mac or its equivalent HP, the 32 bit Windows Vista Home Premium is an acceptable option. He/She doesn't need to pay the extra to have the 64 bit OS just to make the marketing guys at Apple happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy
2. If the question is "Is the cheapest HP less expensive than the cheapest Apple notebook?" then obviously the answer is yes - Apple is not interested in Celeron-based $500 notebooks, probably because there is no profit in them. I wager that if you could listen in on marketing meetings at HP, they aren't really interested in selling them either.
Well, the fact that they are selling them, shows otherwise. And besides, wasn't it the whole point of the comparison? My contention was, and sorry if I didn't make it clear, that for a given spec in proc/hd/ram/screen, the standard PC hardware sold by HP /Dell is cheaper. And there are many consumers who benefit from that, which are forgotten by both Apple and the economic elite who don't care about paying the premium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy
However, the remark is not made that way - it is always "Apple hardware is more expensive." I am merely showing that it is not more expensive for the same features and same thickness and weight. This USED not to be true, so it is important that people understand that today it IS true.
Well, I didn't make the remark in that sense. Hope it's clear now. Even at the same (or slightly similar) price for the high end configs, choosing Apple over HP or Dell locks you into Apple's SW and HW, something that doesn't happen with either HP or Dell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy
And the guy getting root on a machine that he has physical access to - ....
Yes, but as soon as you have your computer connected to the internet, you have an IP interface connected to an IP network and you are exposed to the UNIX exploits/security holes which focus on the vulnerabilities of the TCP/IP stack and the inetd/xinetd services. Nobody uses a computer standalone anymore. Plus, if you disconnect a Windows PC from the network, the system is almost as secure as a Mac, so you don't need the antivirus either.
To summarize, I stand by my $874 vs $1099 claim. And, as I said, you even have 50% more HD and a slightly larger screen.
Charity is overrated. His presence has allowed Apple to grow by over 12,000 more full-time employees. Jobs created alone should be considered a Charity, but that's not the case.
I never questioned the benefit to Apple's employees of his presence :-). And you can even go further. Since most manufacturing at Apple is contracted, Apple's contractors have also benefited from Apple's growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Donating money in bulk to write down future taxes and seeing most of it go to administrative costs has always given me very little respect for the notion of charity.
I respect that but, the same happens in so many areas, including the industry or fundamental research. At Stanford for instance, for each grant awarded to an academic, there is a percentage of it which goes to administrative costs. In fact, a few years ago, Stanford had to settle a dispute with the Federal Government for charging too much administrative overhead.
Yet, the benefit for society and high tech, including Apple (one of my professors co-designed the first sound subsystem of the NeXT computer, http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/joscv...xperience.html ) of the innovations that span out of Stanford has been immense. I like to think about charity the same way. I have a modest monthly pledge to UNICEF. I am well aware that half of that money is going nowhere, especially given the corrupt nature of the UN, but it's the other half which makes me keep doing it despite being a student.
I just don't understand how somebody with the resources and influence that Jobs enjoys isn't more engaged given his leverage. These words, taken from Time Magazine's article about naming Bill G, Melinda G and Bono persons of the year underscore very well the type of impact he could have
"For being shrewd about doing good, for rewiring politics and re-engineering justice, for making mercy smarter and hope strategic and then daring the rest of us to follow, Bill and Melinda Gates and Bono are TIME's Persons of the Year."
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Take that $30 Billion Buffett and put it into replacing the Oil Industry. Invest in arid lands where algae bio fuel can prosper [Africa has tons of arid land], create jobs giving people confidence and security, produce a solution to resolve hundreds of billions yearly wasted on "fear and terror" and then I'd say someone that rich has done the world justice.
Jobs is not doing one or the other. Replacing the corrupt governments in subsaharan Africa with rule of law abiding democratic governments, which would be a prerequisite, is easier said than done. In the meanwhile, the Gates Foundation has the resources, the technology and the will, to tackle some the the most daunting problems Africa faces today. The millions who are alive thanks to Gates' generosity are a reminder of his good side (many of which would be dead due to the inability of international organizations/governments to deal with those issues) . As I said in a previous posting, I find the fact that Gates is not only putting the bulk of his wealth to charity but he himself will be focusing on the foundation full time in 6 months admirable. That by itself is a good reason to keep buying Windows to me .
Sure Steve Jobs has his reasons, and I respect them, but it doesn't prevent me from criticizing him for not doing more. In his 2005 commencement speech, he said that after he was fired from Apple back in 1985, he met with Dave Packard, and Bob Noyce, and apologized for screwing up so badly as an entrepreneur. I didn't have the chance to meet Dave Packard but if his life actions are any indication (Packard himself was strongly committed to philanthropic causes, setting a foundation in 1964 which inherited most of Packard's fortune after his death, http://www.packard.org/home.aspx ) he would be a little bit appalled that such a successful entrepreneur isn't more committed to giving back.
If Jobs plans to do it in a different manner (or he is doing it with nobody knowing), I am sorry for my baseless criticism .
I never questioned the benefit to Apple's employees of his presence :-). And you can even go further. Since most manufacturing at Apple is contracted, Apple's contractors have also benefited from Apple's growth.
I respect that but, the same happens in so many areas, including the industry or fundamental research. At Stanford for instance, for each grant awarded to an academic, there is a percentage of it which goes to administrative costs. In fact, a few years ago, Stanford had to settle a dispute with the Federal Government for charging too much administrative overhead.
Yet, the benefit for society and high tech, including Apple (one of my professors co-designed the first sound subsystem of the NeXT computer, http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/joscv...xperience.html ) of the innovations that span out of Stanford has been immense. I like to think about charity the same way. I have a modest monthly pledge to UNICEF. I am well aware that half of that money is going nowhere, especially given the corrupt nature of the UN, but it's the other half which makes me keep doing it despite being a student.
I just don't understand how somebody with the resources and influence that Jobs enjoys isn't more engaged given his leverage. These words, taken from Time Magazine's article about naming Bill G, Melinda G and Bono persons of the year underscore very well the type of impact he could have
Jobs is not doing one or the other. Replacing the corrupt governments in subsaharan Africa with rule of law abiding democratic governments, which would be a prerequisite, is easier said than done. In the meanwhile, the Gates Foundation has the resources, the technology and the will, to tackle some the the most daunting problems Africa faces today. The millions who are alive thanks to Gates' generosity are a reminder of his good side (many of which would be dead due to the inability of international organizations/governments to deal with those issues) . As I said in a previous posting, I find the fact that Gates is not only putting the bulk of his wealth to charity but he himself will be focusing on the foundation full time in 6 months admirable. That by itself is a good reason to keep buying Windows to me .
Sure Steve Jobs has his reasons, and I respect them, but it doesn't prevent me from criticizing him for not doing more. In his 2005 commencement speech, he said that after he was fired from Apple back in 1985, he met with Dave Packard, and Bob Noyce, and apologized for screwing up so badly as an entrepreneur. I didn't have the chance to meet Dave Packard but if his life actions are any indication (Packard himself was strongly committed to philanthropic causes, setting a foundation in 1964 which inherited most of Packard's fortune after his death, http://www.packard.org/home.aspx ) he would be a little bit appalled that such a successful entrepreneur isn't more committed to giving back.
If Jobs plans to do it in a different manner (or he is doing it with nobody knowing), I am sorry for my baseless criticism .
Let's compare years of fortune. Steve Jobs didn't join the Billionaire Club until the late 1990s. Even then, most of his investment was back into PIXAR.
With the merger of Disney and PIXAR, jobs has finally seen a very large chunk of assets go his way.
Seeing as Larry Ellison is Mr. Job's closest friend, among Silicon Valley Executives, I won't be surprised that he will get into the focus of Philanthropy sooner rather than later.
Do you think he decided to ask former VP Al Gore on the board as a PR stunt?
Steve strikes me more as the guy whose decided to make a visionary leading impact in an Industry he helped create as a contribution back to Society and if he ever gets tired of doing the Apple gig will find something equally as engrossing to keep him going.
Hate to say it, but if you think monetary Philanthropy is a measure of one's greatness then you must truly admire men like Andrew Carnegie, Rockefeller, Rothschild and the rest of the Robber Barons who raped and pillaged the world throughout their entire life spans.
We have them to thank for the Great Depression, but heh! They were swell guys to set up some philanthropic pursuits and get museums and libraries named after them. Ignore that Rockefeller and others funded the Nazis! They cared about the 3rd world! Yeah they cared alright! They cared so they could exploit the hell out of it.
The History of the entire Rubber Industry is a case of mass human slavery due to greed. However, these tires still suck and wear out after 40k miles of heavy use.
Even at the same (or slightly similar) price for the high end configs, choosing Apple over HP or Dell locks you into Apple's SW and HW, something that doesn't happen with either HP or Dell.
No, that's not true at all.
With Apple hardware you can run the same software as you can HP or Dell. And you can run OSX too.
Apple hardware takes the same memory, drives, CPUs and has the same external peripherals as HP and Dell so I fail to see how you're locked into Apple only hardware either.
The so-called 'lock in' hasn't been true for years.
Seeing as Larry Ellison is Mr. Job's closest friend, among Silicon Valley Executives, I won't be surprised that he will get into the focus of Philanthropy sooner rather than later.
When that happens, I'll recognize that I am wrong. And I truly hope that I am wrong !
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Do you think he decided to ask former VP Al Gore on the board as a PR stunt?
I don't know. However, I have always been very suspicious of former politicians who take prominent jobs at powerful companies and of the companies who hire them. Apple is far from alone in doing it (KPCB did it with both Collin Powell and Al Gore). For Al Gore I see the money factor as a big motivator of his recent moves: he went from $1 million cash in 2000 to a net worth of ~ $100 million in 2007 (http://www.newsweek.com/id/71011).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Steve strikes me more as the guy whose decided to make a visionary leading impact in an Industry he helped create as a contribution back to Society and if he ever gets tired of doing the Apple gig will find something equally as engrossing to keep him going.
I am not questioning Jobs contributions to the personal computer industry. But those type of contributions and philanthropic endeavors are not at odds with each other.
You have countless examples in the high tech industry of great innovators who turned out to be great philanthropists and who didn't really wait until they became billionaires to make a difference. My list of heroes in that respect is topped by Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard (even Gates strong turning to philanthropy was to a large degree motivated by the early death of his mother) . Not only they created Silicon Valley, its startup culture (today, HP's revenues are higher than Apple's, Cisco's, Google's and Sun's combined), they innovated the Silicon Valley workspace, they contributed in the communities where they operated (Europe, the Middle East and Asia are full of sites where HP maintains not only sales operations but also R&D facilities which help transfer high tech knowledge to those societies) and both men gave most of their wealth to charity. The combined value of the Packard and Hewlett family foundations is 14.3 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...#United_States (those are last year's numbers, the growth of their endowments might have made them even bigger by now). Both men started their foundations in the late sixties, well before achieving the level of wealth you mention (even inflation adjusted). The impact of the two men's generosity is well felt here on campus (and I am sure it is felt in other places as well). Most research grad students, like myself, don't pay the tuition from their own pocket. Instead, we are supported by some type of grant (ie, we are not, for the most part, children of wealthy individuals). The Lucile and David Packard Foundation was part of the group of founding donors which endowed one of the most important of such programs, http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/Fel...out/index.html. The Hewlett foundation made in 2001 the largest gift of its kind to any university to support professors and students in the humanities, a field that is often overlooked by the usual funding channels, http://news-service.stanford.edu/new...9/gift-59.html.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Hate to say it, but if you think monetary Philanthropy is a measure of one's greatness then you must truly admire men like Andrew Carnegie, Rockefeller, Rothschild
I do both! I am not familiar with Rothschild's life, so I'll speak for Carnegie and Rockefeller. Among the most important contributions of Andrew Carnegie was the establishment of what later became Carnegie Mellon University, which has trained a countless number of great computer scientists and pioneers who have impacted positively not only the computing industry but the world. As for Rockefeller, the university he founded, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_University, is one of today's top contributors in biomedical research. The list of honors to past and present faculty because of their contributions to medicine is astonishing. Just as astonishing as the breakthroughs those same faculty made; from the wikipedia site:
Quote:
The university has been the site of many important scientific breakthroughs. Rockefeller scientists, for example, established that DNA is the chemical basis of heredity, discovered blood groups, showed that viruses can cause cancer, founded the modern field of cell biology, worked out the structure of antibodies, developed methadone maintenance for people addicted to heroin, devised the AIDS "cocktail" drug therapy, and identified the weight-regulating hormone leptin.
Gates, Hewlett, Packard, Carnegie and Rockefeller have made positive impact to the world both through their businesses (benefiting hundreds of thousands of employees) and the world at large through their philanthropic endeavors. Apple/Jobs so far have only contributed to the business side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
and the rest of the Robber Barons who raped and pillaged the world throughout their entire life spans.
I don't think what you describe is very different from what Apple was denounced for here,
or here, http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...le-news-020507 (the change of policy described was triggered by a Greenpeace denunciation which at the very minimum shows that Apple is not proactive dealing with these matters and, if I want to get paranoid, I could also call it a PR stunt).
Businesses, and in that respect Apple is no different, need to optimize profit (I stress I said optimize, not maximize) in order to survive, let alone thrive. A company which consistently loses money has only one way yo go: Chapter 11 (which is what was about to happen to Apple before Jobs' return). In making that optimization, most companies will sure incur in some evil practices. No high tech company today can stay competitive without outsourcing some of its less strategic areas to third world countries. And though there are clearly winners in those countries (think of the programmers in India or China who have an unbelievable high standard of living that they couldn't afford without the presence of those companies in their countries), there are also losers like the manufacturing workers who are being exploited so the iPod can sell in the US at $250 instead of say $1000 (it's just an example not based on any actual analysis).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
We have them to thank for the Great Depression, but heh! They were swell guys to set up some philanthropic pursuits and get museums and libraries named after them. Ignore that Rockefeller and others funded the Nazis! They cared about the 3rd world! Yeah they cared alright! They cared so they could exploit the hell out of it.
The History of the entire Rubber Industry is a case of mass human slavery due to greed. However, these tires still suck and wear out after 40k miles of heavy use.
As a Valley survivor of the 2000 .com bubble I can only say that what saved the US from another depression triggered by the greed of the high-tech executives were the safe guards put in place during the Great Depression. As for the comments about the Nazis... Well, today Yahoo helped jail political dissidents in China and Apple manufactures iPods in China. In addition to the working conditions at the Chinese manufacturing facility, which can only be described as a place where first world companies exploit third world workers, based on what Chinese friends tell me about how business is conducted in China, I doubt that Apple is accomplishing its objectives without bribing Chinese politicians and government officials directly or indirectly. And I hope I don't have to convince anybody of the evil nature of Chinese Communism and the Chinese government!!!
With Apple hardware you can run the same software as you can HP or Dell. And you can run OSX too.
Apple hardware takes the same memory, drives, CPUs and has the same external peripherals as HP and Dell so I fail to see how you're locked into Apple only hardware either.
The so-called 'lock in' hasn't been true for years.
Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding was that Apple's support for third party HW, like external HDs, if your Mac is running Mac OS X is pretty limited.
If your Mac is not intended to run primarily Mac OS X, but Windows, then I don't see the point of buying a Mac. Not only I am unwilling to pay the premium (for given specs I can get a cheaper HW elsewhere) but if I am to make somebody rich, I prefer to make HP (my former employer) richer than Apple.
Also, as far as I know, if I want to run Mac OS X in non Apple HW, is basically at my own risk because Apple will not support me unless I run it on Apple's HW (a decision that to me makes sense since Apple is primarily interested in selling you both HW and SW).
So to me buying a Mac is all about buying it to run primarily Mac OS X. When you make that decision, you are pretty much locked in to Apple for both HW and SW (although this locked in thing might be less severe than in the past).
Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding was that Apple's support for third party HW, like external HDs, if your Mac is running Mac OS X is pretty limited.
In what way do you think it is in any way limited? External drives are pretty much OS agnostic.
The guy was able to make an external USB HD drive work with Widows but not with Mac OS X. Not sure if the guy would have had the problem with a Mac OS X running on Intel hw, although I doubt that's the problem. A USB driver is a USB driver. Besides according to him, the HD was intended to be used by both.
In HW, there is usually a difference between "official support" and "actual support". Third party HW manufacturers are more inclined to make sure their HW works flawlessly with the platform owned by 90%+ of the people than the rest. At the end of the day, this limits the available options from HW that should work well in theory to HW that actually works.
And that without getting with other type of HW like portable audio/video players which have none or limited Mac OS X support. I know, no Mac user would buy any thing different from an iPod!!!!
Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding was that Apple's support for third party HW, like external HDs, if your Mac is running Mac OS X is pretty limited.
Huh? Any HD will work with Macs.
Quote:
When you make that decision, you are pretty much locked in to Apple for both HW and SW (although this locked in thing might be less severe than in the past).
I don't see where you get that conclusion. Any IDE or SATA drive will work, USB or FireWire or ethernet.
Any USB device will work, including all USB mice. Any FireWire device will work. Any optical drive will work. Standard PCIe slots on the Mac Pro accept standard cards. Availability of graphics cards depends on the manufacturer due to the EFI nature of the Mac OS boot sequence.
Output is standard combined optical/digital audio, gig E, and DVI, even on the laptops.
And it runs all three major operating systems, as well as all BSD apps and X11 apps, and of course Python/Ruby/Perl. In fact, there is no software out there that it won't run.
The guy was able to make an external USB HD drive work with Widows but not with Mac OS X. Not sure if the guy would have had the problem with a Mac OS X running on Intel hw, although I doubt that's the problem. A USB driver is a USB driver. Besides according to him, the HD was intended to be used by both.
Your example is merely a power issue. USB ports aren't meant to supply enough power to power a large external hard drive. The problem would happen on a Windows PC too if it wasn't able to supply enough power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
In HW, there is usually a difference between "official support" and "actual support". Third party HW manufacturers are more inclined to make sure their HW works flawlessly with the platform owned by 90%+ of the people than the rest. At the end of the day, this limits the available options from HW that should work well in theory to HW that actually works.
True. But these days all the major hardware suppliers also supply drivers for Macs. Go shopping in PC World or CompUSA or whatever you have as a high street PC retailer. Most of the hardware will be Mac compatible. Mac hardware is exactly the same hardware as Dell or HP. Same drives, same CPU, same memory. In all practicality there's no real limit on your options for hardware. The only place it might bite you is Windows specific printers or perhaps some graphics cards as Windows doesn't support EFI yet. A little bit of homework though before buying is no big deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
And that without getting with other type of HW like portable audio/video players which have none or limited Mac OS X support. I know, no Mac user would buy any thing different from an iPod!!!!
Why would we? For that matter why would Windows users either? most of them don't - they buy iPods in their masses.
Good hardware is good hardware. What does it matter if there's 100 different media players if 96 of them are shit.
Why would we? For that matter why would Windows users either? most of them don't - they buy iPods in their masses.
Good hardware is good hardware. What does it matter if there's 100 different media players if 96 of them are shit.
I confess I am one of those Windows users. But! That said, I have friends who don't share my view and decide to buy other players. They (or I in the future if the situation changes) want the freedom of being able to use non Apple digital players. A Mac OS X dominated desktop would remove, I am pretty sure, that freedom from us.
I confess I am one of those Windows users. But! That said, I have friends who don't share my view and decide to buy other players. They (or I in the future if the situation changes) want the freedom of being able to use non Apple digital players. A Mac OS X dominated desktop would remove, I am pretty sure, that freedom from us.
If companies other than Apple want to get on the Mac desktop then it's up to them to make their products Mac compatible. It's not Apple's fault they sometimes choose not to.
You can of course use non-Apple players on a Mac. Most just appear as USB drives. Just drop songs in the music folder or use one of the 3rd party apps to sync songs on non-ipods.
I don't see why Apple would remove Windows support from the iPod or block USB drive access for non Apple products. That would be mad. Most of their sales are on Windows.
On the other side of the equation you have Microsoft who have dropped their Media Player on Mac OSX and have never supported Windows DRM on the Mac. And then they go release the Zune that isn't even compatible with their PlaysForSure program. From where I'm sitting, you're much more likely to suffer lock in with Microsoft.
If companies other than Apple want to get on the Mac desktop then it's up to them to make their products Mac compatible. It's not Apple's fault they sometimes choose not to.
Again, from the consumer perspective it matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
You can of course use non-Apple players on a Mac. Most just appear as USB drives. Just drop songs in the music folder or use one of the 3rd party apps to sync songs on non-ipods.
Something that Apple/iTunes won't allow for the iPod. You need to go through iTunes. Don't you see a little bit of evil here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
I don't see why Apple would remove Windows support from the iPod or block USB drive access for non Apple products. That would be mad. Most of their sales are on Windows.
For historical remembrance, it wasn't until 2003 that Apple relased iTunes for Windows. The first Windows buyers of the iPod (very few indeed) were given a hard time. Now iPods are sold mostly to Windows users (according to an Apple representative that came to give a recruiting talk at Stanford; according to her too, the big acceleration in shipped iPods came in 2005 mostly due to the Windows users).
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
On the other side of the equation you have Microsoft who have dropped their Media Player on Mac OSX and have never supported Windows DRM on the Mac. And then they go release the Zune that isn't even compatible with their PlaysForSure program. From where I'm sitting, you're much more likely to suffer lock in with Microsoft.
My comment wasn't mean to be a defense of Microsoft. There are way more MP3 player manufacturers out there besides MS and Apple.
As another poster commented earlier, Microsoft is at present under control due to its monopolistic trials both in the US and the EU. But Apple has still to be put under control. It's beginning to have legal issues of its own first with the iPod in France, then with the iPhone in Germany but it's far from being under control. The problem with monopolistic abusers is that by the time justice goes after them, the damage is already done.
Something that Apple/iTunes won't allow for the iPod. You need to go through iTunes. Don't you see a little bit of evil here?
Not at all. Because the iPod doesn't just use a folder on the drive but a database to manage the tracks you get many features you can't do with plain old files in a folder.
IME managing files directly instead of syncing playlists is just silly. Why would you even want to do that?
Saying that, I've rescued an iPod drive once and dragged the files straight out of the /iPod_Control/Music/ folder into iTunes. Easy done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
For historical remembrance, it wasn't until 2003 that Apple relased iTunes for Windows. The first Windows buyers of the iPod (very few indeed) were given a hard time.
Yep. Pretty awful software included before Apple wrote a Windows version of iTunes. I can't even remember what it was - blanked it out.
But that doesn't change the fact they have written iTunes and Quicktime for Windows when Microsoft has done nothing to make their media platform cross platform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
Now iPods are sold mostly to Windows users (according to an Apple representative that came to give a recruiting talk at Stanford; according to her too, the big acceleration in shipped iPods came in 2005 mostly due to the Windows users).
About the time they went to USB instead of Firewire I suspect and reduced the price. How very evil... supporting inferior PC technology and making things cheaper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
My comment wasn't mean to be a defense of Microsoft. There are way more MP3 player manufacturers out there besides MS and Apple.
Sure there are and I've got 4 or 5 now as well as an iPod, but IME they don't supply software anywhere near as good as iTunes and I'm saying that as someone who generally thinks iTunes needs to be trashed and rewritten, even on the Mac never mind Windows. The point with the iPod isn't just the hardware but the whole link through from the iPod to iTunes to the store in one easy to manage app.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious_about_mac
As another poster commented earlier, Microsoft is at present under control due to its monopolistic trials both in the US and the EU. But Apple has still to be put under control. It's beginning to have legal issues of its own first with the iPod in France, then with the iPhone in Germany but it's far from being under control. The problem with monopolistic abusers is that by the time justice goes after them, the damage is already done.
I've criticised Apple's business practices in the EU a lot in the past on this very forum but it pales by comparison with what Microsoft did and what the record companies get away with in Europe still.
They (or I in the future if the situation changes) want the freedom of being able to use non Apple digital players. A Mac OS X dominated desktop would remove, I am pretty sure, that freedom from us.
I'm a Mac user, and I'm not using an iPod as my MP3 player. I even use iTunes to manage my music library, have it set to convert imported CDs to MP3 by default, and transfer my music library to the MP3 player directly. So I don't see the relevance of this statement.
I still run Windows, safe in its little, easily nuked and re-imaged virtualized environment. I will never have to reinstall Windows for any reason other than new versions, and my virtual machine is backed up daily by Time Machine, so I don't have to worry about losing anything. I keep a copy of the original VM image, with software installed and ready to go, on another external hard drive so I can easily start from a clean install if I ever need to.
As a former Windows user who's computing life has been liberated and improved by the switch to Apple hardware and Mac OS X, I implore you to not simply take a gander at OS X when you receive your friends machine, but rather to jump in and truly see the benefits of working, full time, with a superior OS.
Guys, I think I am spending too much time here. Not that I dislike the arguing but I also need a life! I might be a bit slower answering postings from now on
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPeon
Why would providing a sync application be evil? Because it works better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Not at all. Because the iPod doesn't just use a folder on the drive but a database to manage the tracks you get many features you can't do with plain old files in a folder.
IME managing files directly instead of syncing playlists is just silly. Why would you even want to do that?
Saying that, I've rescued an iPod drive once and dragged the files straight out of the /iPod_Control/Music/ folder into iTunes. Easy done.
I think I already explained this before. I see two bad things with forcing this way of doing things:
- First is that of disk space. The fact that you cannot drag and drop on the mounted USB drive and then play makes you waste disk space at the very minimum.
- Second is the issue of privacy. In iTunes, you have a centralized application that tracks the type of music I put in my iPod. Whenever I buy a new song from iTunes, nothing prevents the iTunes client to tell the server what type of music I have been listening to lately, whether they come from iTunes purchases, CD's or digital files from other stores. Not sure if iTunes is using this to exploit consumer's privacy but the possibility is there and there is no way to work around it.
With the sync issue, the problem that I never had (since that by the time I bought my iPod it could be disabled and I did it) is that I don't trust automatic software to synchronize backups. Call me paranoid if you want, but this way of thinking comes from a few disagreeable experiences with such synchronization in the enterprise. While I understand that for the enterprise the amount of data to be backed up is so big that doing manual syncs is not an option, for my own data I rather do it manually.
Again, I don't see any problem that a user wants to use iTunes as its music central/tracker. But for those who don't want, Apple doesn't give you any option to load music into the iPod. If you trust that Apple can do no evil with knowing the type of music you listen to in your iPod, great. I don't. Not because it's Apple, but because it's a large corporation making billions of dollars in profit a year, mostly from knowing consumer preferences. Such monsters cannot be trusted under any circumstances. There have been lately two of those "I am not evil" companies exposing consumer privacy: Facebook a few weeks ago, http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2208562130, and Google this same week, http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...-facebook.aspx.
Fortunately, Apple today allows manual sync for those users who want to. And if it was truly committed to customer privacy, it would allow a way to put music in the iPod without going through iTunes.
- First is that of disk space. The fact that you cannot drag and drop on the mounted USB drive and then play makes you waste disk space at the very minimum.
You lost me here. What wasted disk space?
Quote:
Fortunately, Apple today allows manual sync for those users who want to. And if it was truly committed to customer privacy, it would allow a way to put music in the iPod without going through iTunes.
iTunes has always allowed manual sync. I still don't understand your problem with iTunes. iTunes isn't the same as iTunes Store. You can use iTunes and not be connected to any server, you know that right? If you are that paranoid about a server seeing what music you have in your library, then don't connect to the server.
Comments
2. If the question is "Is the cheapest HP less expensive than the cheapest Apple notebook?" then obviously the answer is yes - Apple is not interested in Celeron-based $500 notebooks, probably because there is no profit in them. I wager that if you could listen in on marketing meetings at HP, they aren't really interested in selling them either.
However, the remark is not made that way - it is always "Apple hardware is more expensive." I am merely showing that it is not more expensive for the same features and same thickness and weight. This USED not to be true, so it is important that people understand that today it IS true.
And the guy getting root on a machine that he has physical access to - ....
I agree. The reference to the 30 years was in no way demeaning. And in fact, is one of the great things that makes Mac OS X good.
I remember reading about NeXT during the late eighties. Wikipedia says that the first release of NeXTSTEP is from 1989. My first contact with a UNIX workstation was in 1995, an HP 700 running HP-UX 9.X. Unfortunately, I never got to use a NeXT workstation, although the screenshot that wikipedia shows (it seems from 1995, v 3.3) is indeed very impressive. If it was like that right from release 1.0 (assuming of course all the other things we have been talking about the system stability because of its UNIX roots, etc were present), it was a very deep innovation.
Yep! And that the guy (Jobs) has an incredible ability to turn technology into useful products. A concept, product, that seems to be forgotten in these days of web 2.0 and web-service talking. Except for his lack of contributions to charity (which I don't know if he does in private, although when he was explicitly asked about it earlier during the year during his co-interview with Gates he kind of hinted that philanthropy is not one of his priorities), I have deep respect for Jobs. And that he was able to rise so high from such humble origins is simply astonishing.
Anyway, I am still unable to relate to the Mac religion. It doesn't turn me on.
Maybe the way you describe is better for Apple, but for geeks like me the feeling of owning an A500 during the late eighties (and I assume that the same can be said for those who were able to afford a NeXT WS in 1989 or 1990) doesn't match the feeling of owning an iPhone today, despite the fact that the iPhone is, in my view, the most "ahead of its time" product that Apple has in the market at this time. Let alone the the thing of owning a Mac OS X computer vs owning its equivalent running Windows XP or Vista.
Cheers!
Charity is overrated. His presence has allowed Apple to grow by over 12,000 more full-time employees. Jobs created alone should be considered a Charity, but that's not the case.
Donating money in bulk to write down future taxes and seeing most of it go to administrative costs has always given me very little respect for the notion of charity.
Take that $30 Billion Buffett and put it into replacing the Oil Industry. Invest in arid lands where algae bio fuel can prosper [Africa has tons of arid land], create jobs giving people confidence and security, produce a solution to resolve hundreds of billions yearly wasted on "fear and terror" and then I'd say someone that rich has done the world justice.
1.64-bit Ultimate is the only Ultimate offered by HP. If there is a 32-bit Ultimate, I would accept that. If you are going to claim that an HP is less expensive than a Macbook, then you have to equip the HP with the maximum OS you can get, since that is what the Macbook comes with (the Macbook also comes with a full development environment.)
I disagree. I always made the comparison from the consumer point of view, not from the seller point of view. For a consumer deciding between buying a low end mac or its equivalent HP, the 32 bit Windows Vista Home Premium is an acceptable option. He/She doesn't need to pay the extra to have the 64 bit OS just to make the marketing guys at Apple happy.
2. If the question is "Is the cheapest HP less expensive than the cheapest Apple notebook?" then obviously the answer is yes - Apple is not interested in Celeron-based $500 notebooks, probably because there is no profit in them. I wager that if you could listen in on marketing meetings at HP, they aren't really interested in selling them either.
Well, the fact that they are selling them, shows otherwise. And besides, wasn't it the whole point of the comparison? My contention was, and sorry if I didn't make it clear, that for a given spec in proc/hd/ram/screen, the standard PC hardware sold by HP /Dell is cheaper. And there are many consumers who benefit from that, which are forgotten by both Apple and the economic elite who don't care about paying the premium.
However, the remark is not made that way - it is always "Apple hardware is more expensive." I am merely showing that it is not more expensive for the same features and same thickness and weight. This USED not to be true, so it is important that people understand that today it IS true.
Well, I didn't make the remark in that sense. Hope it's clear now. Even at the same (or slightly similar) price for the high end configs, choosing Apple over HP or Dell locks you into Apple's SW and HW, something that doesn't happen with either HP or Dell.
And the guy getting root on a machine that he has physical access to - ....
Yes, but as soon as you have your computer connected to the internet, you have an IP interface connected to an IP network and you are exposed to the UNIX exploits/security holes which focus on the vulnerabilities of the TCP/IP stack and the inetd/xinetd services. Nobody uses a computer standalone anymore. Plus, if you disconnect a Windows PC from the network, the system is almost as secure as a Mac, so you don't need the antivirus either.
To summarize, I stand by my $874 vs $1099 claim. And, as I said, you even have 50% more HD and a slightly larger screen.
Best!
Charity is overrated. His presence has allowed Apple to grow by over 12,000 more full-time employees. Jobs created alone should be considered a Charity, but that's not the case.
I never questioned the benefit to Apple's employees of his presence :-). And you can even go further. Since most manufacturing at Apple is contracted, Apple's contractors have also benefited from Apple's growth.
Donating money in bulk to write down future taxes and seeing most of it go to administrative costs has always given me very little respect for the notion of charity.
I respect that but, the same happens in so many areas, including the industry or fundamental research. At Stanford for instance, for each grant awarded to an academic, there is a percentage of it which goes to administrative costs. In fact, a few years ago, Stanford had to settle a dispute with the Federal Government for charging too much administrative overhead.
http://www.stanford.edu/home/stanfor.../indirect.html
Yet, the benefit for society and high tech, including Apple (one of my professors co-designed the first sound subsystem of the NeXT computer, http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/joscv...xperience.html ) of the innovations that span out of Stanford has been immense. I like to think about charity the same way. I have a modest monthly pledge to UNICEF. I am well aware that half of that money is going nowhere, especially given the corrupt nature of the UN, but it's the other half which makes me keep doing it despite being a student.
I just don't understand how somebody with the resources and influence that Jobs enjoys isn't more engaged given his leverage. These words, taken from Time Magazine's article about naming Bill G, Melinda G and Bono persons of the year underscore very well the type of impact he could have
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...2278-2,00.html
"For being shrewd about doing good, for rewiring politics and re-engineering justice, for making mercy smarter and hope strategic and then daring the rest of us to follow, Bill and Melinda Gates and Bono are TIME's Persons of the Year."
Take that $30 Billion Buffett and put it into replacing the Oil Industry. Invest in arid lands where algae bio fuel can prosper [Africa has tons of arid land], create jobs giving people confidence and security, produce a solution to resolve hundreds of billions yearly wasted on "fear and terror" and then I'd say someone that rich has done the world justice.
Jobs is not doing one or the other. Replacing the corrupt governments in subsaharan Africa with rule of law abiding democratic governments, which would be a prerequisite, is easier said than done. In the meanwhile, the Gates Foundation has the resources, the technology and the will, to tackle some the the most daunting problems Africa faces today. The millions who are alive thanks to Gates' generosity are a reminder of his good side (many of which would be dead due to the inability of international organizations/governments to deal with those issues) . As I said in a previous posting, I find the fact that Gates is not only putting the bulk of his wealth to charity but he himself will be focusing on the foundation full time in 6 months admirable. That by itself is a good reason to keep buying Windows to me
Sure Steve Jobs has his reasons, and I respect them, but it doesn't prevent me from criticizing him for not doing more. In his 2005 commencement speech, he said that after he was fired from Apple back in 1985, he met with Dave Packard, and Bob Noyce, and apologized for screwing up so badly as an entrepreneur. I didn't have the chance to meet Dave Packard but if his life actions are any indication (Packard himself was strongly committed to philanthropic causes, setting a foundation in 1964 which inherited most of Packard's fortune after his death, http://www.packard.org/home.aspx ) he would be a little bit appalled that such a successful entrepreneur isn't more committed to giving back.
If Jobs plans to do it in a different manner (or he is doing it with nobody knowing), I am sorry for my baseless criticism
I never questioned the benefit to Apple's employees of his presence :-). And you can even go further. Since most manufacturing at Apple is contracted, Apple's contractors have also benefited from Apple's growth.
I respect that but, the same happens in so many areas, including the industry or fundamental research. At Stanford for instance, for each grant awarded to an academic, there is a percentage of it which goes to administrative costs. In fact, a few years ago, Stanford had to settle a dispute with the Federal Government for charging too much administrative overhead.
http://www.stanford.edu/home/stanfor.../indirect.html
Yet, the benefit for society and high tech, including Apple (one of my professors co-designed the first sound subsystem of the NeXT computer, http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/joscv...xperience.html ) of the innovations that span out of Stanford has been immense. I like to think about charity the same way. I have a modest monthly pledge to UNICEF. I am well aware that half of that money is going nowhere, especially given the corrupt nature of the UN, but it's the other half which makes me keep doing it despite being a student.
I just don't understand how somebody with the resources and influence that Jobs enjoys isn't more engaged given his leverage. These words, taken from Time Magazine's article about naming Bill G, Melinda G and Bono persons of the year underscore very well the type of impact he could have
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...2278-2,00.html
Jobs is not doing one or the other. Replacing the corrupt governments in subsaharan Africa with rule of law abiding democratic governments, which would be a prerequisite, is easier said than done. In the meanwhile, the Gates Foundation has the resources, the technology and the will, to tackle some the the most daunting problems Africa faces today. The millions who are alive thanks to Gates' generosity are a reminder of his good side (many of which would be dead due to the inability of international organizations/governments to deal with those issues) . As I said in a previous posting, I find the fact that Gates is not only putting the bulk of his wealth to charity but he himself will be focusing on the foundation full time in 6 months admirable. That by itself is a good reason to keep buying Windows to me
Sure Steve Jobs has his reasons, and I respect them, but it doesn't prevent me from criticizing him for not doing more. In his 2005 commencement speech, he said that after he was fired from Apple back in 1985, he met with Dave Packard, and Bob Noyce, and apologized for screwing up so badly as an entrepreneur. I didn't have the chance to meet Dave Packard but if his life actions are any indication (Packard himself was strongly committed to philanthropic causes, setting a foundation in 1964 which inherited most of Packard's fortune after his death, http://www.packard.org/home.aspx ) he would be a little bit appalled that such a successful entrepreneur isn't more committed to giving back.
If Jobs plans to do it in a different manner (or he is doing it with nobody knowing), I am sorry for my baseless criticism
Let's compare years of fortune. Steve Jobs didn't join the Billionaire Club until the late 1990s. Even then, most of his investment was back into PIXAR.
With the merger of Disney and PIXAR, jobs has finally seen a very large chunk of assets go his way.
Seeing as Larry Ellison is Mr. Job's closest friend, among Silicon Valley Executives, I won't be surprised that he will get into the focus of Philanthropy sooner rather than later.
Do you think he decided to ask former VP Al Gore on the board as a PR stunt?
Steve strikes me more as the guy whose decided to make a visionary leading impact in an Industry he helped create as a contribution back to Society and if he ever gets tired of doing the Apple gig will find something equally as engrossing to keep him going.
Hate to say it, but if you think monetary Philanthropy is a measure of one's greatness then you must truly admire men like Andrew Carnegie, Rockefeller, Rothschild and the rest of the Robber Barons who raped and pillaged the world throughout their entire life spans.
We have them to thank for the Great Depression, but heh! They were swell guys to set up some philanthropic pursuits and get museums and libraries named after them. Ignore that Rockefeller and others funded the Nazis! They cared about the 3rd world! Yeah they cared alright! They cared so they could exploit the hell out of it.
The History of the entire Rubber Industry is a case of mass human slavery due to greed. However, these tires still suck and wear out after 40k miles of heavy use.
Even at the same (or slightly similar) price for the high end configs, choosing Apple over HP or Dell locks you into Apple's SW and HW, something that doesn't happen with either HP or Dell.
No, that's not true at all.
With Apple hardware you can run the same software as you can HP or Dell. And you can run OSX too.
Apple hardware takes the same memory, drives, CPUs and has the same external peripherals as HP and Dell so I fail to see how you're locked into Apple only hardware either.
The so-called 'lock in' hasn't been true for years.
Seeing as Larry Ellison is Mr. Job's closest friend, among Silicon Valley Executives, I won't be surprised that he will get into the focus of Philanthropy sooner rather than later.
When that happens, I'll recognize that I am wrong. And I truly hope that I am wrong
Do you think he decided to ask former VP Al Gore on the board as a PR stunt?
I don't know. However, I have always been very suspicious of former politicians who take prominent jobs at powerful companies and of the companies who hire them. Apple is far from alone in doing it (KPCB did it with both Collin Powell and Al Gore). For Al Gore I see the money factor as a big motivator of his recent moves: he went from $1 million cash in 2000 to a net worth of ~ $100 million in 2007 (http://www.newsweek.com/id/71011).
Steve strikes me more as the guy whose decided to make a visionary leading impact in an Industry he helped create as a contribution back to Society and if he ever gets tired of doing the Apple gig will find something equally as engrossing to keep him going.
I am not questioning Jobs contributions to the personal computer industry. But those type of contributions and philanthropic endeavors are not at odds with each other.
You have countless examples in the high tech industry of great innovators who turned out to be great philanthropists and who didn't really wait until they became billionaires to make a difference. My list of heroes in that respect is topped by Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard (even Gates strong turning to philanthropy was to a large degree motivated by the early death of his mother) . Not only they created Silicon Valley, its startup culture (today, HP's revenues are higher than Apple's, Cisco's, Google's and Sun's combined), they innovated the Silicon Valley workspace, they contributed in the communities where they operated (Europe, the Middle East and Asia are full of sites where HP maintains not only sales operations but also R&D facilities which help transfer high tech knowledge to those societies) and both men gave most of their wealth to charity. The combined value of the Packard and Hewlett family foundations is 14.3 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...#United_States (those are last year's numbers, the growth of their endowments might have made them even bigger by now). Both men started their foundations in the late sixties, well before achieving the level of wealth you mention (even inflation adjusted). The impact of the two men's generosity is well felt here on campus (and I am sure it is felt in other places as well). Most research grad students, like myself, don't pay the tuition from their own pocket. Instead, we are supported by some type of grant (ie, we are not, for the most part, children of wealthy individuals). The Lucile and David Packard Foundation was part of the group of founding donors which endowed one of the most important of such programs, http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/Fel...out/index.html. The Hewlett foundation made in 2001 the largest gift of its kind to any university to support professors and students in the humanities, a field that is often overlooked by the usual funding channels, http://news-service.stanford.edu/new...9/gift-59.html.
Hate to say it, but if you think monetary Philanthropy is a measure of one's greatness then you must truly admire men like Andrew Carnegie, Rockefeller, Rothschild
I do both! I am not familiar with Rothschild's life, so I'll speak for Carnegie and Rockefeller. Among the most important contributions of Andrew Carnegie was the establishment of what later became Carnegie Mellon University, which has trained a countless number of great computer scientists and pioneers who have impacted positively not only the computing industry but the world. As for Rockefeller, the university he founded, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_University, is one of today's top contributors in biomedical research. The list of honors to past and present faculty because of their contributions to medicine is astonishing. Just as astonishing as the breakthroughs those same faculty made; from the wikipedia site:
The university has been the site of many important scientific breakthroughs. Rockefeller scientists, for example, established that DNA is the chemical basis of heredity, discovered blood groups, showed that viruses can cause cancer, founded the modern field of cell biology, worked out the structure of antibodies, developed methadone maintenance for people addicted to heroin, devised the AIDS "cocktail" drug therapy, and identified the weight-regulating hormone leptin.
Gates, Hewlett, Packard, Carnegie and Rockefeller have made positive impact to the world both through their businesses (benefiting hundreds of thousands of employees) and the world at large through their philanthropic endeavors. Apple/Jobs so far have only contributed to the business side.
and the rest of the Robber Barons who raped and pillaged the world throughout their entire life spans.
I don't think what you describe is very different from what Apple was denounced for here,
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...factories.html
later clarified here,
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/ipodreport/
or here, http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...le-news-020507 (the change of policy described was triggered by a Greenpeace denunciation which at the very minimum shows that Apple is not proactive dealing with these matters and, if I want to get paranoid, I could also call it a PR stunt).
Businesses, and in that respect Apple is no different, need to optimize profit (I stress I said optimize, not maximize) in order to survive, let alone thrive. A company which consistently loses money has only one way yo go: Chapter 11 (which is what was about to happen to Apple before Jobs' return). In making that optimization, most companies will sure incur in some evil practices. No high tech company today can stay competitive without outsourcing some of its less strategic areas to third world countries. And though there are clearly winners in those countries (think of the programmers in India or China who have an unbelievable high standard of living that they couldn't afford without the presence of those companies in their countries), there are also losers like the manufacturing workers who are being exploited so the iPod can sell in the US at $250 instead of say $1000 (it's just an example not based on any actual analysis).
We have them to thank for the Great Depression, but heh! They were swell guys to set up some philanthropic pursuits and get museums and libraries named after them. Ignore that Rockefeller and others funded the Nazis! They cared about the 3rd world! Yeah they cared alright! They cared so they could exploit the hell out of it.
The History of the entire Rubber Industry is a case of mass human slavery due to greed. However, these tires still suck and wear out after 40k miles of heavy use.
As a Valley survivor of the 2000 .com bubble I can only say that what saved the US from another depression triggered by the greed of the high-tech executives were the safe guards put in place during the Great Depression. As for the comments about the Nazis... Well, today Yahoo helped jail political dissidents in China and Apple manufactures iPods in China. In addition to the working conditions at the Chinese manufacturing facility, which can only be described as a place where first world companies exploit third world workers, based on what Chinese friends tell me about how business is conducted in China, I doubt that Apple is accomplishing its objectives without bribing Chinese politicians and government officials directly or indirectly. And I hope I don't have to convince anybody of the evil nature of Chinese Communism and the Chinese government!!!
Cheers!
No, that's not true at all.
With Apple hardware you can run the same software as you can HP or Dell. And you can run OSX too.
Apple hardware takes the same memory, drives, CPUs and has the same external peripherals as HP and Dell so I fail to see how you're locked into Apple only hardware either.
The so-called 'lock in' hasn't been true for years.
Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding was that Apple's support for third party HW, like external HDs, if your Mac is running Mac OS X is pretty limited.
If your Mac is not intended to run primarily Mac OS X, but Windows, then I don't see the point of buying a Mac. Not only I am unwilling to pay the premium (for given specs I can get a cheaper HW elsewhere) but if I am to make somebody rich, I prefer to make HP (my former employer) richer than Apple.
Also, as far as I know, if I want to run Mac OS X in non Apple HW, is basically at my own risk because Apple will not support me unless I run it on Apple's HW (a decision that to me makes sense since Apple is primarily interested in selling you both HW and SW).
So to me buying a Mac is all about buying it to run primarily Mac OS X. When you make that decision, you are pretty much locked in to Apple for both HW and SW (although this locked in thing might be less severe than in the past).
Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding was that Apple's support for third party HW, like external HDs, if your Mac is running Mac OS X is pretty limited.
In what way do you think it is in any way limited? External drives are pretty much OS agnostic.
In what way do you think it is in any way limited? External drives are pretty much OS agnostic.
Example,
http://www.macfixitforums.com/showfl...&Number=770630
The guy was able to make an external USB HD drive work with Widows but not with Mac OS X. Not sure if the guy would have had the problem with a Mac OS X running on Intel hw, although I doubt that's the problem. A USB driver is a USB driver. Besides according to him, the HD was intended to be used by both.
In HW, there is usually a difference between "official support" and "actual support". Third party HW manufacturers are more inclined to make sure their HW works flawlessly with the platform owned by 90%+ of the people than the rest. At the end of the day, this limits the available options from HW that should work well in theory to HW that actually works.
And that without getting with other type of HW like portable audio/video players which have none or limited Mac OS X support. I know, no Mac user would buy any thing different from an iPod!!!!
Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding was that Apple's support for third party HW, like external HDs, if your Mac is running Mac OS X is pretty limited.
Huh? Any HD will work with Macs.
When you make that decision, you are pretty much locked in to Apple for both HW and SW (although this locked in thing might be less severe than in the past).
I don't see where you get that conclusion. Any IDE or SATA drive will work, USB or FireWire or ethernet.
Any USB device will work, including all USB mice. Any FireWire device will work. Any optical drive will work. Standard PCIe slots on the Mac Pro accept standard cards. Availability of graphics cards depends on the manufacturer due to the EFI nature of the Mac OS boot sequence.
Output is standard combined optical/digital audio, gig E, and DVI, even on the laptops.
And it runs all three major operating systems, as well as all BSD apps and X11 apps, and of course Python/Ruby/Perl. In fact, there is no software out there that it won't run.
Example,
http://www.macfixitforums.com/showfl...&Number=770630
The guy was able to make an external USB HD drive work with Widows but not with Mac OS X. Not sure if the guy would have had the problem with a Mac OS X running on Intel hw, although I doubt that's the problem. A USB driver is a USB driver. Besides according to him, the HD was intended to be used by both.
Your example is merely a power issue. USB ports aren't meant to supply enough power to power a large external hard drive. The problem would happen on a Windows PC too if it wasn't able to supply enough power.
In HW, there is usually a difference between "official support" and "actual support". Third party HW manufacturers are more inclined to make sure their HW works flawlessly with the platform owned by 90%+ of the people than the rest. At the end of the day, this limits the available options from HW that should work well in theory to HW that actually works.
True. But these days all the major hardware suppliers also supply drivers for Macs. Go shopping in PC World or CompUSA or whatever you have as a high street PC retailer. Most of the hardware will be Mac compatible. Mac hardware is exactly the same hardware as Dell or HP. Same drives, same CPU, same memory. In all practicality there's no real limit on your options for hardware. The only place it might bite you is Windows specific printers or perhaps some graphics cards as Windows doesn't support EFI yet. A little bit of homework though before buying is no big deal.
And that without getting with other type of HW like portable audio/video players which have none or limited Mac OS X support. I know, no Mac user would buy any thing different from an iPod!!!!
Why would we? For that matter why would Windows users either? most of them don't - they buy iPods in their masses.
Good hardware is good hardware. What does it matter if there's 100 different media players if 96 of them are shit.
Why would we? For that matter why would Windows users either? most of them don't - they buy iPods in their masses.
Good hardware is good hardware. What does it matter if there's 100 different media players if 96 of them are shit.
I confess I am one of those Windows users. But! That said, I have friends who don't share my view and decide to buy other players. They (or I in the future if the situation changes) want the freedom of being able to use non Apple digital players. A Mac OS X dominated desktop would remove, I am pretty sure, that freedom from us.
I confess I am one of those Windows users. But! That said, I have friends who don't share my view and decide to buy other players. They (or I in the future if the situation changes) want the freedom of being able to use non Apple digital players. A Mac OS X dominated desktop would remove, I am pretty sure, that freedom from us.
If companies other than Apple want to get on the Mac desktop then it's up to them to make their products Mac compatible. It's not Apple's fault they sometimes choose not to.
You can of course use non-Apple players on a Mac. Most just appear as USB drives. Just drop songs in the music folder or use one of the 3rd party apps to sync songs on non-ipods.
I don't see why Apple would remove Windows support from the iPod or block USB drive access for non Apple products. That would be mad. Most of their sales are on Windows.
On the other side of the equation you have Microsoft who have dropped their Media Player on Mac OSX and have never supported Windows DRM on the Mac. And then they go release the Zune that isn't even compatible with their PlaysForSure program. From where I'm sitting, you're much more likely to suffer lock in with Microsoft.
If companies other than Apple want to get on the Mac desktop then it's up to them to make their products Mac compatible. It's not Apple's fault they sometimes choose not to.
Again, from the consumer perspective it matters.
You can of course use non-Apple players on a Mac. Most just appear as USB drives. Just drop songs in the music folder or use one of the 3rd party apps to sync songs on non-ipods.
Something that Apple/iTunes won't allow for the iPod. You need to go through iTunes. Don't you see a little bit of evil here?
I don't see why Apple would remove Windows support from the iPod or block USB drive access for non Apple products. That would be mad. Most of their sales are on Windows.
For historical remembrance, it wasn't until 2003 that Apple relased iTunes for Windows. The first Windows buyers of the iPod (very few indeed) were given a hard time. Now iPods are sold mostly to Windows users (according to an Apple representative that came to give a recruiting talk at Stanford; according to her too, the big acceleration in shipped iPods came in 2005 mostly due to the Windows users).
On the other side of the equation you have Microsoft who have dropped their Media Player on Mac OSX and have never supported Windows DRM on the Mac. And then they go release the Zune that isn't even compatible with their PlaysForSure program. From where I'm sitting, you're much more likely to suffer lock in with Microsoft.
My comment wasn't mean to be a defense of Microsoft. There are way more MP3 player manufacturers out there besides MS and Apple.
As another poster commented earlier, Microsoft is at present under control due to its monopolistic trials both in the US and the EU. But Apple has still to be put under control. It's beginning to have legal issues of its own first with the iPod in France, then with the iPhone in Germany but it's far from being under control. The problem with monopolistic abusers is that by the time justice goes after them, the damage is already done.
Something that Apple/iTunes won't allow for the iPod. You need to go through iTunes. Don't you see a little bit of evil here?
Not at all. Because the iPod doesn't just use a folder on the drive but a database to manage the tracks you get many features you can't do with plain old files in a folder.
IME managing files directly instead of syncing playlists is just silly. Why would you even want to do that?
Saying that, I've rescued an iPod drive once and dragged the files straight out of the /iPod_Control/Music/ folder into iTunes. Easy done.
For historical remembrance, it wasn't until 2003 that Apple relased iTunes for Windows. The first Windows buyers of the iPod (very few indeed) were given a hard time.
Yep. Pretty awful software included before Apple wrote a Windows version of iTunes. I can't even remember what it was - blanked it out.
But that doesn't change the fact they have written iTunes and Quicktime for Windows when Microsoft has done nothing to make their media platform cross platform.
Now iPods are sold mostly to Windows users (according to an Apple representative that came to give a recruiting talk at Stanford; according to her too, the big acceleration in shipped iPods came in 2005 mostly due to the Windows users).
About the time they went to USB instead of Firewire I suspect and reduced the price. How very evil... supporting inferior PC technology and making things cheaper.
My comment wasn't mean to be a defense of Microsoft. There are way more MP3 player manufacturers out there besides MS and Apple.
Sure there are and I've got 4 or 5 now as well as an iPod, but IME they don't supply software anywhere near as good as iTunes and I'm saying that as someone who generally thinks iTunes needs to be trashed and rewritten, even on the Mac never mind Windows. The point with the iPod isn't just the hardware but the whole link through from the iPod to iTunes to the store in one easy to manage app.
As another poster commented earlier, Microsoft is at present under control due to its monopolistic trials both in the US and the EU. But Apple has still to be put under control. It's beginning to have legal issues of its own first with the iPod in France, then with the iPhone in Germany but it's far from being under control. The problem with monopolistic abusers is that by the time justice goes after them, the damage is already done.
I've criticised Apple's business practices in the EU a lot in the past on this very forum but it pales by comparison with what Microsoft did and what the record companies get away with in Europe still.
They (or I in the future if the situation changes) want the freedom of being able to use non Apple digital players. A Mac OS X dominated desktop would remove, I am pretty sure, that freedom from us.
I'm a Mac user, and I'm not using an iPod as my MP3 player. I even use iTunes to manage my music library, have it set to convert imported CDs to MP3 by default, and transfer my music library to the MP3 player directly. So I don't see the relevance of this statement.
I still run Windows, safe in its little, easily nuked and re-imaged virtualized environment. I will never have to reinstall Windows for any reason other than new versions, and my virtual machine is backed up daily by Time Machine, so I don't have to worry about losing anything. I keep a copy of the original VM image, with software installed and ready to go, on another external hard drive so I can easily start from a clean install if I ever need to.
As a former Windows user who's computing life has been liberated and improved by the switch to Apple hardware and Mac OS X, I implore you to not simply take a gander at OS X when you receive your friends machine, but rather to jump in and truly see the benefits of working, full time, with a superior OS.
Something that Apple/iTunes won't allow for the iPod. You need to go through iTunes. Don't you see a little bit of evil here?
Why would providing a sync application be evil? Because it works better?
Why would providing a sync application be evil? Because it works better?
Not at all. Because the iPod doesn't just use a folder on the drive but a database to manage the tracks you get many features you can't do with plain old files in a folder.
IME managing files directly instead of syncing playlists is just silly. Why would you even want to do that?
Saying that, I've rescued an iPod drive once and dragged the files straight out of the /iPod_Control/Music/ folder into iTunes. Easy done.
I think I already explained this before. I see two bad things with forcing this way of doing things:
- First is that of disk space. The fact that you cannot drag and drop on the mounted USB drive and then play makes you waste disk space at the very minimum.
- Second is the issue of privacy. In iTunes, you have a centralized application that tracks the type of music I put in my iPod. Whenever I buy a new song from iTunes, nothing prevents the iTunes client to tell the server what type of music I have been listening to lately, whether they come from iTunes purchases, CD's or digital files from other stores. Not sure if iTunes is using this to exploit consumer's privacy but the possibility is there and there is no way to work around it.
With the sync issue, the problem that I never had (since that by the time I bought my iPod it could be disabled and I did it) is that I don't trust automatic software to synchronize backups. Call me paranoid if you want, but this way of thinking comes from a few disagreeable experiences with such synchronization in the enterprise. While I understand that for the enterprise the amount of data to be backed up is so big that doing manual syncs is not an option, for my own data I rather do it manually.
Again, I don't see any problem that a user wants to use iTunes as its music central/tracker. But for those who don't want, Apple doesn't give you any option to load music into the iPod. If you trust that Apple can do no evil with knowing the type of music you listen to in your iPod, great. I don't. Not because it's Apple, but because it's a large corporation making billions of dollars in profit a year, mostly from knowing consumer preferences. Such monsters cannot be trusted under any circumstances. There have been lately two of those "I am not evil" companies exposing consumer privacy: Facebook a few weeks ago, http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2208562130, and Google this same week, http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...-facebook.aspx.
Fortunately, Apple today allows manual sync for those users who want to. And if it was truly committed to customer privacy, it would allow a way to put music in the iPod without going through iTunes.
- First is that of disk space. The fact that you cannot drag and drop on the mounted USB drive and then play makes you waste disk space at the very minimum.
You lost me here. What wasted disk space?
Fortunately, Apple today allows manual sync for those users who want to. And if it was truly committed to customer privacy, it would allow a way to put music in the iPod without going through iTunes.
iTunes has always allowed manual sync. I still don't understand your problem with iTunes. iTunes isn't the same as iTunes Store. You can use iTunes and not be connected to any server, you know that right? If you are that paranoid about a server seeing what music you have in your library, then don't connect to the server.