“Could it ever happen? Is there even a possibility that we will see OS X on the PC? To be honest, I believe there is. But unlike others who believe that it will happen on a large scale, what I foresee instead is OS X on a very select number of Apple approved PCs. And as great as this could potentially be, here comes the rub: if we do in fact see OS X on the PC platform, Steve Jobs would only allow it just for the press – nothing more.”
I have a feeling honestly, Apple is going to make a huge and awesome release out of Leopard. Vista looks like it will be a huge disappointment. It will tank. I mean look even some die hard MS fans at MSBLOG are complaining and shocked at the announcement of WinFS being no longer under development or something like that. There is another blog at Mini-Microsoft saying the same thing. Billy G is retiring, and MS is going through a transition….a much needed transition. The only thing I can see of MS that will be selling good is Office 2007. The only reason Vista will sell is because it will be bundled. So before I ramble on any further, I think Stevie J will strike at the time when Vista looks like it will suck. He will have Leopard out with quite possibly a shocking announcement that they have also partnered up with Dell to offer OS X on Dell machines as well as long as they have the EFI stuff. That is my take on it. Then someone is going to hack OS X and make it run on almost every machine out there, Apple might complain at the beginning but the seed for the ultimate takeover will ahve been laid. Enthusiasts will be trying to install OS X on AMD machines etc etc. I think there is a definitive chance in the future for OS X being installed on PC…well it already is…Apple is selling PCs.
I have a feeling honestly, Apple is going to make a huge and awesome release out of Leopard
There’s no doubt in my mind, but it’ll make little difference. People will cling to Windows even if it gave them three BSOD’s a day.
There’s no doubt in my mind, but it’ll make little difference. People will cling to Windows even if it gave them three BSOD’s a day.
If i wouldn’t know better i would say looks like they are addicted…
More like they can’t leave. Like families in mining towns of yore. Sure, they were technically free to leave, but in practice, the company owned them.
You mean like back with Win98? I had 8 crashes a day with Win98+IE. With Win98+Mozilla it was one or two a day. With Win2k or better (which means Linux) almost none.
I use WinXP for the most part…and if you can believe it I dont remember the last tiem when I experienced a crash on Windows XP let alone a BSOD.
Yes, I know XP can be pretty stable, that’s why I said ‘even if’. I never implied that it crashes daily.
BSODs don’t exists in WinXP! I sure as heck have never seen one, and I’ve been running it on several different machines since launch day.
People tend to forget that Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. Most of their profits come from their Macs not their iPods. What company is going to give up its most profiting products?
Hmm I thought Ipods were their main breadwinners.
I thought the same thing…..
They do sell hardware, but they make money with the iPod…
You’re wrong about that, they make the most money from the iPod product line. Also where does this “Apple is a hardware company not a software company” stuff come from? They sell tons of software too.
Edited 2006-06-24 18:22
Apple sees themselves as a hardware company, which is why Jobs killed the clones when he came back to Apple. One reason Apple’s software works so well is that Apple controls the hardware, which makes getting the two to play nicely with each other all the more easy.
There is too much pride/ego involved for Apple to only produce software. For better or for worse, Apple will stay the course.
Lastly, the iPod cash cow is limited. These growth rates are not sustainable; soon everybody who wants an iPod will have one. The public can only be tricked into buying a new iPod on a year basis for so long. Apple needs to be proactive to find another product on which to hang their hat, be it software or hardware. The back to school season will put Apple’s transition to Intel to the test. The same can be said of Leopard. If there is no favorable consumer response to these two products, Apple will loose all the momentum they have worked so hard to acquire.
Lastly, the iPod cash cow is limited. These growth rates are not sustainable; soon everybody who wants an iPod will have one. The public can only be tricked into buying a new iPod on a year basis for so long
True. Until they put in an FM tuner/transmitter. And after that, erm.. well, a touch screen. And then, umm.. recording? And then some other stuff
They’ll be milking for a while longer is my guess
Edited 2006-06-24 19:06
Before, MP3 Players only progressed by their own functions. A new product was dictated by more functions, until they were a mess. iPod helped clean that up, and whilst the iPod is still rather feature filled, I believe the future of MP3 players (or more accurately PMPs) will be dictated by the advancements in the industry, and not always advancements in the functionality.
Movies in iTunes for example. They only need add a bigger screen and you have a new model.
Creative player have:
Fm tunner,
Recording,
and much more. Why iPod?
“They sell tons of software too. ”
Example: Final Cut Pro….^_^
Perhaps you should check your facts….more of Apple’s revenue and profit do in-fact come from their ipods.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000110465906031303/a0…
That is Apple’s latest 10-Q, filed with the SEC. For the 3 months ending April 1st, Apple made almost $200 million more from their iPod division than their computer division, and their iPod division is growing much faster than their computer division (their iPod division grew $700 million in a year, their computer division less than $100 million).
Because they done it before! If recall correctely it was before the PPC-platform, but they done it before.
My guess is Thom Holwerda is turning out to be the next Paul Thurrott. I’m getting sick and tired of your Apple related posts… We all know you hate Apple so stop it already. By bashing Apple products/users, you won’t get more clicks here, that is for sure.
By bashing Apple products/users, you won’t get more clicks here, that is for sure
But you fell for it again though.
He hates Apple so much that he supports them by using their products. Brilliant!
No! Stop! It’s a conspiracy!!! Thom really buy’s Dells and *PAINTS* them to look like Macs!! And then… THEN he theemes Windows XP to look like OS X!!! I’m not crazy!… *I’M NOT CRAZY*!! HE *HATES* APPLE!!!!!!11111
Hehe.
Happens every time OSNews has an article that isn’t absolutely flattering of Apple.
Why not show us that pic of your desktop again Thom, so we can make sure there’s really no painted Dells in there 😉
While we’re at it, lets see picks of all your desktops, anyone with a Mac to PC ratio lower than 1.5:1 gets labeled a Mac hater. Might as well have ourselves a good ol’ fashioned witch hunt for fun 😉
Did I overdo the joke, or was it good?
Someone would have to make scientific study of this…but here’s what it looks like:
True, there is always a complaint (or 300) about OSNew’s posting of Apple Articles. However, Eugenia had a very terrible practice of twisting even the most positive Apple article into something Satanic and evil. Just clikc on the blue Apple above and read throug ha few of them.
This presents a problem. When people read the blurb, it makes the article sound completely different from what it’s really saying. The one positive thing that Thom does is he puts “My take:” on things. Which is much appreciated, because it shows the line of seperation between the article and the OSNews editor’s opinion on it.
Apparently, Thom has taken over the reigns of bashing Apple in the blurbs.
Just to keep kicking this dead horse, I remember when Eugenia was an editor for BeNews. The same practice was held there regarding Apple. I mean benews was pretty specific to be, but if there was ever mention of Apple, there was probably a pentagram somewhere waiting to be placed.
To further keep kicking this dead horse, I’ve had some post deleted because Eugenia didn’t agree with my criticism of her criicism of Apple – this was before I wised up and registered an account.
So, Governa has a point.
You can also own a product yet hate the company. There is nothing illogical about that. It’s just a result of an unwise personal decision. The reply to Governa’s comment made it sound like there was some ultimate logical fallacy in commiting such an act. Ever heard of buyer’s remorse?
Maybe “hating Apple” is not the correct way of wording it, but OSNews does have Anti-Mac rhetoric in their blurbs. But that’s not to say that they don’t Anti-Whatever in there as well.
Maybe OSNews just hates everything. Maybe the editors here are really critics.
Please note the mild sarcasm in the post.
Edited 2006-06-24 20:03
Not always having praise for a company is not the same thing as hating them and doesn’t make it some conspiracy. I see the same tone used by the editors for all stories. Generally, it’s more negative than positive unless it’s something new and exciting, but that’s hardly a bias against a particular company or product.
You’re right.
I just bought a 17″ Imac so I’m slightly biased.
You know it’s funny, when there is anti-Microsoft rhetoric my eyes just read it as if it’s to be expected.
What’s more alarming is that once you criticize a company your seen as the enemy. Corporations are not our lords or masters, we are still entitled to our opinions no matter what the PR-goons tell you.
He will have Leopard out with quite possibly a shocking announcement that they have also partnered up with Dell to offer OS X on Dell machines as well as long as they have the EFI stuff.
That would be the day.Maybe OSX can be the better pathfinder and bring us some more drivers?
I think it could be worse than MS, a company that have total control of the software and also the hardware like apple does.
Edited 2006-06-24 18:42
Total control over the software ?
Since many of their products (ie Safari) are (based on) open source, please notice Apple doesn’t have a total control over the software.
Other important difference: Apple uses standard protocols where Microsoft pushes his own proprietary all the time.
Total control over the hardware ?
For Mac OS X to become large (if that is what Apple wants) takes licensing to other hardware vendors over which Apple has no control either …
The FOSS in Apple’s system does not dictate their UI. Safari is _not_ Opensource. The rendering engine is, what widgets and buttons and chrome appear in Safari is _Apple’s_ choice.
And ‘many’ of their products are far from Opensource.
How so? thats how companies competed 20 years ago; some people here are *REALLY* thick in thinking that Apple is the *ONLY* company in history who did the vertically integrated approach.
20 years ago, there was Apple, Atari, Amstrad and Amiga – all vertically integrated companies, all competeing viciously with each other to grab customers; whats so damn terrible about that? the fact that the vertically integrated model has been proven over and over again to be the superior deliverer of a tightly integrated solution for end users? the fact that companies can no longer play the blame game when things go wrong, “Windows XP crashes, its the hardware vendors fault; the hardware vendor claims its the operating systems fault, the operating system vendor blames the third party, the third party blames the hardware vendor and operating system vendor” etc. etc.
Apple’s the only one still doing it (successfully) in the PC market, though. Things would certainly be more interesting if we had several competing platforms with healthy market shares. Microsoft wouldn’t be so dominant in all likelihood.
I’m a happy apple user, but have you noticed how iTunes gets more and more restrictive every version, with more and more subtle advertising for the store? This is the thing that annoys me. I don’t use the store, I don’t want it encroaching on _my_ application space. How would you like it if MSWord inserted special links into your documents as you typed for keyword related ads?
The downside of the webpage becoming synonymous with the application space is that adverts and commercial interests are begining to crawl in everywhere.
Anybody else seen the new annoying iPhoto ‘phone-home’ pop ups when you launch the app?
I can only dream of what nuisence Apple will bake into their apps next to ‘remind’ people of other products and services.
“have you noticed how iTunes gets more and more restrictive every version”
I’m completely deterred from any online music store, be it iTunes or otherwise. Most of them already have a limit on streaming, burning and transfering to mp3 players or other computers. If I buy a song I should have the right to put it on as many of my devices and storage media as I want, *no* limits. People who buy from online music stores that use DRM are helping destroy freedom and couldn’t care less.
See these links for example:
This article is on Apple reducing the streaming songs limit in iTunes.
Careful: the adds on BoingBoing are sometimes not safe for work [NSFW] or school:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/03/16/apple_steals_itunes_.html
The EFF site is safe, and they’re good people. Here’s something on all the big DRM providers:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/guide/
And here’s some guy’s blog on lost iTunes features, just because you mentioned that:
http://george.hotelling.net/90percent/digital_music/features_lost_i…
There’s more to be found on Google.
People who buy from online music stores that use DRM are helping destroy freedom and couldn’t care less.
This is true, but most of them don’t even realize this. Most of them don’t know that the music they bought on iTunes is DRMed. Most of them don’t know that the usage of their music is in several ways limited.
Many of them wouldn’t care even if they knew. And the problem is that in many cases, when you like a certain artist and wanna buy his albums, then you get to chose between a copy protected audio cd and a DRM-ed digital download from iTunes or another online music store. None of them is good and should be considered acceptable. There’s 2 more choices left: you could get the album illegally or you could just stop listening to that artist. The former is clearly unfair regarding the artist. The latter is a bit sad, because this might be a very capable artist which is ignored because of something out of his control.
To be honest, lately I’ve been considering buying something at iTunes, because it’s music I can’t seem to find in regular shops anymore. And I think iTunes is a very nice online music shop. The only thing stopping me is the DRM. I normally use Linux, so if I buy it, I would need to remove the DRM some way or another to make it actually useful. Luckily, I’ve also noted that a couple of groups I like, are available on emusic.com.
I think also, part of the problem is that if someone creates a song that people want, said person has the right to the music/lyrics. They are his/hers. He wants to make as much $$$ on his music as he can so he wants EVERYONE to buy a copy. Now Joe comes along and buys the song, then lets Buddy borrow it (who then copies it), then lets Tina borrow it (who then copies it) and so on. Before long the guy has lost out on $20 by selling his song to Joe without restrictions.
I work for a copyright repermissioning company. We do NOT deal in music but in written copy, mostly news and scientific journals and stuff like that. Some of these rightsholders really want FINE control over who uses their work and HOW it is used. There are often restrictions as to quantity reproduced or to the number of pages used, and how they are reprinted or reused.
Copyright law is CONSTANTLY being infringed and not just by Joe, but by corporations, universities, gov’ts, etc. We tend to target corporations and educational institutions in our search for infringement and cooperate with libraries, publishers and rightsholder organizations (yes, we help enforce copyright law as well in the USA and are affiliated with our equivalent entities throughout the world).
That’s all. My opinion on how music copyright law should be implemented, and the restrictions imposed are pretty vague… but as someone mentioned, it is most likely that Apple is complying with the requests of rightsholders who ALSO recognize that a) Apple is selling TONS of music and b) if they add TOO many restrictions it will eventually backfire.
Eh. That’s all.
“He wants to make as much $$$ on his music as he can so he wants EVERYONE to buy a copy. Now Joe comes along and buys the song, then lets Buddy borrow it (who then copies it), then lets Tina borrow it (who then copies it) and so on. Before long the guy has lost out on $20 by selling his song to Joe without restrictions. “
Then a new album comes out, and Joe’s friends don’t want to wait to borrow a copy, so they go out and buy their own all because Joe let them listen to his copy of the first album. But the music industry is mad that Joe’s friends didn’t pay for that first copy without even being thankful that Joe introduced them to the music so they would buy the new album in larger quantities than possible before. So the music industry makes up fraudulent statistics about how much money they’re loosing while pulling in record profits, and decide to instill restructions which not only limit illegal use, but also fair use. How about that! There’s an opportunity here, not only to restrict “piracy” *caugh*free advetising*caugh*, but also to make the same people buy the same song over and over again, and while they’re at it, why not change “owning” the song to renting the song under ever changing terms.
Of course with this newfound source of income the music industry is still going to keep all the extra money within the ranks of the leadership. So some CEOs make millions more while abusing customers, and we should all feel better because now instead of us comitting a few minor offenses which have been proven by honest sources to increase sales, we are instead treated like cow tits: having money sucked out of us whether we want it or not. Stop listening to the MAFIAAs lies! We are being treated like an abused resources instead of people, and we’re liking it because some suits taking our money are telling us to.
If Joe lent the other people his music once. He will do it again. Your argument holds no water, while I know for a FACT, being in my position, that people DO “share” copyrighted material ALL OF THE TIME. Seriously. And I am not saying they do it to be malicious, Celerate, it’s just human nature. No one thinks twice about it.
I wasn’t trying to portray Joe and his friends as evil or even bad. But my little scenario is very very true and happens all of the time and no, it does NOT result in more or better sales. While your picture is a nice thought, it just does not happen that way.
“If Joe lent the other people his music once. He will do it again. Your argument holds no water, while I know for a FACT, being in my position, that people DO “share” copyrighted material ALL OF THE TIME.”
Of course he will, but sharing music actually helps sell music. People do actually buy CDs because they’ve downloaded a song or borrowed a CD from a friend and like that song or album. P2P increases sales and the MAFIAA is hurting everyone (including themselves).
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=p2p+sells+music&btnG=Google+Sea…
“I wasn’t trying to portray Joe and his friends as evil or even bad. “
No, but I *was* trying to portray how the MAFIAA is purely just out to rake in more cash at everyone else’s expense.
“it does NOT result in more or better sales”
According to who? Oh right, the RIAA and MPAA keep saying that, and they’re the only ones who say that. Listen, first off they’re lying so they can push crap through legislation. Secondly, their branch in Canada (the CRIA) itself said that people downloading music off P2P networks are more likely to buy CDs, it’s the second result in that link I gave you and there’s more references to it further down.
Now lets get that pair of sheers and see if there’s a real person behind that wool you’re wearing.
>Now lets get that pair of sheers and see if there’s a real person behind that wool you’re wearing.
I don’t know what that is supposed to mean, but I have been with my current company for 6.5 years and have learned a lot about copyrighting and abuse issues (again, in the printed industry).
What do YOU do for a living? I guess I should take your sagely and industry knowledgeable advice to the president and board of directors of our company and tell them they have all been wrong for the past 20 years (age of our company) – and I never said that rightsholders do not want more money. We (our company) are not-for-profit (we cannot make profit enforcing and encouraging copyright compliance).
As I mentioned above, we work with printed copyright issues not music… I can only speak to that. But if it works the same way in the music industry, then I stand by what I said.
It seems you’re in the print industry, so I’ll try to explain this with an analogy you’ll understand.
When I buy a book I can read it without restriction, I can read it in a car, I can read it in a sun room, I can read it in my living room, I can even read it where other people can see whats on the pages. I can also loan the book out to friends, and don’t tell me you haven’t done that. I can photocopy certain pages from the book, and I can make several copies of some pages if it’s a reference book and I need certain reference sheets in different places I work.
Now lets say some important books that I’d use for several years, maybe even decades, had and used similar technology to what the RIAA and MPAA use. The print would only show up in five rooms I owned in the whole wide world, so I wouldn’t be able to travel with the books. The books would only be good as long as the lighbulbs in those five rooms didn’t burn out or get destroyed, and I couldn’t take the light bulbs out of the rooms to put them in new rooms because the socket, walls, ceiling and wiring would also have the be the very same. I could get lamps with bulbs that could be calibrated to show the print, although I could only buy up to five bulbs that are calibrated for any particular book and the bulbs in the lamps could last as little as a few days to as long as a few years assuming they weren’t stolen with the lamps first. I could only read or quote certain section of the book to people in my family, and then only five times a day at most to five people at most. If I wanted to make copies of a few important pages from a reference book, because I need the book at home as well as at work I’d have to buy a second book. I wouldn’t be allowed to summarize the book, I wouldn’t be allowed to quote it, and I wouldn’t be allowed to loan it to friends or even let them see it accidentally. If I wanted to sell the book I wouldn’t be allowed, in fact I wouldn’t even be able to give it away for free, and if the publisher thought I looked at them the wrong way, or that I might have violated some rule by quoting part of the book or letting someone accidentally look over my shoulder at it, they could simply make it so the print can no longer be read at all without even letting me get a word in.
Sure it would keep people from making illegal copies of the book, but if someone managed to circumvent the techniques used to restrict the book like that, and make copies of it without the restrictions that came out on the black market, which would you choose?
Don’t say the comparisson isn’t accurate. It is, you don’t have to take my word for it, have a look at my comment scores about DRM, or look at other people’s comments. We all know it’s bad for us and the industry, the EFF itself can tell you the restrictions aren’t fair:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/guide/
Normally when someone proved as persistent as you I’d just stop responding, but I really want to explain this to you, you seem to be out of the loop rather than stubborn.
I’m all for protecting people’s abilities to make a living from their work, I’m training to be a software developer myself. But I would never *EVER* do to my customers what the RIAA and MPAA are doing to theirs, and if I did then I’d deserve to have people pirate my work just like the RIAA and MPAA deserve to have people pirate what they sell. The RIAA and MPAA are forcing people to pirate in order to get fair use again, and we can make personal donations to the artists themselves which many of us do in order to bipass the RIAA and MPAA altogether.
Just because I look out for my own good doesn’t mean I’m a cheapskate pirate; When I’m out of perpetual student debt the first thing I want to do is order a bunch of albums from DJ Doboy who is frequently featured on DI.fm, his stuff can be downloaded off his site (www.djdoboy.com) or purchased from him personally without any DRM and he has a simple form right there on the site for donations.
The sheep analogy is quite simple, sheep when scared will follow the lead of one sheep without averting their eyes even if they’re all running off a cliff. Sheep will instead follow a shepherd if there is one, but if the shepherd is bad and wants to hurt them their habit of simply following him when scared without averting their eyes means they are simply taking his word for it and don’t really know what is threatening them or what others have to say about it. The shepherd may simply scare the sheep and lead them right into the M&Ms meat shop processing plant. Big industries know that most people tend to be the same way, as long as people are scared enough they’ll turn to one person to lead and protect them without ever examining what is supposedly threatening them, and next thing you know they’re meat pies.
I follow your reasoning, Celerate, DRM is unacceptable, but I do think that Tuishimi is right on the fact that people are committing copyright violations all the time. If you’re spending some time in a university dorm, you’ll soon find out that students copy gigabytes of movies and music illegally. That does not mean, however, that they would see those movies or listen to that music, even if they could buy it without any DRM protection and for a really good price. And it’s not just students. I know about a person who illegally downloads each music album he likes… the sad thing is that he claimed music albums cost way too much, but then he found it ok to buy a very expensive printer so that he could print the downloaded album covers and sometimes booklet with good quality.
Your argument about the fact that music sharing can eventually lead to higher sales for an artist, is valid, I think. The only way one can get in contact with music from lesser known artists is by hearing it at a friend’s place or by using sites like last.fm and then getting some of that music through p2p to see what it sounds like and whether you like it. Honest people will then buy the album if they like it and maybe other albums… other people will just say, oh I have downloaded it now, it’d be a waste of money to go out and buy the album now.
The argument is also only valid for music, and not for movies or computer software. I do respect that artists and writers want their copyright respected. You’re a software developer, I imagine that if you develop an application or a game, you wouldn’t want people to share your hard work on a massive scale on p2p networks. You worked hard for it and you need and deserve the money to survive.
I do think that DRM is wrong, but I understand why publishers want it these days. Another perspective to look at it is that if people wouldn’t have started sharing copyrighted works on a massive scale on p2p networks, publishers would maybe never have seen the need for tougher and tougher copy protection measurements. Maybe a naive reasoning, but this whole DRM thing didn’t come just like that.
However, in my opinion, the key to avoid illegal copying is to make the experience of buying legal material easier and more enjoyable than finding illegal copies and in addition make sure that the legal material has more value than the illegal copies. These days, they are really trying hard to give the legal material much less value than the illegal copies.
People I know who are really trying hard to do the right thing and buy the legal material are starting to give up… they feel they are doing the right thing, but they are getting punished more and more for it… they get to deal with DRM… they are forced to watch warnings which treat them like criminals.. they are forced to watch commercials on the dvd… they risk getting rootkits on their computer when trying to listen to an audio cd… they are getting restricted in several ways. The alternative is to download illegal copies of music, movies and games, and what do you get.. no crap whatsoever.. just the hassle-free, easily accessible content. The industry should start to realise that they’d better reward people for doing the right thing, instead of punishing them for it and delivering a lower quality product than the illegal copies. They are really pissing off more and more ‘good’ customers, while their protection mechanisms fail to actually reduce piracy. Fair customers want fair use.
Here are some helpful links for you, too.
http://www.copyright.com/ccc/do/viewPage?pageCode=cr11-n
http://www.copyright.com/ccc/do/viewPage?pageCode=cr4-n
And here are some good articles as well regarding findings, etc.
http://www.copyright.com/ccc/do/viewPage?pageCode=cr7-n
And here is a link showing how different the music industry is and how record companies SHAFT both users and artists
http://www2.piratpartiet.se/referenser/courtney_love_does_the_math
“Funny math”
“Put simply, the antitrust laws in this country are basically a joke, protecting us just enough to not have to re-name our park service the Phillip Morris National Park Service”
Whatever.
So you have to be a BIG band, like the Beatles, the Stones, STP, etc. to make any real money? So bands that travel around the country make just enough money to eat and pay for their tour bus gas?
“I’m positive it’s better math than what Edgar Bronfman Jr. [the president and CEO of Seagram, which owns Polygram] would provide.”
Oh I am sure it is.
Did you ever hear the one about how many hours a week a person REALLY works?
Boss, Can I take the day off?
—————————–
Let’s take a look at what you are asking for….
There are 365 days per year available for work.
There are 52 weeks per year in which you already have 2 days off per week, leaving 261 days available for work.
Since you spend 16 hours each day away from work, you have used up 170 days, leaving only 91 days available.
You spend 30 minutes each day on coffee break. That accounts for 23 days each year, leaving only 68 days available.
With a one hour lunch period each day, you have used up another 46 days, leaving only 22 days available for work.
You normally spend 2 days per year on sick leave. This leaves you only 20 days available for work.
We are off for 5 holidays per year, so your available working time is down to 15 days.
We generously give you 14 days vacation per year which leaves only 1 day available for work and I’ll be Damned if you’re going to take that day off!!!
but have you noticed how iTunes gets more and more restrictive every version
I think this has more to do with pressure from the music industry than with a policy from Apple. It is a bad thing of course, but it’s still a lot less restrictive than currently in use restrictions on Microsoft-DRM-ed media (which is different from store to store). I mean it’s one of the least restrictive DRM protections on the market currently.
(now that somehow reminds me about boiling a live frog.. bit by bit making it more restrictive without receiving complaints from the consumers, instead of making it very restricted in one step and run the risk of getting a huge protest)
I’m a happy apple user, but have you noticed how iTunes gets more and more restrictive every version, with more and more subtle advertising for the store? This is the thing that annoys me. I don’t use the store, I don’t want it encroaching on _my_ application space. How would you like it if MSWord inserted special links into your documents as you typed for keyword related ads?
And how is that any worse than the crap which AOL pulls with their Titan AOL client, or the advertisements and popups that exist with the MSN 7.5 Microsoft is shipping etc?
You think that Apple is bad, Apple will be NOTHING compared to the crap that you’ll see in Vista, constant reminders that when you load a certain feature that ‘you will have reduced functionality, however, if you wish to have full functionality, you can upgrade to ultimate, by simply calling this number: 0800 WANT YOU MONEY’
There is a ocean of difference between the subtle hints and prods which Apple include in their products, vs. the marching band, and fireworks approach which Microsoft take when promoting their value added services.
turn into “BashAppleNews”? It wasn’t this bad, with Eugenia. Maybe that’s why she left. When she let control go to others, she realized what a bad mistake it was and left for greener pastures. I don’t blame her.
If it wasn’t for the fact that I frankly don’t care what people say or do, concerning Apple or Macs, in general, I’d probably be ranting and raving about how much I hate Apple’s switch to Intel… how I’m afraid that eventually, you’ll be able to just slip in a Windows CD/DVD and install it on a Mac, just like a regular PC and what we now call a “Mac” will be nothing more than an Apple PC… albeit all pretty on the outside… with an inflated pricetag to match.
A pricetag I’ll *NEVER* pay. I own a Mac because it’s *NOT* a PC and it *DOESN’T* run Windows! I have a PC, I run Windows XP and BeOS and Haiku on. I don’t need to have *two* PC’s, one which just happens to run MacOS X.
You see, for me, being a Mac user is not JUST about the hardware. And it’s not JUST about MacOS X. It’s an integrated, unified, synergistic combination of the two. To me, it’s not enough to just use MacOS X. And it’s not just enough to have non-Intel hardware. It’s the 2-in-1 combo. Without the two, owning a Mac just isn’t exciting anymore…
At least to me.
As long as the Mac requires *some* layer of software to run Windows (BootCamp or Parallel or whatever), then I will still consider a Mac a Mac and probably buy a new one eventually. The day that thin line is erased (hopefully NEVER!), is the day I will never again call them “Macs”, but call them by their true title… “Apple PC”.
May that day never happen as long as I’m on this earth…
Luposian
“I own a Mac because it’s *NOT* a PC and it *DOESN’T* run Windows! I have a PC, I run Windows XP and BeOS and Haiku on. I don’t need to have *two* PC’s, one which just happens to run MacOS X.”
But that’s exactly what you have got. This is exactly what was always going to happen when they moved to Intel. They are just PCs that happen to run OSX, and Windows too if you like. What did you expect? They have Intel main boards, Intel processors, hard drives, opticals, memory and power supplies all of which you can source, separately or in a package, from lots of places. The only difference is the bios and some sort of DRM to stop you moving your copy of OSX to a non-branded but otherwise identical machine.
Don’t know about the “integrated, unified, synergistic combination” of hardware and OSX, no idea what this could mean. Can I get this from a Mini, a Happy Hacking Keyboard and an NEC flat screen? It sounds rather nice, whatever it is.
“I don’t need to have *two* PC’s, one which just happens to run MacOS X.”
I hate to disillusion you, but PC stands for “Personal Computer” which is exactly what the PPC based Macs are. The term PC is incorrectly used to signify the IBM compatible PC line. There were many other PC’s before and even after the IBM hit the market. Technically all home computers are PC’s regardless of architecture and manufacturer.
I know that. But the common understanding is that any X86-based computer is called a “PC” and Macintosh computers are called “Macs”. So, unless you really, REALLY, R E A L L Y want to split hairs on all sorts of minute technical details… I think you know what I meant.
Macs have NEVER had X86 chips in them (not including those “PC-compatibility” cards, which are NOT the stock CPU). It’s been 680×0 and PPC chip all the way.
This is the first time, that line has been crossed… and I’m hoping they don’t turn into 100% “Apple PC’s”. I can learn to live with “Intel inside”, so long as I’m not just paying extra for an Apple case, because… well…
“Homey don’t play dat!” *WHAP!* <—– “In Living Color” reference
Luposian
before apple become the next microsoft a lot of work will need to be done
we see a lot more switch to linux than mac os X
check for embedded system since a couple of time, linux solution grow a lot
i think linux have better chance than os X
“OS X on a very select number of Apple approved PCs”
Didn’t Apple try this in the PPC days? Seem to remember it being a huge failure.
They need OSX to sell their hardware (it’s the main reason most people buy Macs). The only alternative is forgetting about selling hardware and going full blown on selling OSX to the masses. Obviously that would be a huge risk (taking on MS directly) but the rewards would be huge ($$$$$$$) but I wouldn’t expect it until they are 100% sure that it’s going to be a success in terms of having a superior product (recognized by people outside the Mac community)/full hardware support.
Trading Wintel for Macintosh is not a trade at all.
Both systems fail to respect the rights of their users. Arguably, Apple would be worse than Microsoft because they make you use their hardware configuaration. At least Windows runs on a variety of hardware (if not a variety of CPU arch).
Its pointless to get so excited about Apple’s recent rise to stardom. Free Software does everything MacOS or Windows does, and grants users the freedom to control all aspects of their computer.
Both systems fail to respect the rights of their users. Arguably, Apple would be worse than Microsoft because they make you use their hardware configuaration. At least Windows runs on a variety of hardware (if not a variety of CPU arch).
Hmmm… does a user have the right to demand that a piece of software from a company runs on every piece of hardware that he wishes to use? I don’t think so. One can say that it sucks that Apple doesn’t release OSX for non-Apple systems, but that has nothing to do with Apple not respecting the rights of their users.
Its pointless to get so excited about Apple’s recent rise to stardom. Free Software does everything MacOS or Windows does, and grants users the freedom to control all aspects of their computer.
Do you actually believe the latter yourself? Free software does not yet do everything that MacOS or Windows do and it only gives you the freedom to control those aspects of your computer that either come with open specs or either have been reverse engineered. Slight difference.
Do not be mistaken, I have a lot of respect for Free Software and since I run Linux on powerpc, all the software I’m running is actually free software.
Users have a right to demand whatever they want. That’s the role of “users” in the User/Vendor model. Whether the vendor considers the demand realistic and meets the demand is their right as a vendor.
Maybe its not realistic to expect your software to run on all hardware, but what Apple does is pretty extreme in the wrong direction.
As far as the functions of the OS are concerned, i honestly do believe a Gnu/Linux distribution like Ubuntu is feature-compatible with Windows or OSX. The main areas it is lacking are by choice to avoid legal issues.
We can argue about how much freedom users should expect, but the fact is not having the right to modify the source code means users are always at the mercy of the vendor to fix any defects in their code, let alone provide those fixes for free. And its pretty much accepted that any substantial project will have defects.
“Both systems fail to respect the rights of their users. Arguably, Apple would be worse than Microsoft because they make you use their hardware configuaration. At least Windows runs on a variety of hardware (if not a variety of CPU arch).”
I dont think Apple would be worse, if you buy from Dell, you will get Windows, Apple gives you THEIR hardware with THEIR software, why cant Dell, produce Dell OS or something like that?
Dont get me wrong, I wish I could run Mac OS X on my AMD based system, but I cant, SO I have to buy what Apple sells in order to get it…
The beautiful thing about choice is, you can buy what you want….
You want Windows, but you dont know how to build a computer yourself, buy a Dell…
You want Mac OS X, you are going to have to buy a Apple Computer, currently of course, who knows what will happen in the future….
but my point is unless you build it yourself, you will use one or the other….unless you learn Linux, you will use one or the other: Windows -or- Mac OS X…..
educating yourself gives you the Linux option…
without education you have no choice…..
Linux supports a TON of hardware and its taken an extremely long time to build up its hardware support to what it is today. I don’t believe Apple is going to be capable of getting their hardware support up to par in the next 2-3 years, even if they already started working on it.
What are you blathering about? OS X accepts binary drivers. It could gain driver support for as much hardware as linux far faster than linux has.
Just offering support for binary drivers is unlikely to do anything for OS X’s driver support. By and large, its not the binary issue that holds back most drivers (except a few high-profile ones). The reason Linux has such good hardware support is because of its community. The community works very hard to ensure that hardware is supported with quality drivers. Theyw ork hard to ensure that hardware isn’t randomly deprecated for no good reason. And by and large hardware manufacturers are willing to share their specs with the community.
Just supporting binary drivers won’t magically offset those advantages and give OS X better hardware support, except maybe for those aforementioned high-profile devices.
What are you blathering about? OS X accepts binary drivers. It could gain driver support for as much hardware as linux far faster than linux has.
And babe, so does FreeBSD, Solaris and numerous others, and yet, their hardware support it shithouse; simply having the ability to load a binary driver does not make it a successful operating system.
OS X may support binary drivers, but they don’t exist for it, and just because it supports it doesn’t mean anyone is going to make one. In reality, most companies aren’t going to waste their time to make Apple drivers anymore then they waste their time to make Linux drivers. Some drivers would be made, many wouldn’t.
Pretty lame to whoever modded my previous comment ( http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14987&comment_id=136867 ) down.
Further:
http://www.osxbook.com/
http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn2003.html
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Porting/Conceptual/Porting…
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Porting/Conceptual/Porting…
may is apple the next microsoft
but that would be a good exchange.
Sure we might see clones again – Apple could allow only a small family set of hardware, and allow Dell, HP, etc to build whatever they want as long as its up to spec.
I would like to see this, but history would repeat itself, and Apple would be losing all of its Mac sales to other companies, and would probably be forced to halt production of the clones again. That is, of course, there was a huge rotalty from every machine Dell or HP sold.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/by_manufacturer/
Edited 2006-06-24 20:54
Apple: the Next Microsoft?
If it will ever happen, I will switch to Microsoft
My iTunes playing: Andy Gibb – “I Just Want To Be Your Everything”
Life is Sweet
This is how I see the future…
Apple have something noone else does, they have a PC that can run OS X. To my thinking, allowing Dell or anyone else to also have this ability would be a mistake. I think Apple is looking at increasing it’s HW presence, but using their machines to do it.
Jobs saw what happens if you allow clones into the market, they canabalize your own market, this is what would probably happen again, at this point Apple would only have an OS and iPods, and Apple love the ability to match the OS with HW, which would be next to impossible at that point.
My guess is that Leopard is going to be something special. It will have some nice features and bundled apps to draw people into buying a Mac for the first time.
A couple of features will be virtualisation software (either from VMWare or Parallels), or their own version (which is more likely), and iWorks will have a spreadsheet and database capabilities.
With Vista, a lot of people will be looking to upgrade their HW, so will be looking at new machines. Buying a Mac becomes an option to everyone now, not for switchers only. Imagine choosing between a machine that can run OS X, Vista/XP, Linux, <insert OS here> and one that restricts you from running OS X.
Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t going to happen for everyone, but then the Dell option wouldn’t have been for everyone either. Gamers are still going to build their own machines. Some of you don’t need OS X, so won’t see the need for a machine that can do both. I’m talking about the average user out there that does video, photos and so on.
I personally think the momentum towards Apple will be very slow at first, but will build up. Will Apple become the next MS?, I hope not, I would love to see Apple at least gain around 10-20% of the market share however… That would be good news for everyone.
The PC platform is popular not because of the reasons people often think. A big reason is the openness of the market. Any component can be made by any number of different vendors. Also if company A fails with miserable products, then company B, C, D, E fills the gap. Apple is just one company people. They’ve *never* dominated the computer market and they never will beyond a certain percentage.
edit: perhaps they had the most parket share with the Apple II, back in the stone age when the computer market was relatively tiny.
Edited 2006-06-24 23:17
When I talk to the engineers I know at Apple, they tend to describe the company as a consumer electronics company, not a hardware or a software company.
Thom merely linked to an article on another site. It is OS-related. I own ALL Apple products (all our computers are Apple computers, and an iPod) but I don’t think there is any malice going on here. I think many of the articles linked to here are negative, whether they be to OS X, Windows or some other (Linux, BSD) operating system.
Often these articles are critiques. They are picking apart something in the hopes that it will be made better or improved upon… Thom has said the same in some of his articles and he takes pride in that.
While Thom bugs me sometimes, I don’t think he (or Eugenia for that matter) have some agenda against Mac OS X, or even Windows.
Apple could also open up a chocolate chip cookie franchise. Free will + capitalism + money means anything is technically possible, but that doesn’t excuse this ridiculous speculation. Apple has a working business model. They are making money. A lot of money. “They should change because I want OS X on my Dell” is not reasoning. It’s daydreaming.
Apple knows people want OS X. This is not, in any way, a reason for them to decide to make it available as a standalone product. Quite the contrary. They need to bolt it to their product line as tightly as they can.
Apple is a hardware company. No one made this up. It is not news. It’s right in their name, Apple Computer. They sell computers. The biggest reason is the difference in total profit between a $2000 computer and a $120 piece of software. Also, you can’t download hardware. It’s part of the Apple experience that users don’t have to type in 25 digit codes or “call home” just to use their computer, and it’s not like such checks work anyway. Selling physical objects is safer than selling digital ones, at least as long as end users are your target market (rather than big, stationary lawsuit targets like upstart companies and inner city school districts). If you download the latest version of OS X, it’s no big deal to them. If you can install it (unmodified), Apple has already made their money from the hardware sale. Nothing in software can compare to that level of security.
People are buying Macs just for OS X. It’s that good. And not only is the profit margin much higher than if they could simply leave the Apple Store with a box of Tiger and slap it on whatever they like at their leisure, the likelihood that they’ll use it long enough to love it and get hooked is much higher, as well. Even if you buy a Mac specifically with running Windows in mind, you still have to jump through some hoops within OS X before you can do that, so they’re pretty much covered on two fronts. Apple doesn’t want the confusion of multiple vendors or potentially infinite configurations. They want a simple and beautiful product line that Just Works and continues to earn more loyal customers all the time. Windows on a Mac is good for that. Mac OS on a PC is not.
“”They should change because I want OS X on my Dell” is not reasoning. It’s daydreaming. ”
Man, I couldnt agree more, I have been saying things along these lines for years and people just dont get it….
Apple Hardware and Mac OS X belong together…
for those who want Mac OS X, you gotta buy the hardware…
but, I wouldnt mind having the ability of loading OS X on my non-Mac hardware…. ^_^
Correct and any analyst will tell you that the Mac division has more upside when compared to the iPod which is a mature product line that owns its market.
I know this doesn’t actually belong in the flamewar, but spreading that itty-bitty article over four pages? I guess someone needs the advertising money really badly.
I don’t think you will see apple relaese osx as a pc Os anytime in the near future. Don’t get me wrong, I think it would be nice, but what makes osx so nice is that it is made to work with apples rather thin hardware offerings. Sure they have to get drivers for those fanboiz who like to mod their g5 systems.. for the time being, but all in all they can make their os thin on the driver side.. it works on their hardware, they don’t have to worry about all the bad flack they can get from some hAxXzor not being able to get his galanov9xb512 videocard working properly. I’m just hoping that Leopard works on ppc so that i can finally update my g4 iBook..uh..maybe.
“what I foresee instead is OS X on a very select number of Apple approved PCs”
This is, er, exactly what we have already. They’re called Mactels.
Seems to me Apple is quietly taking the best of both worlds, putting it together in a package and selling it with their hardware. They put the best of the open source world with the one of the best of the proprietary world, and nobody realizes exactly what they’re doing. They’re going to keep chugging along until in about 10 years or so, they’re going to start grabbing market share. That is, if Microsoft don’t get its act together quickly.
They put the best of the open source world with the one of the best of the proprietary world, and nobody realizes exactly what they’re doing.
Depending on who you ask, the “best of the open source world” is:
1) its development model;
2) the freedom users have regarding the software.
Apple doesn’t get either. You can like what they’re doing, but it’s not that.
… because they have learned from Microsoft that by allowing your OS to run on a certain level of x86 pc means that they can also be pirated. The only way to control this is by a strict and tight, call-home system that only pisses its users off (ala Microsoft XP). Right now, Apple does not care if you load your buddy’s copy of Tiger on your own system because you already bought the heftily priced hardware.
You want the latest version of MAC OS? Sure, but you will have to get a new Mac. 68k users, upgrade to PPC. PPC users, upgrade to x86. Single core users, you want the latest in a couple of years?
Jobs has to train on throwing chairs.
Jobs has to train on throwing chairs.
Yea, and he has to do a thing or two about them keynotes
http://www.tjhsst.edu/~crepetsk/ballmer_developers.mpeg
rolf … Mac approved PCs? And what exactly gave you that idea? This is probably the crazies idea I have ever heard. No man, no way and I’m really calling BS on this one.