How can a community be confused? Only an individual can be confused. Confusion requires a brain which an individual has, but a "community" is an abstraction and abstractions don't have brains.
He didn't, he worked for Stepstone. NeXT aquired full rights to Objective-C from Stepstone. Brad Cox was the co-inventor of Objective-C though. He most likely worked closely with NeXT engineers.
A while back, the following posting was made by Patrick Naughton who, along with James Gosling, was responsible for much of the design of Java. Objective-C is an object-oriented mutant of C used NeXTSTEP and MacOS X, and also available with gcc.
I don't think the open source community is nothing but sick of these stupid lame a## excuses of patent charges. If Apple and your so called enemy/best friend Microsoft didn't have the patent trolls and the patent wars( Steve Jobs, Steve Ballmar sitting in a tree patent trolling because they are loosing!!!!) Shouldn't have messed with HTC, my AT&T contract is up and guess what I'm droid all of the way. I can't believe people follow a company that makes so stupid and impracticable decision to release an iPad for $400 starting out... no thank you i'll stick with my Linux powered notebook. Wow how brain washed does a community have to be, to see that Apple is no different than Microsoft I'f nothing else you are worst, at least you can buy a windows PC for $3,000 cheaper!!! Oh yeah security don't give me that if you want security and stability like so many ex Apple usr's I see in the Linux forums are doing!! Steve Jobs I challenge you... you little patent troll I'll buy a ipad and install Linux on and tell you which OS runs best!!! Drop the stupid patents and fight fair or wait are you scared that you will loose!!! you will!!
I guess the outcome of this case is that Apple gets 20 really ridiculous patents voided and it will serve as eye-opener in the way that patenting bullshit doesn't make sense. Those things should never get granted from the patent office and the entire patent law needs a reform.
I don't think the open source community is nothing but sick of these stupid lame a## excuses of patent charges. If Apple and your so called enemy/best friend Microsoft didn't have the patent trolls and the patent wars( Steve Jobs, Steve Ballmar sitting in a tree patent trolling because they are loosing!!!!) [...] Wow how brain washed does a community have to be, to see that Apple is no different than Microsoft [...]
So, although it's a bit difficult to make out, your argument seems to be,
This is just flat out unprofessional. Suing the competition? And "hopelessly confused"? Are you kidding? Have you ever seen the recognition that Ubuntu gets as well as Canonical? O and I bet you have never heard of Google, they get no recognition cuz they have so many open source projects.
It boils down to this.
Companies:
- hire the best programmers and engineers you can afford
- put them on specific projects that will help build a product that will make the most money
- hold back advanced features so that you can release them at a later date to make even more money
Open Source:
- Anyone that can program can help build
- Anyone can work on whatever project they feel most passionate about to benefit everyone using the product
- If a really neat feature is developed, push it out instantly to every one without fees or marketing BS
Open Source will always release the latest and greatest it has to offer. Apple can afford a more feature full iPad but will not release it until later because that way they will make even MORE money because people will buy the POS iPad that just functions as a big iPod Touch with 3G capabilities.
Yes, it's really unfair that bad companies put enormous amounts of focus and discipline into products carefully calibrated to hit price points and markets, and then have success with them. If people were smart they'd always use open source software, because a random assemblage of coders are almost certainly going to achieve a well integrated product by pushing out the neat stuff as it occurs to them.
Also, the constant sputtering indignation about POS iPads that are ONLY! BIG! iPOD! TOUCHES! FOR! GOD SAKES! PEOPLE! is starting to get funny, to me.
That's the business model Android uses, gather information about you so you can be targeted with Ads.
Enjoy.
wtf IT'S L-O-S-E NOT L-O-O-S-E!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuxAttack80
I don't think the open source community is nothing but sick of these stupid lame a## excuses of patent charges. If Apple and your so called enemy/best friend Microsoft didn't have the patent trolls and the patent wars( Steve Jobs, Steve Ballmar sitting in a tree patent trolling because they are loosing!!!!) Shouldn't have messed with HTC, my AT&T contract is up and guess what I'm droid all of the way. I can't believe people follow a company that makes so stupid and impracticable decision to release an iPad for $400 starting out... no thank you i'll stick with my Linux powered notebook. Wow how brain washed does a community have to be, to see that Apple is no different than Microsoft I'f nothing else you are worst, at least you can buy a windows PC for $3,000 cheaper!!! Oh yeah security don't give me that if you want security and stability like so many ex Apple usr's I see in the Linux forums are doing!! Steve Jobs I challenge you... you little patent troll I'll buy a ipad and install Linux on and tell you which OS runs best!!! Drop the stupid patents and fight fair or wait are you scared that you will loose!!! you will!!
I'm sure Apple depends heavily on the revenue generated by selling updated versions of iPhone OS.
So how's the Android 2.1 looking on older devices?
When are they going to push it out to the HTC Magic I occasionally use.
btw Ubuntu kiddy distro sucks, Gnome Sucks, Gentoo and KDE all the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shavex
- hold back advanced features so that you can release them at a later date to make even more money
Apple can afford a more feature full iPad but will not release it until later because that way they will make even MORE money because people will buy the POS iPad that just functions as a big iPod Touch with 3G capabilities.
Why would Apple hold back a "more feature full iPad" until later? That makes absolutely no sense. You always ship the best thing you have while working on the next best thing - it's called a pipeline. It's not done out of cynicism and a desire to manipulate the market, but because these are complex devices with long lead times.
If you had ever have been involved with an electronic or computer product, you would know this. While I realize conspiracy theories appear fun and exciting, all they really do is expose your ignorance and gullibility.
Your theory makes about as much sense as "artificial supply" theories. It's far better to have a sale then a buzz about shortage - but it's not nearly as exciting to report on.
Actually, it makes all kinds of sense. Since Jobs came back, Apple's products always come this bit short of features that slowly creep into later models. And its product segmentation tactics are all about underspeccing so that obsolescence comes real sooner and you have no choice but adquire the next version.
Well, perhaps nothing except reputation, citations, invitations to speak at conferences, and possibly a lucrative job offer.
Ask Torvalds whether "no value accrued" to him.
He's an anomaly. Are the guys who started Firefox well known? How about Apache? PHP? Those are all open source too but the authors are far from well known outside the world of open source. Torvalds gained a reputation and a lucrative job because his open source software became a runaway phenomenon. The point the author is making is that academia has mechanisms in place to ensure such recognition and benefits follow scholarly pursuits whereas the open source community does not. Citing one example does not disprove the premise.
In fact, I think we can all agree that in the world of software, the closed source, proprietary model generates far more recognition and reputation than open source.
Actually, it makes all kinds of sense. Since Jobs came back, Apple's products always come this bit short of features that slowly creep into later models. And its product segmentation tactics are all about underspeccing so that obsolescence comes real sooner and you have no choice but adquire the next version.
I understand what you're saying, but I haven't found it to be the case that I have had "no choice" but to acquire the next version of any Apple stuff I've owned. In fact, I think it's generally true (maybe someone else can provide a link) that Mac owners tend to keep their machines longer than PC owners.
"Underspeccing" doesn't really mean anything if your hardware does what you want it to-- it's only of concern if you have a need to always be running the latest and greatest, and find it humiliating if you don't have the highest resolution screen or fastest GPU or most recent Intel silicon.
Given that modern systems are complete overkill for 95% of what most people are doing with their computers, "specs" in general are a poor metric for value, although pretty much the only one available to commodity PC box makers. Which is why Apple is going to do very well with the iPad, even as the usual crowd go crazy about how underpowered and underspecced it is, and how it has a toy OS, and how smart people should buy Windows 7 based tablets.
I don't doubt the iPad will be a huge success. In fact, I'll evaluate the lowest cost model to see if it fits my needs (quite probably so). But then the hardware has some pretty obvious omissions that no doubt will be solved in later models, even if they could have been implemented in this one quite easily. We have seen that again and again. What becomes irritating is the possibilities such additions would provide, available already in designs such as Freescale's reference model.
My complaint about underspeccing is about future-proofing what I buy to some extent. However one paints it, it is quite ugly to see Apple launching product that it is already behind others' hardware-wise since day one, specially given its pricing. The OS and the (somewhat dubious) industrial design stop being a justification when the price difference becomes so big (given its margins).
I don't doubt the iPad will be a huge success. In fact, I'll evaluate the lowest cost model to see if it fits my needs (quite probably so). But then the hardware has some pretty obvious omissions that no doubt will be solved in later models, even if they could have been implemented in this one quite easily. We have seen that again and again. What becomes irritating is the possibilities such additions would provide, available already in designs such as Freescale's reference model.
My complaint about underspeccing is about future-proofing what I buy to some extent. However one paints it, it is quite ugly to see Apple launching product that it is already behind others' hardware-wise since day one, specially given its pricing. The OS and the (somewhat dubious) industrial design stop being a justification when the price difference becomes so big (given its margins).
In my case there isn't a single thing I do on my near four year old MacBook Pro that would be substantively changed if Apple had included whatever cutting edge CPU or GPU or RAM numbers were current at the time of its manufacturer. And I run PS, Illustrator, FCP, etc. pretty much daily, in addition to all the email/Word/internet/music stuff that wouldn't have been noticeably affected at all.
The fact is that "future proofing" boils down to maybe a 10% to 15% performance increase when you're talking about using the very latest generation components compared to one or two back, and that's for hardware that can already run rings around the majority of software people use.
Unless you're doing a lot of video encoding or similar processor intensive work, the difference between last week's and last year's components just isn't going to be noticeable. I don't care what "other's hardware" is, I want the machine I bought to do what I want and it does. And if you can show me that other hardware from the same era is slightly faster, I'm not going to get to exercised about it, or feel ripped off, because outside of some not very interesting numbers, my experience of doing my work is not significantly changed. YMMV, or course, but for me it's as simple as that.
At the very least, and per the earlier post, there's nothing about any of this that forces me to buy new hardware prematurely because the machine I'm using has become non-productive, and given the nature of component improvement it's hard to imagine how being 10% snappier when I bought it was ever going to affect that.
"academic community, where ideas are freely exchanged", what's he been smoking! Yeah, ideas freely exchanged as long as they are in concurrence! Try talking about politics or by extension, military necessity and see how long the freely exchange of ideas lasts!
This is called the Ivy League "Hoighty Toighty" mentality!
Ah, Rot'nApple ... are you even vaguely aware of how your anti-intellectualism reflects Leninism. Like Glen Beck, you make a virtue of ignorance and blame the "elite" for for its socialist, leftist ideals, yet liberalism is not the problem, authoritarianism is. And blaming Al Gore as being economically biased is dumb if you don't also blame Sen. Inhofe or the oil companies as well.
You may like Dennis Miller's sarcasm and I used to like his humor very much, but after 9/11 he became afraid of free thinking and liberalism. He prefers traditional patriarchy over personal responsibility. He likes being an iconoclast over being just and being a making sound bytes over making accurate statements.
I know Reagan and Bush made it cool to disparage smart people, but so did Mao and so did Stalin and they kicked the "hoity toighty" to the gulag and the rice fields to keep them from calling bs on the communist system. You probably don't want to go down that road.
I know academia tends to lean left and people in ivory towers can have an aggravating disconnect from the "real world," but are they really the one's who hurt society the most? Did they invent global warming or extinct salmon runs or deforestation or Wall Street meltdowns or terrorism?!?! Just admit that business and the military tend to lean right and deal with the balance that needs to happen.
No, greed and ignorance, arrogance and anger, fear and irresponsibility did those things. Academia in an imperfect way tries to study these things and ideally without a financial stake in the game tries to find solutions. Unfortunately decades ago universities and business realized that they could work together to push innovation AND create a profit and the line between the two has become more and more blurred.
So think a bit before throwing idiotic statements around. Where academics show political or military bias, that should be pointed out, but not by blaming intellectualism. Try using knowledge rather than blaming those who you don't agree with.
The question that this brings up is so important though. Academics is a free market of ideas and business is a free market of products and services. Open source is a free market of both.
Each defines value in a different way, with a different "currency" but our legal system still hasn't figured out the best way for these three to relate to each other. Sort of like when capitalism was pushing out mercantilism.
Actually, it makes all kinds of sense. Since Jobs came back, Apple's products always come this bit short of features that slowly creep into later models. And its product segmentation tactics are all about underspeccing so that obsolescence comes real sooner and you have no choice but adquire the next version.
If you remove the ignorant use of the word underspeccing and the obsolescence accusation that follows you just describe how every successful business works with product lines. I cannot think of any consumer product that goes through a 3-5 year upgrade cycle that you cannot see the same feature creep in. The designers actively plan the feature upgrade path even though the original prototype often has all the features, that gives them the flexibility to wring more life out of the product cycle. What's wrong with that, it's how they get paid for developing those products in the first place.
It has nothing to do with obsolescence, those little extra features are almost always just feature bloat to the VAST majority of the market but give the all important advertising copy new features to tout. Nobody accuses Nikon of crippling their cameras, Porsche of crippling the 911 or Sony of crippling a flat screen TV just because every possible tested feature doesn't ship.
So get a grip and get over your overly self important Judge-Judy act.
Apple has always been about control. It's nothing new. However it's not for control for the sake of control as many try to imply - they are anal retentative about control because they are focused on the end user experience. You can't have a good end user experience if there is total chaos - witness the Windows ecosystem.
Ah, yes, that Windows ecosystem. The horror of unlimited hardware choice and much bigger apps and games library. Unbearable.
Really, to me that sounds as something from "Get a Mac" commercials. I don't have a problem accepting people are perfectly happy with Apple's business model, but likewise, there are people happy with how MS is doing (and I would expect there are more of them even if you cut out people "forced" to use Windows).
Comments
He didn't, he worked for Stepstone. NeXT aquired full rights to Objective-C from Stepstone. Brad Cox was the co-inventor of Objective-C though. He most likely worked closely with NeXT engineers.
Resource: http://virtualschool.edu/cox/pub/
I love Brad's emailer post about ObjC and it's influence on Java
http://virtualschool.edu/objectivec/...nceOnJava.html
Since most people are probably too lazy to click the link:
Java Was Strongly Influenced by Objective-C
...and not C++... Copied from Sean Luke's website at http://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/stuff/java-objc.html
A while back, the following posting was made by Patrick Naughton who, along with James Gosling, was responsible for much of the design of Java. Objective-C is an object-oriented mutant of C used NeXTSTEP and MacOS X, and also available with gcc.
Tom Gall wrote:
> Sean Luke wrote:
>> Blair MacIntyre ([email protected]) wrote:
>>> BZZT. Wrong. Java was modelled on a number of languages, most
>>> importantly Modula-3 and C++.
>> Of course, it's nonsense that Java was modelled off of NewtonScript,
>> but it's even goofier to say that Java was based on Modula-3 and C++.
>> Java's *syntax* may resemble C++, but it has no similarity to C++
>> as a language. Java's chief *semantics* are dynamically-bound and
>> use single inheritance, class objects, and an extensive runtime system.
>> C++ and Modula-3 are as far away from this model as any object-oriented
>> language can be.
>> Java is clearly semantically derivative of Smalltalk and other
>> languages related to it. Most notably, NeXT's
>> Objective-C is almost uncannily similar to Java: single inheritance,
>> dynamic binding, dynamic loading, "class" objects, interfaces,
>> and now methods stored as data (a-la Java's "reflection" library),
>> all-virtual functions, you name it. It's almost weird.
> Hardly weird it was by design actually. As I remember my Java history
> Patrick Naughton the gentleman who got the ball rolling was about to
> quit Sun and join up with NeXT. He happened to be on the same
> intermural hockey team as Scott McNealy. Scott told him to hold off,
> write what he thought was wrong with Sun before he left. Patrick
> didn't leave and was one of the original Oak people. I would like
> to think his affinity for NeXTSTEP showed up in Java, with it
> having an close look and feel to that of Objective-C. (The main
> language on NeXTSTEP)
I don't generally read usenet any more (not since the good old days of
comp.graphics in the 80's...), but I happened across this article while I
was messing around with Excite Live... (a pretty cool service in
itself)...
As it turns out, Sean and Tom are both absolutely correct. Usually, this
kind of urban legend stuff turns out to be completely inaccurate, but in
this case, they are right on. When I left Sun to go to NeXT, I thought
Objective-C was the coolest thing since sliced bread, and I hated C++.
So, naturally when I stayed to start the (eventually) Java project, Obj-C
had a big influence. James Gosling, being much older than I was, he had
lots of experience with SmallTalk and Simula68, which we also borrowed
from liberally.
The other influence, was that we had lots of friends working at NeXT at
the time, whose faith in the black cube was flagging. Bruce Martin was
working on the NeXTStep 486 port, Peter King, Mike Demoney, and John
Seamons were working on the mysterious (and never shipped) NRW (NeXT RISC
Workstation, 88110???). They all joined us in late '92 - early '93 after
we had written the first version of Oak. I'm pretty sure that Java's
'interface' is a direct rip-off of Obj-C's 'protocol' which was largely
designed by these ex-NeXT'ers... Many of those strange primitive wrapper
classes, like Integer and Number came from Lee Boynton, one of the early
NeXT Obj-C class library guys who hated 'int' and 'float' types.
Another interesting side-note, (so as not to break any rules on my first
[and last]-ever posting to comp.sys.newton), John Seamons, (who happened
to be Andy Bechtolsheim's roommate at Stanford and largely reponsible for
the first ever port of Unix to the SUN-0) once did a port of Oak (Java)
to the Newton.\tWe were in the midst of trying to do a deal with 3DO to
run as their OS/API, and we didn't have any 3DO dev systems on hand, so
John took apart an Apple Newton 100 and wired it up to a bunch of logic
analyzers, reverse engineered the interfaces and actually got some of the
original Star7 demo to run on this machine. After the 3DO deal tubed, I
think most of the code was lost to history... last I heard, John was out
in Aspen working for wnj, so you never know.
Sigh... we sure knew how to have fun in those days...
-Patrick
-------------
Patrick Naughton
President and CTO
Starwave Corporation
http://www.starwave.com/people/naughton
Apple vs Nokia
Nokia vs Apple
Rim vs Apple
Apple vs HTC
Does Apple have time to make another good product = IPad
Flashy software no pun intented designed for elderly and pre-schoolers
The first bite from the Apple = Pride before the fall
Pride before the fall == Microsoft.
I don't think the open source community is nothing but sick of these stupid lame a## excuses of patent charges. If Apple and your so called enemy/best friend Microsoft didn't have the patent trolls and the patent wars( Steve Jobs, Steve Ballmar sitting in a tree patent trolling because they are loosing!!!!) [...] Wow how brain washed does a community have to be, to see that Apple is no different than Microsoft [...]
So, although it's a bit difficult to make out, your argument seems to be,
Microsoft files suits based on its patents.
Apple files suits based on its patents.
Therefore, Apple is Microsoft.
Hmmm, something doesn't seem quite right there.
It boils down to this.
Companies:
- hire the best programmers and engineers you can afford
- put them on specific projects that will help build a product that will make the most money
- hold back advanced features so that you can release them at a later date to make even more money
Open Source:
- Anyone that can program can help build
- Anyone can work on whatever project they feel most passionate about to benefit everyone using the product
- If a really neat feature is developed, push it out instantly to every one without fees or marketing BS
Open Source will always release the latest and greatest it has to offer. Apple can afford a more feature full iPad but will not release it until later because that way they will make even MORE money because people will buy the POS iPad that just functions as a big iPod Touch with 3G capabilities.
Also, the constant sputtering indignation about POS iPads that are ONLY! BIG! iPOD! TOUCHES! FOR! GOD SAKES! PEOPLE! is starting to get funny, to me.
Why buy an HTC with an advertising supported OS.
That's the business model Android uses, gather information about you so you can be targeted with Ads.
Enjoy.
wtf IT'S L-O-S-E NOT L-O-O-S-E!
I don't think the open source community is nothing but sick of these stupid lame a## excuses of patent charges. If Apple and your so called enemy/best friend Microsoft didn't have the patent trolls and the patent wars( Steve Jobs, Steve Ballmar sitting in a tree patent trolling because they are loosing!!!!) Shouldn't have messed with HTC, my AT&T contract is up and guess what I'm droid all of the way. I can't believe people follow a company that makes so stupid and impracticable decision to release an iPad for $400 starting out... no thank you i'll stick with my Linux powered notebook. Wow how brain washed does a community have to be, to see that Apple is no different than Microsoft I'f nothing else you are worst, at least you can buy a windows PC for $3,000 cheaper!!! Oh yeah security don't give me that if you want security and stability like so many ex Apple usr's I see in the Linux forums are doing!! Steve Jobs I challenge you... you little patent troll I'll buy a ipad and install Linux on and tell you which OS runs best!!! Drop the stupid patents and fight fair or wait are you scared that you will loose!!! you will!!
I'm sure Apple depends heavily on the revenue generated by selling updated versions of iPhone OS.
So how's the Android 2.1 looking on older devices?
When are they going to push it out to the HTC Magic I occasionally use.
btw Ubuntu kiddy distro sucks, Gnome Sucks, Gentoo and KDE all the way.
- hold back advanced features so that you can release them at a later date to make even more money
Apple can afford a more feature full iPad but will not release it until later because that way they will make even MORE money because people will buy the POS iPad that just functions as a big iPod Touch with 3G capabilities.
Why would Apple hold back a "more feature full iPad" until later? That makes absolutely no sense. You always ship the best thing you have while working on the next best thing - it's called a pipeline. It's not done out of cynicism and a desire to manipulate the market, but because these are complex devices with long lead times.
If you had ever have been involved with an electronic or computer product, you would know this. While I realize conspiracy theories appear fun and exciting, all they really do is expose your ignorance and gullibility.
Your theory makes about as much sense as "artificial supply" theories. It's far better to have a sale then a buzz about shortage - but it's not nearly as exciting to report on.
Well, perhaps nothing except reputation, citations, invitations to speak at conferences, and possibly a lucrative job offer.
Ask Torvalds whether "no value accrued" to him.
He's an anomaly. Are the guys who started Firefox well known? How about Apache? PHP? Those are all open source too but the authors are far from well known outside the world of open source. Torvalds gained a reputation and a lucrative job because his open source software became a runaway phenomenon. The point the author is making is that academia has mechanisms in place to ensure such recognition and benefits follow scholarly pursuits whereas the open source community does not. Citing one example does not disprove the premise.
In fact, I think we can all agree that in the world of software, the closed source, proprietary model generates far more recognition and reputation than open source.
Actually, it makes all kinds of sense. Since Jobs came back, Apple's products always come this bit short of features that slowly creep into later models. And its product segmentation tactics are all about underspeccing so that obsolescence comes real sooner and you have no choice but adquire the next version.
I understand what you're saying, but I haven't found it to be the case that I have had "no choice" but to acquire the next version of any Apple stuff I've owned. In fact, I think it's generally true (maybe someone else can provide a link) that Mac owners tend to keep their machines longer than PC owners.
"Underspeccing" doesn't really mean anything if your hardware does what you want it to-- it's only of concern if you have a need to always be running the latest and greatest, and find it humiliating if you don't have the highest resolution screen or fastest GPU or most recent Intel silicon.
Given that modern systems are complete overkill for 95% of what most people are doing with their computers, "specs" in general are a poor metric for value, although pretty much the only one available to commodity PC box makers. Which is why Apple is going to do very well with the iPad, even as the usual crowd go crazy about how underpowered and underspecced it is, and how it has a toy OS, and how smart people should buy Windows 7 based tablets.
My complaint about underspeccing is about future-proofing what I buy to some extent. However one paints it, it is quite ugly to see Apple launching product that it is already behind others' hardware-wise since day one, specially given its pricing. The OS and the (somewhat dubious) industrial design stop being a justification when the price difference becomes so big (given its margins).
I don't doubt the iPad will be a huge success. In fact, I'll evaluate the lowest cost model to see if it fits my needs (quite probably so). But then the hardware has some pretty obvious omissions that no doubt will be solved in later models, even if they could have been implemented in this one quite easily. We have seen that again and again. What becomes irritating is the possibilities such additions would provide, available already in designs such as Freescale's reference model.
My complaint about underspeccing is about future-proofing what I buy to some extent. However one paints it, it is quite ugly to see Apple launching product that it is already behind others' hardware-wise since day one, specially given its pricing. The OS and the (somewhat dubious) industrial design stop being a justification when the price difference becomes so big (given its margins).
In my case there isn't a single thing I do on my near four year old MacBook Pro that would be substantively changed if Apple had included whatever cutting edge CPU or GPU or RAM numbers were current at the time of its manufacturer. And I run PS, Illustrator, FCP, etc. pretty much daily, in addition to all the email/Word/internet/music stuff that wouldn't have been noticeably affected at all.
The fact is that "future proofing" boils down to maybe a 10% to 15% performance increase when you're talking about using the very latest generation components compared to one or two back, and that's for hardware that can already run rings around the majority of software people use.
Unless you're doing a lot of video encoding or similar processor intensive work, the difference between last week's and last year's components just isn't going to be noticeable. I don't care what "other's hardware" is, I want the machine I bought to do what I want and it does. And if you can show me that other hardware from the same era is slightly faster, I'm not going to get to exercised about it, or feel ripped off, because outside of some not very interesting numbers, my experience of doing my work is not significantly changed. YMMV, or course, but for me it's as simple as that.
At the very least, and per the earlier post, there's nothing about any of this that forces me to buy new hardware prematurely because the machine I'm using has become non-productive, and given the nature of component improvement it's hard to imagine how being 10% snappier when I bought it was ever going to affect that.
"academic community, where ideas are freely exchanged", what's he been smoking! Yeah, ideas freely exchanged as long as they are in concurrence! Try talking about politics or by extension, military necessity and see how long the freely exchange of ideas lasts!
This is called the Ivy League "Hoighty Toighty" mentality!
Ah, Rot'nApple ... are you even vaguely aware of how your anti-intellectualism reflects Leninism. Like Glen Beck, you make a virtue of ignorance and blame the "elite" for for its socialist, leftist ideals, yet liberalism is not the problem, authoritarianism is. And blaming Al Gore as being economically biased is dumb if you don't also blame Sen. Inhofe or the oil companies as well.
You may like Dennis Miller's sarcasm and I used to like his humor very much, but after 9/11 he became afraid of free thinking and liberalism. He prefers traditional patriarchy over personal responsibility. He likes being an iconoclast over being just and being a making sound bytes over making accurate statements.
I know Reagan and Bush made it cool to disparage smart people, but so did Mao and so did Stalin and they kicked the "hoity toighty" to the gulag and the rice fields to keep them from calling bs on the communist system. You probably don't want to go down that road.
I know academia tends to lean left and people in ivory towers can have an aggravating disconnect from the "real world," but are they really the one's who hurt society the most? Did they invent global warming or extinct salmon runs or deforestation or Wall Street meltdowns or terrorism?!?! Just admit that business and the military tend to lean right and deal with the balance that needs to happen.
No, greed and ignorance, arrogance and anger, fear and irresponsibility did those things. Academia in an imperfect way tries to study these things and ideally without a financial stake in the game tries to find solutions. Unfortunately decades ago universities and business realized that they could work together to push innovation AND create a profit and the line between the two has become more and more blurred.
So think a bit before throwing idiotic statements around. Where academics show political or military bias, that should be pointed out, but not by blaming intellectualism. Try using knowledge rather than blaming those who you don't agree with.
Just be intellectually honest.
Each defines value in a different way, with a different "currency" but our legal system still hasn't figured out the best way for these three to relate to each other. Sort of like when capitalism was pushing out mercantilism.
Actually, it makes all kinds of sense. Since Jobs came back, Apple's products always come this bit short of features that slowly creep into later models. And its product segmentation tactics are all about underspeccing so that obsolescence comes real sooner and you have no choice but adquire the next version.
If you remove the ignorant use of the word underspeccing and the obsolescence accusation that follows you just describe how every successful business works with product lines. I cannot think of any consumer product that goes through a 3-5 year upgrade cycle that you cannot see the same feature creep in. The designers actively plan the feature upgrade path even though the original prototype often has all the features, that gives them the flexibility to wring more life out of the product cycle. What's wrong with that, it's how they get paid for developing those products in the first place.
It has nothing to do with obsolescence, those little extra features are almost always just feature bloat to the VAST majority of the market but give the all important advertising copy new features to tout. Nobody accuses Nikon of crippling their cameras, Porsche of crippling the 911 or Sony of crippling a flat screen TV just because every possible tested feature doesn't ship.
So get a grip and get over your overly self important Judge-Judy act.
Apple has always been about control. It's nothing new. However it's not for control for the sake of control as many try to imply - they are anal retentative about control because they are focused on the end user experience. You can't have a good end user experience if there is total chaos - witness the Windows ecosystem.
Ah, yes, that Windows ecosystem. The horror of unlimited hardware choice and much bigger apps and games library. Unbearable.
Really, to me that sounds as something from "Get a Mac" commercials. I don't have a problem accepting people are perfectly happy with Apple's business model, but likewise, there are people happy with how MS is doing (and I would expect there are more of them even if you cut out people "forced" to use Windows).
Generalising is really short-sighted.