pdjudd
Oct 7, 04:57 PM
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Number 41
Apr 15, 09:45 AM
no matter how you feel, people shouldn't be bullied.
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people. Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
As a society, we're becoming obsessed with raising kids to never experience negativity in their lives -- from these aggressive "anti-bullying" campaigns to school programs designed to make sure kids never fail a class to sports leagues that give everyone a trophies even if they came in last palce. Youth is supposed to teach you the skills to deal with failure; learning to pick yourself up and move on after a bad game or how to make yourself feel better when people make fun of you. It also gives lessons on "fitting in" -- and contrary to popualr belief, "fitting in" is a pretty important skill if you want to survive. There's nothing wrong with loving who you are, but it's naive to expect everyone else will -- if you're fat, you have to accept that people are going to make fun of you and learn to deal with it (because no amount of PSAs will ever stop everyone for making judgments about fat people), if you're a nerd you just have to own it and move on (or, like most people, bring it up in appropriate social situations and keep it on the back burner other times). Those are skills that kids need to learn if they're going to be happy beyond the walled sanctuary of parents and school.
We can try to shield kids from these things, but all we'll succeed in doing is raising a generation of people who don't understand how to deal with adversity and who go running to their parents or a shrink because someone made fun of their shirt at work or because they don't understand why everyone doesn't accept them for being addicted to japanese cartoon girls.
/rant
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people. Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
As a society, we're becoming obsessed with raising kids to never experience negativity in their lives -- from these aggressive "anti-bullying" campaigns to school programs designed to make sure kids never fail a class to sports leagues that give everyone a trophies even if they came in last palce. Youth is supposed to teach you the skills to deal with failure; learning to pick yourself up and move on after a bad game or how to make yourself feel better when people make fun of you. It also gives lessons on "fitting in" -- and contrary to popualr belief, "fitting in" is a pretty important skill if you want to survive. There's nothing wrong with loving who you are, but it's naive to expect everyone else will -- if you're fat, you have to accept that people are going to make fun of you and learn to deal with it (because no amount of PSAs will ever stop everyone for making judgments about fat people), if you're a nerd you just have to own it and move on (or, like most people, bring it up in appropriate social situations and keep it on the back burner other times). Those are skills that kids need to learn if they're going to be happy beyond the walled sanctuary of parents and school.
We can try to shield kids from these things, but all we'll succeed in doing is raising a generation of people who don't understand how to deal with adversity and who go running to their parents or a shrink because someone made fun of their shirt at work or because they don't understand why everyone doesn't accept them for being addicted to japanese cartoon girls.
/rant
2ndPath
Sep 26, 03:13 AM
I wonder whether Apple will keep the two Woodcrest quad-core configuration, or whether they introduce a new single CPU quad-core one for the new low end. When Apple switched to the dual-core G5, they replaced the dual CPU lower end systems by single CPU dual-core systems, which was suspected to reduce the building cost of the system.
citizenzen
Apr 22, 09:29 PM
The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort.
Once again, it's the believers who haven't backed up their beliefs with reasoning or proof.
Atheists simply shake their heads and think, "You folks are really gullible, aren't you?"
If you're going to assert that something exists, the burden of proof rests on you, not those still waiting for proof, that hasn't surfaced, after more than 2,000 years.
Once again, it's the believers who haven't backed up their beliefs with reasoning or proof.
Atheists simply shake their heads and think, "You folks are really gullible, aren't you?"
If you're going to assert that something exists, the burden of proof rests on you, not those still waiting for proof, that hasn't surfaced, after more than 2,000 years.
askthedust
Sep 20, 08:39 AM
...but in order for me to buy this box I want it to work without connecting to a computer. Just an easy (read Front Row interface) that would let me buy and watch or listen to my purchased content. Wireless would be perfect. plug this in hook it up to my tv and stereo and all my movies and music are on it. I can buy content and save it there. The only time I would want to connect to a computer would be to back up files and to make room for new content or find old content to stream into the box. I could then take this box with me to a friend's house to watch my movies there.
rstansby
Mar 18, 05:01 AM
I don't think it is a bad thing for AT+T to prevent people from tethering to a laptop on an unlimited cell phone plan. Those people are just taking advantage of the system, and wasting bandwidth that the rest of us could use.
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
toddybody
Apr 15, 09:32 AM
These teens are just people who are hurting because of the terrible actions others place on them. That empathy needs to be universal...regardless of your opinion on sexuality.
For all you young guys and gals hurting out there, stay strong because you have so many wonderful things ahead of you. It will get better, there are so many people just like you...and you're loved. God Bless, I cant wait to see what you all accomplish:)
For all you young guys and gals hurting out there, stay strong because you have so many wonderful things ahead of you. It will get better, there are so many people just like you...and you're loved. God Bless, I cant wait to see what you all accomplish:)
mr.steevo
Apr 15, 10:21 AM
It's a good video and sends a message of hope for the future to kids that are feeling hopeless.
Multimedia
Nov 2, 12:32 PM
Can't seem to find the above mentioned statement..
so its saying that the 2.66 won't be too power hungry in contrast to the higher models..?
Does this revive the whole 8-core excitement.. (multimedia) Do we still see a release this month.. worth purchasing?
Or are we still at the point.. where waiting till first quarter 07 is a better bet.?
I really need to make my mind up on when to buy :confused:I'm back where I was to begin with, ready to buy the 2.66GHz release I hope will happen Tuesday November 14. The lower power ones will also be slower with a slower FSB as well. I forgot to remember that.
Seems like next Tuesday November 7 will be the date for MacBook/mini C2D release. So that leaves only Tuesday November 14 right after Intel says Clovertowns are shipping because the following week is Thanksgiving-Black Friday. If it doesn't happen then, I imagine we're gonna have to wait for MacWorld Expo. :(
This is all me just guessing you understand.
so its saying that the 2.66 won't be too power hungry in contrast to the higher models..?
Does this revive the whole 8-core excitement.. (multimedia) Do we still see a release this month.. worth purchasing?
Or are we still at the point.. where waiting till first quarter 07 is a better bet.?
I really need to make my mind up on when to buy :confused:I'm back where I was to begin with, ready to buy the 2.66GHz release I hope will happen Tuesday November 14. The lower power ones will also be slower with a slower FSB as well. I forgot to remember that.
Seems like next Tuesday November 7 will be the date for MacBook/mini C2D release. So that leaves only Tuesday November 14 right after Intel says Clovertowns are shipping because the following week is Thanksgiving-Black Friday. If it doesn't happen then, I imagine we're gonna have to wait for MacWorld Expo. :(
This is all me just guessing you understand.
Macky-Mac
Mar 26, 09:27 PM
The Church wont bend on certain issues. This is one of those issues.
really, I don't think anybody would care, so long as the church didn't try to impose its views on people who aren't believers in your religion.
really, I don't think anybody would care, so long as the church didn't try to impose its views on people who aren't believers in your religion.
clintob
Oct 25, 10:26 PM
This is starting to sound like the war of the razors...
Anyone remember when the Mach-3 came out, and everyone thought "wow... three blades. that's a lot!" Now we're up to FIVE... and an extra one on the back.
Just more proof positive that when it comes to Apple you should buy when you need, and enjoy what you've got, cause in two months it'll be replaced anyway.
... okay, I'm done. Eight cores is pretty wild. ;)
Anyone remember when the Mach-3 came out, and everyone thought "wow... three blades. that's a lot!" Now we're up to FIVE... and an extra one on the back.
Just more proof positive that when it comes to Apple you should buy when you need, and enjoy what you've got, cause in two months it'll be replaced anyway.
... okay, I'm done. Eight cores is pretty wild. ;)
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
Mlrollin91
May 5, 10:51 AM
I'm in SoCal, when I was on Verizon I had 1-3 drop calls a week. I've been on AT&T for a little over 18 months, and have had 1 drop call. The conversation was over 2.5 hours as well, so something that long is bound to drop eventually.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 01:26 PM
Personally, I very VERY much hope Apple do allow the iPad to grow into a fully independent device and break it's lock down link to iTunes.
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
Well, in the future I'm talking about involving cloud computing, the link will be there but it will be over the air. But it seems you are talking about not having any link to iTunes. But then what do you want to link it to? The Android app market? Cydia? I mean, you need to have some place to link it to in order to hook into the world of apps (plus backups, etc.) Even our PCs are not standalone by that definition, basically needing a Net connection to get much done.
So what is an independent device to you? Independent of what?
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
Well, in the future I'm talking about involving cloud computing, the link will be there but it will be over the air. But it seems you are talking about not having any link to iTunes. But then what do you want to link it to? The Android app market? Cydia? I mean, you need to have some place to link it to in order to hook into the world of apps (plus backups, etc.) Even our PCs are not standalone by that definition, basically needing a Net connection to get much done.
So what is an independent device to you? Independent of what?
drsmithy
Sep 26, 09:55 PM
I've said this before though: Apple, and other devs, need to make use of parallel processing. A handful of apps will use 2 procs / cores, but it's a wasteland above that. All these cores are great for working with multiple apps simultaneously, but I want to use 5-6 cores on one app. Make that possible and I'm happy.
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
/rant
The problem isn't making applications more "multiprocessor aware" (although that is an extremely difficult thing to do well), the problem is simply that the vast majority of applications spend 95% of their time idling. So, no matter how "aware" your app is, it won't make it do nothing any faster ;).
Added to that, not all problems have parrallelisable solutions.
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
/rant
The problem isn't making applications more "multiprocessor aware" (although that is an extremely difficult thing to do well), the problem is simply that the vast majority of applications spend 95% of their time idling. So, no matter how "aware" your app is, it won't make it do nothing any faster ;).
Added to that, not all problems have parrallelisable solutions.
Doc750
Mar 18, 11:22 AM
you people who think being charged for tethering is justified, exemplify what is wrong with this country. You would bend over and take anything up the rear end, just b/c it was written in a contract.
contracts are crap .. they mean nothing. Many of them don't hold up in a court, despite what they say. They are intentionally written in a manner to screw the consumer. They do this for as long as they can, until a court or a law tells them otherwise.
you deserve all the ******** these corporations are feeding you.
losers ....
I'm going to plug in my phone, and let netflix run for the next 4 hours, as a nice big FU to AT&T, and all you uncle tom's.
contracts are crap .. they mean nothing. Many of them don't hold up in a court, despite what they say. They are intentionally written in a manner to screw the consumer. They do this for as long as they can, until a court or a law tells them otherwise.
you deserve all the ******** these corporations are feeding you.
losers ....
I'm going to plug in my phone, and let netflix run for the next 4 hours, as a nice big FU to AT&T, and all you uncle tom's.
mjstew33
Jul 12, 01:23 AM
Or maybe instead of a Mac pro mini, it might be a Mac mini Extreme? :cool:
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 21, 08:28 AM
There are already a score of malware and spyware on Android, including software that phish for bank customer information of Fandroids.
And a nice Skype app that was able to send your private data out.
http://www.ciol.com/Security/Application-Security/News-Reports/Android-app-Skype-patches-vulnerability/149097/0/
And a nice Skype app that was able to send your private data out.
http://www.ciol.com/Security/Application-Security/News-Reports/Android-app-Skype-patches-vulnerability/149097/0/
mac jones
Mar 12, 04:19 AM
It's true. You see the video, you have doubts. And if someone says "You didn't see what you just saw",
Its not a great comfort.
Its not a great comfort.
ImageWrangler
Oct 9, 03:33 PM
Probably, unless Apple recognizes the competition and responds by:
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
Hahaha! I love it! A humor writer! For which night time show do you right your jokes for because these are all awesomely funny, I mean, only a humor writer could write such thing so ludicrous and out there. Now, please only take this is constructive criticism as some of your jokes you wrote aren't as funny as others, I mean, you're clearly not at the top escholon and you're honing your funny writing chops but, as a start, with such absurd one-liners as this I think your future is bright, especially for say parody or absurdist or non-logical humor... brilliant stuff. Keep up the good work. Unless you were being serious, in which case, try a magnifying glass.
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
Hahaha! I love it! A humor writer! For which night time show do you right your jokes for because these are all awesomely funny, I mean, only a humor writer could write such thing so ludicrous and out there. Now, please only take this is constructive criticism as some of your jokes you wrote aren't as funny as others, I mean, you're clearly not at the top escholon and you're honing your funny writing chops but, as a start, with such absurd one-liners as this I think your future is bright, especially for say parody or absurdist or non-logical humor... brilliant stuff. Keep up the good work. Unless you were being serious, in which case, try a magnifying glass.
NebulaClash
Apr 29, 07:54 AM
A reasonable question, AppleScruff. Indeed, my sample group includes staff, faculty, and students from different disciplines (including business/commerce, and engineering) at a university who use their Macs for research, graduate work, or lecture preparation; a prominent cardiologist at a large hospital; a financial advisor; professional musicians; and many others.
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows. In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
That's been my observation in the business world as well. With projects often being Web-based now, Windows is becoming irrelevant. On one project with about twenty developers, systems architects and analysts, close to half were running Macbook Pros (no Windows installed) and doing very well. It's just not an issue for many office folks. Obviously there are some roles that still require Windows, but not as many as it used to be. The tech folks in particular seem to take great delight in moving to Macs. Times have changed.
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows. In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
That's been my observation in the business world as well. With projects often being Web-based now, Windows is becoming irrelevant. On one project with about twenty developers, systems architects and analysts, close to half were running Macbook Pros (no Windows installed) and doing very well. It's just not an issue for many office folks. Obviously there are some roles that still require Windows, but not as many as it used to be. The tech folks in particular seem to take great delight in moving to Macs. Times have changed.
dgree03
Apr 28, 09:30 AM
Let me try to explain what I mean from a different angle:
The number of PCs being sold could remain constant and still fall behind tablet sales in the future. Why? The market expands. Think about who could use a mainframe back in the day. Very few companies. Then minicomputers came along and suddenly many more companies could get one. The market expanded, and even if mainframe sales remained constant, minicomputer sales surpassed them.
Tablets will appeal to those who never got comfortable with PCs. Or who never bothered getting one at all. I've personally seen toddlers and 80-year-olds gravitate toward the iPad naturally. It just fits them perfectly. There's none of that artificial abstraction of a keyboard or mouse between their fingers and the device, they just interact directly. It appeals to them.
Someone who uses a PC almost exclusively for email and web surfing will find a tablet appealing to them.
Programmers and professional writers used to keyboards will not find a tablet appealing to them. Not yet, at least.
So when the market balloons yet again to take in the Tablet Era, PCs will continue to be sold, but the number of users in this new market will be larger than the market that existed in the PC Era. Many PC users will move to tablets, and many folks who never enjoyed (or even used) PCs will grab a tablet. It will be bigger than the PC market by 2020.
And by the way, the price premium referred to earlier in this thread? That's unique to Macs versus PCs because Apple does not compete in the low-end of the market. But in the smart phone and tablet markets, there is NO price premium. One day people will forget that Apple ever made "high-priced" items since it simply won't be true compared with the competition.
As for Apple never making headway, they are merely the most profitable computer company on the planet. Nice lack of headway if you can get it.
Oh i completely understand what you mean, thanks for the further clarification.
Lets not forget that we are dealing with a more "computer" savvy generation. Your examples of 80yr olds and infants is generally correct, but when those infants get to school, they will be using desktops(at school.) I think the barrier that existed with PC emergence in the late 80's is still prevalent today, not with the youger crowd anyway.
I think it will get to the point where people will have multiple devices in their homes. Just like people have laptops, desktops, and tablets(like myself) They will each have a place, but I just dont think tablets will run desktops and laptops out of peoples homes and time in the next 10-15 years.
The number of PCs being sold could remain constant and still fall behind tablet sales in the future. Why? The market expands. Think about who could use a mainframe back in the day. Very few companies. Then minicomputers came along and suddenly many more companies could get one. The market expanded, and even if mainframe sales remained constant, minicomputer sales surpassed them.
Tablets will appeal to those who never got comfortable with PCs. Or who never bothered getting one at all. I've personally seen toddlers and 80-year-olds gravitate toward the iPad naturally. It just fits them perfectly. There's none of that artificial abstraction of a keyboard or mouse between their fingers and the device, they just interact directly. It appeals to them.
Someone who uses a PC almost exclusively for email and web surfing will find a tablet appealing to them.
Programmers and professional writers used to keyboards will not find a tablet appealing to them. Not yet, at least.
So when the market balloons yet again to take in the Tablet Era, PCs will continue to be sold, but the number of users in this new market will be larger than the market that existed in the PC Era. Many PC users will move to tablets, and many folks who never enjoyed (or even used) PCs will grab a tablet. It will be bigger than the PC market by 2020.
And by the way, the price premium referred to earlier in this thread? That's unique to Macs versus PCs because Apple does not compete in the low-end of the market. But in the smart phone and tablet markets, there is NO price premium. One day people will forget that Apple ever made "high-priced" items since it simply won't be true compared with the competition.
As for Apple never making headway, they are merely the most profitable computer company on the planet. Nice lack of headway if you can get it.
Oh i completely understand what you mean, thanks for the further clarification.
Lets not forget that we are dealing with a more "computer" savvy generation. Your examples of 80yr olds and infants is generally correct, but when those infants get to school, they will be using desktops(at school.) I think the barrier that existed with PC emergence in the late 80's is still prevalent today, not with the youger crowd anyway.
I think it will get to the point where people will have multiple devices in their homes. Just like people have laptops, desktops, and tablets(like myself) They will each have a place, but I just dont think tablets will run desktops and laptops out of peoples homes and time in the next 10-15 years.
leekohler
Apr 15, 10:20 AM
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect.
You would be one of them. It stings when the mirror is held up in front of you, doesn't it? I was like you at one time too, and I know where you are right now. At some point, you will come to understand that there is a difference between people who are simply trying to be themselves (us) and people who are trying to keep us from being ourselves (social conservatives). One deserves respect, one does not.
You would be one of them. It stings when the mirror is held up in front of you, doesn't it? I was like you at one time too, and I know where you are right now. At some point, you will come to understand that there is a difference between people who are simply trying to be themselves (us) and people who are trying to keep us from being ourselves (social conservatives). One deserves respect, one does not.
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 08:10 PM
I didn't expect some sort of Spanish inquisition :eek:
Bingo!
Bingo!