alexf
Aug 29, 11:36 AM
My family, two parents and two kids, have purchased 6 ipods over the years.
Replaced batteries on two of them.
Never thrown any of them away.
Still use all of them. Why would anyone throw an out dated ipod away?
Try to think in the long term: where do you think these iPods will end up in 20 years? I highly doubt anyone will still be using an iPod they bought a quarter century ago.
I am afraid that, in that sense, iPods are very disposable.
Although the situation is becoming much more urgent with the rapic climate changes that are happening in the world faster than predicted, much of environmentalism is about thinking in the long term, and the environmental impact that company products and policy can have.
And in this regard, Apple indeed scores very low, which only goes to show that they are really no different than a typical corporation that cares far more about its immediate profit than the earth and its future generations.
Replaced batteries on two of them.
Never thrown any of them away.
Still use all of them. Why would anyone throw an out dated ipod away?
Try to think in the long term: where do you think these iPods will end up in 20 years? I highly doubt anyone will still be using an iPod they bought a quarter century ago.
I am afraid that, in that sense, iPods are very disposable.
Although the situation is becoming much more urgent with the rapic climate changes that are happening in the world faster than predicted, much of environmentalism is about thinking in the long term, and the environmental impact that company products and policy can have.
And in this regard, Apple indeed scores very low, which only goes to show that they are really no different than a typical corporation that cares far more about its immediate profit than the earth and its future generations.
SimD
Apr 12, 10:45 PM
This is not really true. You need to know the software to make it do what you want to do. You don't need to be an expert certified user, but you need to know your way around.
Of course you do. I agree completely. Obviously the poster is exaggerating. I assume he means that the editors he speaks of aren't techno geeks like a lot of us here on MacRumors.
I seem to have misspoken. I meant they don't need to know the acute technical details of their software.
Of course you do. I agree completely. Obviously the poster is exaggerating. I assume he means that the editors he speaks of aren't techno geeks like a lot of us here on MacRumors.
I seem to have misspoken. I meant they don't need to know the acute technical details of their software.
AP_piano295
Apr 23, 12:35 AM
I don't think atheism is a belief system, but it requires belief. Not believing in a god requires believing there isn't a god. You could say I'm just twisting words there.
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
Here's a hypothetical question:
Do you believe in witches? (I assume the answer is no)
Now we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in witches. You probably wouldn't claim that not believing in witches requires belief.
Now the fact that you don't believe in those things doesn't necessarily preclude their existence. You just don't believe in them, because I imagine nothing in your life experiences or in the evidence you have been presented suggests that true witches exist. Would you say that this viewpoint requires belief?
Do you think it's possible that you give religion and god undue weight and consideration because so many others believe in him/her/it and you have a hard time believing that so many people could be so totally wrong?
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
Here's a hypothetical question:
Do you believe in witches? (I assume the answer is no)
Now we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in witches. You probably wouldn't claim that not believing in witches requires belief.
Now the fact that you don't believe in those things doesn't necessarily preclude their existence. You just don't believe in them, because I imagine nothing in your life experiences or in the evidence you have been presented suggests that true witches exist. Would you say that this viewpoint requires belief?
Do you think it's possible that you give religion and god undue weight and consideration because so many others believe in him/her/it and you have a hard time believing that so many people could be so totally wrong?
rovex
Mar 12, 07:58 AM
Ugh, just as soon as I had posted...
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Not entirely sure with "the west hasn't been able to embrace nuclear power." France are the global leaders in nuclear power in terms of how many nuclear plants there are in France, and how much electricity is being generated in the country through nuclear energy. powering something like 80% of the country's electricity. And The French EDF corporation has operations worldwide.
More importantly, there have never been any severe deathly occurrences with nuclear power plants in france since a long time, and with the large number of plants they have (59), that's impressive.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Not entirely sure with "the west hasn't been able to embrace nuclear power." France are the global leaders in nuclear power in terms of how many nuclear plants there are in France, and how much electricity is being generated in the country through nuclear energy. powering something like 80% of the country's electricity. And The French EDF corporation has operations worldwide.
More importantly, there have never been any severe deathly occurrences with nuclear power plants in france since a long time, and with the large number of plants they have (59), that's impressive.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
archipellago
May 2, 04:34 PM
All successful malware includes privilege escalation via exploitation. This does not. That is why malware never has become successful in OS X and is becoming less successful in Windows. The big issue with Windows in the past was the default account in Windows XP (admin) runs with elevated privileges by default so privilege escalation was not required for system level access.
Man in the browser is now the biggest issue for all OS's, malware wise.
All the info. happens via the browser, there is no point attacking anything else.
Man in the browser is now the biggest issue for all OS's, malware wise.
All the info. happens via the browser, there is no point attacking anything else.
leomac08
Mar 11, 07:25 PM
I pray that this will not turn into another Chernobyl situation.
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
EricNau
Sep 21, 05:00 PM
Hey, I watch the Food Network! Iron Chef rocks and Rachael Ray is a kitchen fox! Are those on the iTS?
-Clive
No. :(
-Clive
No. :(
tigress666
Apr 10, 12:25 PM
Trying to use a finger controlled touch screen as the new answer to everything, and young people thinking this is right, in a way reminds me of being at work.
No one is saying it is best for everything.
What I am saying is that while it may not be as good as actual buttons, it is still fun even with the virtual joysticks. And honestly, when we're talking handheld games, you already are compromising ease of control for that portability. I've never had a handheld game system that was as ergonomic as a dedicated controller on a console system.
You make compromises for that portability (smaller screen, not as powerful hardware, form of the controller is dictated by the fact it has to accommodate a screen). Of the things I listed right there, the hardware is the one most likely that they can maybe stop compromising on but the other stuff is going to get sacrificed for having a small, all in one, handheld system.
Look, I know what you are saying. I completely agree (I use the same argument why a touchscreen keyboard will not replace an actual physical keyboard. Just cause it is newer tech does not make it better).
But what some of us are saying is that for the advantages (Some of which really have nothing to do with the touchscreen really, like the cheap prices of games on the iphone), the compromise is worth it. I have played games that I will fully agree buttons would be better. But for the fact that I have these games on my iphone that is with me everywhere and is more portable than any of the handhelds I've seen and are cheaper plus I don't have to take a whole bunch of cartridges to have all my games with me, the compromise is worth it. And the virtual joystick and buttons don't ruin my enjoyment of the game (but I agree buttons would make it better).
No one is saying it is best for everything.
What I am saying is that while it may not be as good as actual buttons, it is still fun even with the virtual joysticks. And honestly, when we're talking handheld games, you already are compromising ease of control for that portability. I've never had a handheld game system that was as ergonomic as a dedicated controller on a console system.
You make compromises for that portability (smaller screen, not as powerful hardware, form of the controller is dictated by the fact it has to accommodate a screen). Of the things I listed right there, the hardware is the one most likely that they can maybe stop compromising on but the other stuff is going to get sacrificed for having a small, all in one, handheld system.
Look, I know what you are saying. I completely agree (I use the same argument why a touchscreen keyboard will not replace an actual physical keyboard. Just cause it is newer tech does not make it better).
But what some of us are saying is that for the advantages (Some of which really have nothing to do with the touchscreen really, like the cheap prices of games on the iphone), the compromise is worth it. I have played games that I will fully agree buttons would be better. But for the fact that I have these games on my iphone that is with me everywhere and is more portable than any of the handhelds I've seen and are cheaper plus I don't have to take a whole bunch of cartridges to have all my games with me, the compromise is worth it. And the virtual joystick and buttons don't ruin my enjoyment of the game (but I agree buttons would make it better).
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 11:27 AM
And the Catholic church had Galileo jailed for his work on heliocentrism (just one of a countless litany of anti-scientific acts).
Islam doesn't have the monopoly on ridiculous religiously influenced anti-scientific murder and vandalism.
Trust me, Islam far outshines Christianity and Judaism in the anti-scientific murder and vandalism. The difference is, as I said somewhere else, in Christianity it was the clergy who ordered it without recourse to the Bible, whereas in Islam it's in the texts to severely punish blasphemy and heretics.
As I also said elsewhere this is why there can never be an Islamic enlightenment or reformation. All inventions attributed to Islam predate Islam or were appropriated by Islam from conquered civilisations.
The West was able to have a reformation because what the clergy demanded was not, strictly speaking, in the Bible.
Among other theoriess:
What part of
While this may be apocryphal the fact is that Saladin... used this example as justification to order the burning of many ancient libraries when he reconquered Egypt.
did you not compute?
Islam doesn't have the monopoly on ridiculous religiously influenced anti-scientific murder and vandalism.
Trust me, Islam far outshines Christianity and Judaism in the anti-scientific murder and vandalism. The difference is, as I said somewhere else, in Christianity it was the clergy who ordered it without recourse to the Bible, whereas in Islam it's in the texts to severely punish blasphemy and heretics.
As I also said elsewhere this is why there can never be an Islamic enlightenment or reformation. All inventions attributed to Islam predate Islam or were appropriated by Islam from conquered civilisations.
The West was able to have a reformation because what the clergy demanded was not, strictly speaking, in the Bible.
Among other theoriess:
What part of
While this may be apocryphal the fact is that Saladin... used this example as justification to order the burning of many ancient libraries when he reconquered Egypt.
did you not compute?
stoid
Mar 18, 10:04 AM
I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:32 PM
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
Tobsterius
Apr 13, 07:55 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Not every video professional has the desire or the ability to take off of work and attend NAB. Their opinions and concerns on new products demo'd that they use every day or might purchase for their business at the show are just as valid as people who decided to attend.
NAB isn't a pilgrimage. You aren't required to drop everything and attend.
Not every video professional has the desire or the ability to take off of work and attend NAB. Their opinions and concerns on new products demo'd that they use every day or might purchase for their business at the show are just as valid as people who decided to attend.
NAB isn't a pilgrimage. You aren't required to drop everything and attend.
thejoshu
Mar 21, 01:41 AM
Bullpucky. The RIAA, and recording artists, and Apple, and any other corporate entity, owe you exactly nothing. If you don't like what they're offering, don't buy it -- it's that simple. If enough people don't buy it, then the companies will change -- that's capitalism in action.
Bullpucky -- I'm going to steal that one for future use, if that's OK - I presume it's CC licensed? I agree with your points about the way capitalism functions; of course, a good uproar always works better than sitting quietly.
And I want a pony, but neither is going to happen. In the case of music, the person(s) who actually writes and performs the music owns it (unless they sell those rights to someone else, as is often the case). What you get when you buy a CD, or download a song, or for that matter buy a paperback or a poster, is a license for certain legally defined rights. In some cases (like a Creative Commons license) you may have substantial freedom to do what you like with the material, but in most cases, your rights are constrained. That's the way it's always been, and this is nothing new -- copyright has been around for a long time. There isn't anything really special about the digital era with regards to the principle of copyright -- the Internet just makes it easier to violate.
Funny, I don't remember signing a EULA when I bought my last Allman Brothers CD. But I respect what you're saying: "Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws," you'll find everywhere. I care not for piracy, I care more about Apple not being my only service provider when it comes to listening to purchased tracks. But they provide a good service, and I'll continue to use it.
If only people could work up a tenth of this kind of moral indignation over things that really matter, like poverty or racism. I despair that the only thing that seems to get geeks politically active is the threat that they won't be able to use their music illegally. It's sad, really.
You don't know me. Shame on you for treating everyone with an opinion as a troll. I can spread my critiques and indignation far and wide, that I assure you. Please apologize.
Bullpucky -- I'm going to steal that one for future use, if that's OK - I presume it's CC licensed? I agree with your points about the way capitalism functions; of course, a good uproar always works better than sitting quietly.
And I want a pony, but neither is going to happen. In the case of music, the person(s) who actually writes and performs the music owns it (unless they sell those rights to someone else, as is often the case). What you get when you buy a CD, or download a song, or for that matter buy a paperback or a poster, is a license for certain legally defined rights. In some cases (like a Creative Commons license) you may have substantial freedom to do what you like with the material, but in most cases, your rights are constrained. That's the way it's always been, and this is nothing new -- copyright has been around for a long time. There isn't anything really special about the digital era with regards to the principle of copyright -- the Internet just makes it easier to violate.
Funny, I don't remember signing a EULA when I bought my last Allman Brothers CD. But I respect what you're saying: "Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws," you'll find everywhere. I care not for piracy, I care more about Apple not being my only service provider when it comes to listening to purchased tracks. But they provide a good service, and I'll continue to use it.
If only people could work up a tenth of this kind of moral indignation over things that really matter, like poverty or racism. I despair that the only thing that seems to get geeks politically active is the threat that they won't be able to use their music illegally. It's sad, really.
You don't know me. Shame on you for treating everyone with an opinion as a troll. I can spread my critiques and indignation far and wide, that I assure you. Please apologize.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 14, 07:35 PM
And as long as humans are in charge of designing, building, and maintaining them, there will be errors.
Backtothemac
Oct 9, 02:50 PM
Dude, I am a microsoft certified professional and spend all day dealing with PC problems. I have worked on the slowest ones and the fastest ones. The dual power macs fly! On top of that they do not run winblows. PC's suck because of the OS period. My mind will never be changed on that because I have almost 2 decades of dealing with Microsoft's crap!
Photics
Apr 9, 11:39 AM
Heh, we were having a great discussion, but it seems that the thread exploded. :)
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
Good, someone understands my point :)
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
Good, someone understands my point :)
DeepDish
Aug 29, 11:16 AM
Hmm. Gut feeling's all very well, but Apple obviously do a great job of marketing themselves as a friendly green company and we may go round believing that without evidence, and it looks as if the figures don't back them up.
danielwsmithee is right.
Dell boxes have a shorter life span and need to be replaced more often. Dell sells a lot more CRTs than Apple does.
At work, we never throw out a mac. But the pc boxes get replaced often.
This report is about getting "big press"
danielwsmithee is right.
Dell boxes have a shorter life span and need to be replaced more often. Dell sells a lot more CRTs than Apple does.
At work, we never throw out a mac. But the pc boxes get replaced often.
This report is about getting "big press"
G58
Jun 21, 11:50 PM
You obviously have no formal education when it comes to the world of finance, so I'm not sure why you're even making comments about such things.
The simple fact that Apple has to make $23 billion more in revenue compared to Google, just so they can have $2.7 billion more in gross profit is nothing to brag about.
Go do more homework.
That's a really dumb statement. Google don't make anything, and they don't know how to sell things. They shut down the Nexus one web site! It's easy to sell space you own and make more profit.
And you don't 'make' revenue. I can't be bothered to check your dumb figures.
The simple fact that Apple has to make $23 billion more in revenue compared to Google, just so they can have $2.7 billion more in gross profit is nothing to brag about.
Go do more homework.
That's a really dumb statement. Google don't make anything, and they don't know how to sell things. They shut down the Nexus one web site! It's easy to sell space you own and make more profit.
And you don't 'make' revenue. I can't be bothered to check your dumb figures.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 19, 06:06 PM
He just wants to play his music on Linux, is there something wrong with that?Yes.
I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
totoum
Apr 13, 02:32 AM
Oh but it will sync the sound for you
Right,because wasting time syncing audio manually when you could be doing actual editing is what makes someone a pro.
Right,because wasting time syncing audio manually when you could be doing actual editing is what makes someone a pro.
macmax
Oct 9, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by javajedi
Come on.. lets get real..
1) Macs don't use shared libraries? You must be using System 6. For the folks who aren't familiar with the concept of the shared library (what Microsoft calls a dynamic link library) simply put shared libs are object orientated pieces of code containing functions/methods and other objects that can be invoked upon from other code. Mac OS X being highly object orientated relies almost exclusively on shared libraries. In the modern world of software engineering we rarely find it necessary to statically build an executable. If you look back at OS 7/8/9, while not as much as 10, developers could take advantage of off the shelf code. (eg, sprockets, mp lib, etc). Also you are not accurate in saying OS X is a 25 year old archiecture.
1.5) Microsoft OS's that use versions of the Windows 2000 kernel (2000 itself and XP) just like Mach, have a hardware abstraction layer. The "DLL Hell" days (Windows ME and below) are over. This is no longer an issue with the new kernel. The fact of the matter is that my P4 2.8 machine running XP is equally as stable as my PowerBook G4 800 running Mac OS X. I have not *ONCE* had either one core dump or "blue screen". Sure programs screw up, and when they do, they die, not the OS. Both OS's are very mature.
2.) I have *literally* put my PC up against my PowerBook, and the PowerBook fails miserably. I've wrote a simple stopwatch Java application that iterate through floating point instructions, and if I my PC finished 2.5 times faster than the PowerBook. If you want more details (hell I'll even give you the code) of my app, I'll be glad to share it with the community. Playing/decoding MP3's faster on the Mac? No way in hell. Winamp uses 0-1% CPU, iTunes consumes 8-12%.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this. The x86 processor began in the late 70's when Intel first offered the 8086 as a CISC successor to it's 4004 line of processors. Many, many things have changed over the course of 20 years. Had they sit still (like the G4/motorola chip) intel wouldn't be selling products today, now would they? The G4 is not much more than an improved G3 series processor with vector processing instructions. Be honest (especially be honest to yourself!) if you look back and compare the G3/G4, you do see improvements, but not drastic improvements. More clock, the maxbus protocol (debatable), and more cache. One of the reasons why you see Apple adding cache like mad to it's recent products is because they are in between a rock and hard place with this Motorola chip. This is exactly the same approach AMD took with their failing processor, the K5/K6. I want you to contrast this to a P4 with an i850e chipset: Insanely high clock speeds, a 533mhz bus, fast memory with RIMMs @ 4.2GB/s, with a next stop of 9.6GB/s -- to MaxBus. You will soon see why the current generation of PowerPC processors is "inferior", dare I say it.
For the most part I think its fare to say that the current Macintosh hardware performance is �status-quo�. The current best of breed of Macintoshes are slower than the current best of bread PCs. Mac�s are slower - just accept it. I don�t like it any more than you do.
my pc with xp pro ed did crash a few times and it does.
on the other hand , my macs with os x do not
Come on.. lets get real..
1) Macs don't use shared libraries? You must be using System 6. For the folks who aren't familiar with the concept of the shared library (what Microsoft calls a dynamic link library) simply put shared libs are object orientated pieces of code containing functions/methods and other objects that can be invoked upon from other code. Mac OS X being highly object orientated relies almost exclusively on shared libraries. In the modern world of software engineering we rarely find it necessary to statically build an executable. If you look back at OS 7/8/9, while not as much as 10, developers could take advantage of off the shelf code. (eg, sprockets, mp lib, etc). Also you are not accurate in saying OS X is a 25 year old archiecture.
1.5) Microsoft OS's that use versions of the Windows 2000 kernel (2000 itself and XP) just like Mach, have a hardware abstraction layer. The "DLL Hell" days (Windows ME and below) are over. This is no longer an issue with the new kernel. The fact of the matter is that my P4 2.8 machine running XP is equally as stable as my PowerBook G4 800 running Mac OS X. I have not *ONCE* had either one core dump or "blue screen". Sure programs screw up, and when they do, they die, not the OS. Both OS's are very mature.
2.) I have *literally* put my PC up against my PowerBook, and the PowerBook fails miserably. I've wrote a simple stopwatch Java application that iterate through floating point instructions, and if I my PC finished 2.5 times faster than the PowerBook. If you want more details (hell I'll even give you the code) of my app, I'll be glad to share it with the community. Playing/decoding MP3's faster on the Mac? No way in hell. Winamp uses 0-1% CPU, iTunes consumes 8-12%.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this. The x86 processor began in the late 70's when Intel first offered the 8086 as a CISC successor to it's 4004 line of processors. Many, many things have changed over the course of 20 years. Had they sit still (like the G4/motorola chip) intel wouldn't be selling products today, now would they? The G4 is not much more than an improved G3 series processor with vector processing instructions. Be honest (especially be honest to yourself!) if you look back and compare the G3/G4, you do see improvements, but not drastic improvements. More clock, the maxbus protocol (debatable), and more cache. One of the reasons why you see Apple adding cache like mad to it's recent products is because they are in between a rock and hard place with this Motorola chip. This is exactly the same approach AMD took with their failing processor, the K5/K6. I want you to contrast this to a P4 with an i850e chipset: Insanely high clock speeds, a 533mhz bus, fast memory with RIMMs @ 4.2GB/s, with a next stop of 9.6GB/s -- to MaxBus. You will soon see why the current generation of PowerPC processors is "inferior", dare I say it.
For the most part I think its fare to say that the current Macintosh hardware performance is �status-quo�. The current best of breed of Macintoshes are slower than the current best of bread PCs. Mac�s are slower - just accept it. I don�t like it any more than you do.
my pc with xp pro ed did crash a few times and it does.
on the other hand , my macs with os x do not
LeeTom
Mar 18, 01:55 PM
OPTION 3 - they're sniffing tcp/ip traffic and depending on the traffic can identify if the originating IP has a private addressing scheme. As an ISP, I imagine that you have some leeway to sniff traffic to solve problems, but I'm not sure if this would count as legitimate.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 09:05 AM
Also bear in mind that Conroes are cheaper for apple to buy than Meroms, as well as offering faster clock speeds and more performance. So it wouldn't cost Apple much more, per machine, to put a 2.4Ghz conroe in rather than a 2.0Ghz merom.
Take a look at the iMac. Now, it's quite small, isn't it? Nice and thin, and silet as well. How are you planning to cool that 2.4GHz Conroe in a machine like that? And why should Apple go for a whole different CPU, when they already have a great replacement for their current CPU: Merom. Only thing they need to do is to replace the current CPU with the new one. Conroe would take a lot more work.
I don't buy your argument that Apple needs to spec iMac similarly to consumer desktop-Dells and the like. I mean, Apple hasn't done so so far (with the current Core Duo-version), why should they do so in the future?
What I still believe is that we will have a third desktop that gets placed between MacPro and iMac. And that minitower-machine WILL use Conroe.
Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop.
If that is true, then current iMac isn't competetive either. It's "overpriced" and "underperforming". Is that what you think?
If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.
Merom is the logical choice. It's a drop-in replacement, it runs cooler, it's about 20% faster, clock for clock... What I think will happen is that current 1.83 and 2Ghz Core Duo'w will be replaced by 2 and 2.13Ghz Meroms.
Take a look at the iMac. Now, it's quite small, isn't it? Nice and thin, and silet as well. How are you planning to cool that 2.4GHz Conroe in a machine like that? And why should Apple go for a whole different CPU, when they already have a great replacement for their current CPU: Merom. Only thing they need to do is to replace the current CPU with the new one. Conroe would take a lot more work.
I don't buy your argument that Apple needs to spec iMac similarly to consumer desktop-Dells and the like. I mean, Apple hasn't done so so far (with the current Core Duo-version), why should they do so in the future?
What I still believe is that we will have a third desktop that gets placed between MacPro and iMac. And that minitower-machine WILL use Conroe.
Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop.
If that is true, then current iMac isn't competetive either. It's "overpriced" and "underperforming". Is that what you think?
If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.
Merom is the logical choice. It's a drop-in replacement, it runs cooler, it's about 20% faster, clock for clock... What I think will happen is that current 1.83 and 2Ghz Core Duo'w will be replaced by 2 and 2.13Ghz Meroms.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 11:13 AM
Do you think the market can sustain four gaming companies?
Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft and Apple? What if Google gets into the mix too? (They fumbled with Google TV, but it could be adapted and done properly.)
I think Nintendo represents the "Casual" side of gaming, both with the DS line and the Wii. Nintendo dominated portables for many years. Since the launch of the original Gameboy, no one could really challenge Nintendo's dominance.
But now, there are two new ways to enjoy portable gaming... Android and iOS.
Just as Radio is still around after Television, it's possible that Nintendo can survive Apple's entry into gaming. Yet, will Nintendo be the dominate player? In what scenario do they stay #1? If iOS is real competition in portable gaming (DS line) and in home gaming (Wii) is threatened by Apple TV / iPad, I think that looks like there are some real challenges ahead for Nintendo.
The 3DS is a surprise to me, as it's fairly expensive for a Nintendo portable. Why spend $250 on a 3DS when an iPod Touch starts at $229? Sure... it depends on your preferences, but the iPod Touch / iPhone is a successful alternative. This isn't the same battle the Gameboy faced against the Sega's Nomad / Game Gear, the Turbo Express Portable or Atari Lynx. In addition to hardware, the software can be cheaper on iOS / Android too.
Game ratings on iOS start at 4 and up.
Games for the 3DS start at 7 and up. It's harder to market a product when there are warnings about vision.
http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/3ds/en_na/health_safety.jsp
What happens this Christmas if Apple decides to launch an Apple TV that plays games... for $99? In these tough economic times, I think that's a serious threat to Nintendo.
So, Nintendo's portable line is under attack... both from Sony/Android and now Apple. Nintendo's console market is also under attack, as the Wii appears to be losing steam. If Apple enters the market with a $100 system, that's serious competition.
Here's a story... I was asked to make a recommendation for a gift. This was a nice gift, something around $250. At first I looked at the Nintendo 3DS. I thought it would be a cool gift because it was new. Yet, there was a regional lockout issue and I'm not sure it's something that's really good for a kid. At least with an iPod Touch, there's more to do with it than just games. Sure... the Nintendo 3DS does more than just games, but I think that the iPod Touch is a much better overall device... FaceTime, web browsing, iOS development, books, utilities, entertainment. It says, "Hey, I want you to have fun... but I also want you to learn something and be productive."
I recommended the iPod Touch. But surprisingly, this was not the gift that was purchased. Instead, an Android tablet was purchased as the gift. Heh... Android... that would not have been my choice.
Yet, that's the changing market. With iOS and Android, there's a lot more competition in portable devices... and I think that will eventually spill into the livingroom with game consoles. It's new technology that threatens Nintendo.
I think the strength of Nintendo is their software line... Mario, Zelda and popular games like that. If Nintendo struggles with hardware, they could eventually become software exclusive. That doomsday scenario has been uttered for many years � as Sony's entry into the market caused a lot of trouble for Nintendo. The company managed to turn things around with the DS and the Wii. Can Nintendo do it again when Apple is offering cheaper hardware, cheaper software?
One could argue about iOS games being mostly casual... and that the lack of a controller causes problems... but Apple can fix that problem if they so choose. With Game Center, and news like the one that started this thread, it shows that Apple is getting serious about gaming.
That's obviously big trouble for Nintendo.
I do think the market can sustain 4 companies, perhaps even especially the casual market which is significantly larger. I would challenge you to answer why you think the smaller top-end console market can sustain 2 large players, but the broader casual market could not?
Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft and Apple? What if Google gets into the mix too? (They fumbled with Google TV, but it could be adapted and done properly.)
I think Nintendo represents the "Casual" side of gaming, both with the DS line and the Wii. Nintendo dominated portables for many years. Since the launch of the original Gameboy, no one could really challenge Nintendo's dominance.
But now, there are two new ways to enjoy portable gaming... Android and iOS.
Just as Radio is still around after Television, it's possible that Nintendo can survive Apple's entry into gaming. Yet, will Nintendo be the dominate player? In what scenario do they stay #1? If iOS is real competition in portable gaming (DS line) and in home gaming (Wii) is threatened by Apple TV / iPad, I think that looks like there are some real challenges ahead for Nintendo.
The 3DS is a surprise to me, as it's fairly expensive for a Nintendo portable. Why spend $250 on a 3DS when an iPod Touch starts at $229? Sure... it depends on your preferences, but the iPod Touch / iPhone is a successful alternative. This isn't the same battle the Gameboy faced against the Sega's Nomad / Game Gear, the Turbo Express Portable or Atari Lynx. In addition to hardware, the software can be cheaper on iOS / Android too.
Game ratings on iOS start at 4 and up.
Games for the 3DS start at 7 and up. It's harder to market a product when there are warnings about vision.
http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/3ds/en_na/health_safety.jsp
What happens this Christmas if Apple decides to launch an Apple TV that plays games... for $99? In these tough economic times, I think that's a serious threat to Nintendo.
So, Nintendo's portable line is under attack... both from Sony/Android and now Apple. Nintendo's console market is also under attack, as the Wii appears to be losing steam. If Apple enters the market with a $100 system, that's serious competition.
Here's a story... I was asked to make a recommendation for a gift. This was a nice gift, something around $250. At first I looked at the Nintendo 3DS. I thought it would be a cool gift because it was new. Yet, there was a regional lockout issue and I'm not sure it's something that's really good for a kid. At least with an iPod Touch, there's more to do with it than just games. Sure... the Nintendo 3DS does more than just games, but I think that the iPod Touch is a much better overall device... FaceTime, web browsing, iOS development, books, utilities, entertainment. It says, "Hey, I want you to have fun... but I also want you to learn something and be productive."
I recommended the iPod Touch. But surprisingly, this was not the gift that was purchased. Instead, an Android tablet was purchased as the gift. Heh... Android... that would not have been my choice.
Yet, that's the changing market. With iOS and Android, there's a lot more competition in portable devices... and I think that will eventually spill into the livingroom with game consoles. It's new technology that threatens Nintendo.
I think the strength of Nintendo is their software line... Mario, Zelda and popular games like that. If Nintendo struggles with hardware, they could eventually become software exclusive. That doomsday scenario has been uttered for many years � as Sony's entry into the market caused a lot of trouble for Nintendo. The company managed to turn things around with the DS and the Wii. Can Nintendo do it again when Apple is offering cheaper hardware, cheaper software?
One could argue about iOS games being mostly casual... and that the lack of a controller causes problems... but Apple can fix that problem if they so choose. With Game Center, and news like the one that started this thread, it shows that Apple is getting serious about gaming.
That's obviously big trouble for Nintendo.
I do think the market can sustain 4 companies, perhaps even especially the casual market which is significantly larger. I would challenge you to answer why you think the smaller top-end console market can sustain 2 large players, but the broader casual market could not?
No comments:
Post a Comment