Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #39158 > unrolled thread

[OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-30 01:16 -0700
    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-01-30 07:40 -0500
      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-30 07:19 -0800
    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> - 2013-01-30 13:54 +0000
    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-30 09:32 -0600
      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-30 10:53 -0700
        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-30 14:59 -0500
          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-30 13:14 -0700
            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-30 15:48 -0500
              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-01-30 17:47 -0500
                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-30 18:04 -0500
                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-30 16:49 -0800
                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-01-30 22:03 -0500
                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-30 16:12 -0700
                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-30 18:27 -0500
                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-30 16:38 -0700
                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-01-30 18:28 -0500
                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-01-30 22:05 -0500
                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-01-31 10:39 -0500
                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2013.subsume.com> - 2013-01-31 15:00 -0600
                          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-31 13:33 -0800
                          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-01-31 18:13 -0500
                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-31 18:35 -0700
                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-31 21:00 -0500
                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-31 19:10 -0700
                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-31 22:07 -0500
                                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-31 20:49 -0700
                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-02-01 00:01 -0500
                                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-02-01 00:10 -0500
                                          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-01 06:06 +0000
                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-02-01 01:28 -0500
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-01 16:44 +0000
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-02-01 08:45 -0800
                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-02-01 08:43 -0800
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-01 17:38 +0000
                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-02-01 23:18 -0500
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> - 2013-02-03 11:49 -0500
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-03 23:20 +0000
                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-01-31 20:57 -0800
                                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-02-03 00:36 +1300
                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-01 06:01 +0000
                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-01-31 21:47 -0500
                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-31 20:57 -0700
                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-01 11:00 -0500
                                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-01 16:50 +0000
                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-01 18:55 +0000
                                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-01 22:05 -0500
                                          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-02 00:15 -0700
                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-02 18:29 +0000
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-02 19:42 -0700
                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-02 15:49 -0500
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-02 19:38 -0700
                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-01 23:04 -0500
                                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-02 00:13 -0700
                                          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-02 11:25 -0500
                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-02 11:19 -0700
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-02 17:07 -0500
                                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-02 19:36 -0700
                                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-02-03 22:34 +1300
                                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-03 23:16 +0000
                                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-04 21:48 -0500
                                                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-04 23:38 -0700
                                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-02-05 22:33 +1300
                                                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-02-05 05:35 -0500
                                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-02-02 07:20 -0800
                                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-01 12:03 -0700
                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-02-01 12:04 -0800
                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-01 21:29 -0500
                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-02-01 23:28 -0500
                                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-02 00:04 -0700
                                          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-02 18:29 +0000
                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-02-03 10:00 +1300
                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-02 19:41 -0700
                                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2013.subsume.com> - 2013-02-02 11:01 -0600
                                          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-02 18:29 +0000
                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2013.subsume.com> - 2013-02-03 10:23 -0600
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-03 22:17 +0000
                                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2013.subsume.com> - 2013-02-04 10:29 -0600
                                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-04 22:55 +0000
                                                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-04 23:32 +0000
                                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-06 01:34 +0000
                                                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-06 06:10 +0000
                                                          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-06 20:12 +0000
                                                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-07 05:15 +0000
                                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-07 19:25 +0000
                                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-07 19:23 +0000
                                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-08 23:35 +0000
                                              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-03 23:24 +0000
                                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-04 14:25 +0000
                                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple bj <address_is@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-04 13:58 -0600
                                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-04 23:33 +0000
                                          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> - 2013-02-05 04:54 -0500
                                        Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-03 23:21 +0000
                                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-02-02 18:17 -0500
                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-03 11:29 -0500
                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-02-01 23:22 -0500
                                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-02-02 18:29 +0000
                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-01-31 23:45 -0500
                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-02-01 11:44 -0500
                                    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-02-01 12:57 -0500
                                      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-02-01 14:01 -0500
                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-02-03 17:30 +0100
                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2013.subsume.com> - 2013-02-01 11:23 -0600
                                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-02-03 15:37 -0500
                                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-02-03 13:52 -0700
                            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-02-01 05:59 +0000
              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-30 16:00 -0700
                Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-30 18:10 -0500
                  Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-30 16:32 -0800
              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-31 10:18 -0600
          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-30 14:43 -0800
          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-30 18:40 -0500
            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-30 18:44 -0500
              Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-30 16:02 -0800
            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-31 10:23 -0600
          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> - 2013-01-31 14:24 +0000
            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-02-03 15:58 -0500
          Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-31 10:16 -0600
            Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-31 18:41 -0500
    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-30 19:19 -0500
    Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-01-30 22:00 -0500
      Re: [OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-30 22:41 -0500

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  Next page →

#39267

On 13-02-01 12:57, Davoud wrote:

> Yes, it's true that some pro-level editing is done on laptops.


I don't think Avatar was edited on a laptop. It is quite possible that
Cameron used a laptop to try different cuts and demo them while on the
road, but final editing would have been done on a real fully decked out
workstation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39335

In article <310120132345504862%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> AV3:
> 
> > And I understand 
> > that new Macs will no longer have internal CD/DVD drives. Isn't that 
> > more iPad-like?
> 
> It may be coincidentally more iPad-like, but to be iPad-like is not the
> reason Macs no longer have optical drives. The reason is that optical
> media have been made obsolete by broadband Internet, cheap mass storage
> at the local level, and the "cloud." To those who disagree I say "The
> optical drive is disappearing from Macs. Q.E.D."

Virtual machines have had an impact for me personally, and to a lesser 
extent USB sticks.  Whereas at one time I would have burned operating 
system installation disks to CD or DVD, I just leave the image on disk 
and point the virtual machine software at it.

I still come across bits of software that say "download and burn the 
image to CD or DVD", depending on size, and I simply ignore that.  I 
either use a virtual machine to read the image or Disk Utility on OS X 
to grab the contents without the delay associated with burning.  This
also eliminates the "Will it? Won't it?" scenario involved when
burning discs and hoping they don't turn out to be coasters.

I haven't bought any blank DVDs in over a year and have a pile of blank 
CDs that I bought a couple of months ago for a job which got cancelled, 
still unused.

Oh, another leap forward this week.  I bought a hand held scanner which
uses a micro SANdisk to store data.  16GB for less than 20 USD, and
it's incredibly small.

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39260

In article <kefabq$chq$1@news.albasani.net>,
 AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I notice that the MacBook Air has lots fewer 
> functions than my MacBook Pro, but it seems to have found a place in the 
> market. Isn't it an evolutionary step towards an iPad?

No, it's the sign of a changing market and/or your own changing needs.  
For some of us, *no* laptop meets our needs.  Because of that, I find 
I'm particularly suited for iOS devices, because they don't even try to 
pretend they can do everything a desktop machine can.

> And I understand 
> that new Macs will no longer have internal CD/DVD drives. Isn't that 
> more iPad-like?

Nope.  I blogged about the eventual demise of optical media long before 
there was an iPad:

http://www.impossiblystupid.com/node/25

> And of course I long thought I would never see "Intel 
> Inside".

Anyone who worked with NeXT technology knew that getting a binary for 
another platform was no more effort than checking a box.  When Apple 
bought NeXT, the OS was *already* running on Intel.  Understand the 
history of the technology you use and you won't waste your time with 
dead-end thinking.

You can bet that somewhere inside Apple there is an iPad running Mac OS 
X.  Does that mean we'll see (non-touch) ARM-based Macs in the future?  
Maybe, but even if we did that still wouldn't make the Mac more 
iPad-like.  It's just a technology choice made possible/necessary by 
constant marching progress.

You'd get more traction if you only complained about things that 
actually *were* taken from iOS wholesale without any consideration given 
to fitting in with the Mac OS X look and feel.  I'm talking about things 
like Launchpad.  Or much of the one-window, full-screen nonsense.

> This is my 
> guess about the next surprise. And it is my answer to the question of 
> how importantly their market share indicates that the lagging computer 
> and OS X operations at Apple will inevitably be radically reviewed.

Again, until the gap is filled that makes desktops necessary, you simply 
can't compare them to the mobile market.  Sales in mobile may indeed 
cannibalize sales in desktop, but that just changes the economies of 
scale, not the *need* for both systems to do different things.

The "next surprise" is *not* merging the two; that is Microsoft's 
*current* "surprise", and it is not at all surprising, nor is it a 
particularly good idea.  I say the next surprise is getting 3D right, 
and I've been saying it for years:

http://www.impossiblystupid.com/node/68

-- 
iPhone apps that matter:    http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, theremailer.net,
    and probably your server, too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39345

On 2013.01.31 21:47 , AV3 wrote:

>
> I am expressing opinion with no technical expertise to back it up. But
> from casual observation, I notice that the MacBook Air has lots fewer
> functions than my MacBook Pro, but it seems to have found a place in the
> market. Isn't it an evolutionary step towards an iPad? And I understand
> that new Macs will no longer have internal CD/DVD drives. Isn't that
> more iPad-like? And of course I long thought I would never see "Intel
> Inside".

The MBAir satisfies a need by road warriors who don't need lots of i/o. 
  Just a portable that can do office type apps (word, excel, powerpoint 
and so on; web, mail).  People still need keyboards to work into the 
night in the hotel room or on a flight.

A road warrior equipped with an MBAir is still wise to carry a few 
adaptors with him to ensure he can use customer projectors, connect to 
hotel networks (not always WiFi even today) and possibly a DVD reader. 
These tuck away well in a well organized briefcase.  A 12V charger is a 
good (but bulky) thing to have along as well.

CD/DVD's (Mac) are disappearing - not used as much by most people.  DL's 
over the web of a few GB are near trivial now for many people.
(I DL 1 GB files in 5 minutes at home).

The iPad meets many travel needs.  But if a lot of doc editing is part 
of your road trip, the iPad is not the best widget.

-- 
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
  were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
                                           -Sir John A. Macdonald

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39346

In article <T5CdnRZck5wWV5PMnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> A road warrior equipped with an MBAir is still wise to carry a few 
> adaptors with him to ensure he can use customer projectors, connect to 
> hotel networks (not always WiFi even today) and possibly a DVD reader. 

I carry an Airport Express just in case there's ethernet, but no WiFi in 
the room.  And I'll sometimes use the Airport Express even if there's both 
Ethernet and WiFi in the room because lots of hotels have flakey WiFi.

-- 
All usenet users are quirky, but some are more quirky than others.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39249

In message <keetrc$idt$1@news.albasani.net> 
  AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Jan/31/2013 4:0027 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
>> In article<_KKdnU9oCePTDZfMnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>>   AV3<arviso@earthlink.net>  wrote:
>>
>>> It is quite natural in these circumstances to suppose that OSX and
>>> computers will not attract or receive the attention of Apple's most
>>> talented workers, and I can foresee a day when OSX and computers may be
>>> regarded as an expendable vanity legacy.
>>
>> Then clearly you know nothing of the technology behind Apple's products.
>> Every competent iOS developer will tell you that Mac OS X is a key part
>> of the apps they write.

> I don't expect OS X to disappear but to merge with iOS eventually. I do 
> expect the resulting OS to be much more iOS-like than OSX-like.

I know a lot of people believe this, but I think these people are all
stupid (sorry). This is something Microsoft would do… hell, something
Microsoft *has* done. Apple, on the other hand, understands that the use
of a dekstop computer, or a laptop, is different that the use of a
tablet or other touch device. Are there good ideas from iOS that will
migrate and have migrated to OS X? Of course. But 10.7 and 10.8 both
show us that Apple is going to be restrained about what it does, and the
biggest UI changes are around the consumer products to make them more
iOS like (and therefor more familiar to the majority of users).

If a version of OS X comes out without a Terminal.app and without the
ability to install applications from sources not vetted by Apple, then
that will be the first OS I don't install, btu I do not think that will
happen.

What I do expect to see happen is a further hardening of OS X (making it
harder to install other apps and making it harder for those apps to fuck
you), and a simplification of the UI to the point where the default user
is more guided and more constrained and less vulnerable, and where more
experienced users have an environment more like a "Standard" User now.

In fact, I am surprised this has not happened. I really thought that
10.8 would have Apple creating a standard user and an Admin user, and
logging the default user in as Standard. Instead, they went with
expanding the capabilities of the Recovery Partition in 10.7 and making
real fundamental security improvements to the whole OS.

The fact is that right now, if you want, OS X is as secure as anything
out there. Enable a firmware password and File Vault and no one is
getting at your data for a few million years unless your password sucks.
You can't get around it with a eprom reset, a physical disk, or even a
hex dump of the drive itself.

Now, will a touch enabled iMac change this? Sure, to some extent it
could, if that seems like a viable product. I am not at all convinced
that it is.

I know one thing, If I want to type  a message this long, I never want
to do it on a touchscreen.

> I expect the desk top computer to go the way of the console radio, and 
> the laptop to merge with a future super-iPad, which will have the 
> capacity to edit the most complex files and connect with devices like 
> today's computers. Apple itself removed the word "computer" from its 
> corporate name, so I would suppose that it will be called a super-iPad, 
> not a computer.

desktop computers will go the way of the pickup truck. Not everyone
needs to own a pickup truck, but some people really really need one and
most everyone needs to borrow one at some point. Will most people be
running around with iPads (or whatever) in 5 years instead of laptops
and desktops? Absolutely. All? Absolutely not.

Right now, if I were willing to encode all my years of recorded video
into iTunes compatible format, my entire household could get by with my
computer, our 2 AppleTVs, and our iPads. But my computer is critical
because it is the one with many TB of storage and all the TV and movies
ripped/recorded to it.

I am *not* willing to convert everything, so I need a Mac mini to talk
to the TV, and I like using the old MBP so I don't have to sit at the
computer all the time, and there are times my wife wants a computer and
so there is a second mini for her so her schedule doesn't impact mine.
But in terms of actual needs, one computer, 2 AppleTVs, and our iPads
would cover 99%.

-- 
So now you know the words to our song, pretty soon you'll all be singing
along, when you're sad, when you're lonely and it all turns out wrong...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39189

In article <51098720$0$52383$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > That's assuming that Apple doesn't reinvent itself as it did with the iMac, 
> > iPod, iPhone, and iPad.
> 
> Apple essentially renamed itself from Apple Computers to Apple Phones.

Apple officially renamed itself from Apple Computer, Inc. to Apple, Inc.  
Not that it matters.

> So, what you are saying is that you are hoping that Apple can let go of
> the iPhone and move to the iToaster

Nope, I'm not saying that at all.  Apple is still making and improving its 
Macintosh line; in fact, Apple has been outpacing the market for years in 
computer sales.

> So in a way, this makes sense. reap the benefits of pionneering a new
> market for a few years as Apple did with iPod and then iPhone and then ,
> while continuing those products, no longer rely on them and focus on
> something totally new.

Apple is still relying on Macintosh computers.  There's no valid reason to 
believe that it isn't.

> The problem right now is that the "totally new" appears to be the
> Television.

No one outside of Apple, and probably very few within Apple knows what that 
totally new product will be.

> And that is a tought market to crack open and re-invent,

That's what they said about the iPod, iPhone, and iPad.

> you need to continue to make the iPhone your big success because it 
> remains your primary product line by which you are measured.

Gee; that's exactly what Apple is doing.  Amazing.

-- 
All usenet users are quirky, but some are more quirky than others.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39192

On 13-01-30 18:00, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> Apple officially renamed itself from Apple Computer, Inc. to Apple, Inc.  
> Not that it matters.

What matters is what Apple is being measured by. And this has changed
from computers sales to ipods to iphones. The current yardstick is the
iPhone.

So when iPhone sales don't meet analysts's random bets, they punish
Apple. Doesn't metter what other divisions do. Doesn't matter than
iphone has record sales.

Eventually, Apple may have a new leaderhsip product by which it will be
measured. But as long as the iPhone is the product against which Apple
is measured, then its strategy on iPhone remains very important.

Because Apple is no longer measured on iPods, the progressive drop in
iPod sales doesn't affect the Wall Street Casino Analysts. Same with
computers. They only worry about the iPhone.

(the did the same with HP, looking only at their PC sales for quite some
time, despite other divisions generating significant business/profits).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39200

In article <5109a84e$0$28839$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 13-01-30 18:00, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
> > Apple officially renamed itself from Apple Computer, Inc. to Apple, Inc.  
> > Not that it matters.
> 
> What matters is what Apple is being measured by.

Apple is measured by Apple's customers which matters FAR more than the 
valuations of Wall Street speculators. So please, shut up already. 
You're like a fucking broken record. It's obvious all you care about is 
stock prices and market share. If Apple followed your principles, they'd 
have gone out of business long ago.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39220

On 1/30/13 2:48 PM, in article
51098720$0$52383$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com, "JF Mezei"
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 13-01-30 15:14, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
>> That's assuming that Apple doesn't reinvent itself as it did with the iMac,
>> iPod, iPhone, and iPad.
> 
> Apple essentially renamed itself from Apple Computers to Apple Phones.
> I say this because the iPhone is what the Wall Street Casino measures
> Apple on.
> 
> So, what you are saying is that you are hoping that Apple can let go of
> the iPhone and move to the iToaster so that Wall Street Casino will now
> measure Apple based on the sucess of the iToaster (or whatever they come
> up as a totally new Apple product)
> 

Could it be this?

<http://www.eatliver.com/i.php?n=10110>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39187

In article <51097b86$0$43826$c3e8da3$9deca2c3@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 13-01-30 12:53, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
> > Unfortunately, no.  It's an accurate summation of the contradictory 
> > criticisms being leveled at Cook.
> 
> 
> In the last days of Digital Equipment Corp, there was much debate on
> whether DEC should continue with its high price low volume or switch to
> lower price higher volume mantra.
> 
> DEC responded with its unwillingness to sacrifice profit margin and
> *risk* going to higher volume because it wasn't sure it was able to
> truly increase volumes sufficiently to balance out the loss of prfit margin.
> 
> DEC is dead.
> 
> prior to the iPod, Apple was a niche player. Not mass market. And Wall
> Street didn't care about Apple.
> 
> All of a sudden, with iPod and then with iPhone, Apple not only became
> mass market , but also dominated it. That got Wall Street's attention.
> 
> Now, Apple appears to be on a path where it must decide whether to
> remain a dominent player or cede the place to Samsung without a fight
> and downgrade itself back to niche player.
> 
> Apple seems to have made it clear that it will hapily cede its market
> dominence because it won't want to jeoperdize profit margin. And for
> now, Apple continues to grow even if it is losing market share and
> letting Samsung dominate.
> 
> This isn't such a simple cut and dry decision.

It's much more simple for Apple than you, apparently. But then you're 
not running a company, are you?

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39196

In article <51097b86$0$43826$c3e8da3$9deca2c3@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Apple seems to have made it clear that it will hapily cede its market
> dominence because it won't want to jeoperdize profit margin. And for
> now, Apple continues to grow even if it is losing market share and
> letting Samsung dominate.

What Apple has make clear to me is that they are interested in building 
high quality that their customers want. As long as they continue to do 
that, they will have me as a customer, regardless of the stock price.

-- 
PRAY, v.  To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf
of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -- Ambrose Bierce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39197

On 13-01-30 18:40, Tom Stiller wrote:

> What Apple has make clear to me is that they are interested in building 
> high quality that their customers want. As long as they continue to do 
> that, they will have me as a customer, regardless of the stock price.


The problem here is that a smart phone alone isn't enough anymore.  Even
if Apple gold plates its iPhone and adds fliching lights to attract
teenage girls (remember that fad ?), if it lacks the next "angry brids"
application that is a "must have", then people won't buy the iPhone.

When you have a downward momentum (or appearance thereof) on a platform,
developpers are not too interested in it. *IF*, 5 years down the road,
when the iPhone is about as popular as RIM, will developpers still be
interested ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39198

In article <5109b051$0$13584$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 13-01-30 18:40, Tom Stiller wrote:
> 
> > What Apple has make clear to me is that they are interested in building 
> > high quality that their customers want. As long as they continue to do 
> > that, they will have me as a customer, regardless of the stock price.
> 
> The problem here is that a smart phone alone isn't enough anymore.

As if Apple only makes smart phones, and as if Apple suddenly has 
decided not to create entire fucking ecosystems for no good reason. Sure.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39221

On 1/30/13 5:40 PM, in article
tom_stiller-37D349.18403130012013@news.individual.net, "Tom Stiller"
<tom_stiller@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <51097b86$0$43826$c3e8da3$9deca2c3@news.astraweb.com>,
>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> 
>> Apple seems to have made it clear that it will hapily cede its market
>> dominence because it won't want to jeoperdize profit margin. And for
>> now, Apple continues to grow even if it is losing market share and
>> letting Samsung dominate.
> 
> What Apple has make clear to me is that they are interested in building
> high quality that their customers want. As long as they continue to do
> that, they will have me as a customer, regardless of the stock price.

BMW vs. Chevy. Both get you from a to b, but only one does it in style.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39216

JF Mezei wrote:
> In the last days of Digital Equipment Corp, there was much debate on
> whether DEC should continue with its high price low volume or switch to
> lower price higher volume mantra.
>
> DEC responded with its unwillingness to sacrifice profit margin and
> *risk* going to higher volume because it wasn't sure it was able to
> truly increase volumes sufficiently to balance out the loss of prfit margin.
>
> DEC is dead.

What killed DEC is that their entire marketing system was based on MIPS
(millions of instructions per second). They competed with the big guns,
IBM and UNIVAC, by claiming that their processors had much higher MIPS
per dollar ratios. 

The problem with that is the IBM and UNIVAC computers did much more per
instruction than DEC's computers, but they had educated a generation of
customers to believe that the number not the value was what mattered.

When PC's came out, they produced far more MIPS per dollar than anything
DEC sold (except PC's) and their customers did what they were taught and
bought cheaper MIPS, not better computers.

If this sounds familar it's because it's the same thing as the later RISC-CISC
debate. 

Geoff.


-- 
Geoffrey S. Mendelson,  N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379
Gung Hay Fat Choy! (May the new year be prosperous).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39350

On 2013.01.31 09:24 , Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> JF Mezei wrote:
>> In the last days of Digital Equipment Corp, there was much debate on
>> whether DEC should continue with its high price low volume or switch to
>> lower price higher volume mantra.
>>
>> DEC responded with its unwillingness to sacrifice profit margin and
>> *risk* going to higher volume because it wasn't sure it was able to
>> truly increase volumes sufficiently to balance out the loss of prfit margin.
>>
>> DEC is dead.
>
> What killed DEC is that their entire marketing system was based on MIPS
> (millions of instructions per second). They competed with the big guns,
> IBM and UNIVAC, by claiming that their processors had much higher MIPS
> per dollar ratios.
>
> The problem with that is the IBM and UNIVAC computers did much more per
> instruction than DEC's computers, but they had educated a generation of
> customers to believe that the number not the value was what mattered.
>
> When PC's came out, they produced far more MIPS per dollar than anything
> DEC sold (except PC's) and their customers did what they were taught and
> bought cheaper MIPS, not better computers.
>
> If this sounds familar it's because it's the same thing as the later RISC-CISC
> debate.

The real difference is that in most offices, most computers are doing 
nothing most of the time.  You don't need a VAX to do nothing where 
dozens of PC's doing nothing accomplishes the same thing for far less 
capital and operating cost.

-- 
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
  were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
                                           -Sir John A. Macdonald

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39219

On 1/30/13 1:59 PM, in article
51097b86$0$43826$c3e8da3$9deca2c3@news.astraweb.com, "JF Mezei"
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 13-01-30 12:53, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
>> Unfortunately, no.  It's an accurate summation of the contradictory
>> criticisms being leveled at Cook.
> 
> 
> In the last days of Digital Equipment Corp, there was much debate on
> whether DEC should continue with its high price low volume or switch to
> lower price higher volume mantra.
> 
> DEC responded with its unwillingness to sacrifice profit margin and
> *risk* going to higher volume because it wasn't sure it was able to
> truly increase volumes sufficiently to balance out the loss of prfit margin.
> 
> DEC is dead.
> 
> prior to the iPod, Apple was a niche player. Not mass market. And Wall
> Street didn't care about Apple.
> 
> All of a sudden, with iPod and then with iPhone, Apple not only became
> mass market , but also dominated it. That got Wall Street's attention.
> 
> Now, Apple appears to be on a path where it must decide whether to
> remain a dominent player or cede the place to Samsung without a fight
> and downgrade itself back to niche player.
> 
> Apple seems to have made it clear that it will hapily cede its market
> dominence because it won't want to jeoperdize profit margin. And for
> now, Apple continues to grow even if it is losing market share and
> letting Samsung dominate.
> 
> This isn't such a simple cut and dry decision. One must also consider
> that Apple's ability to truly differentiate itself will diminish as
> smart phones mature and they all get pretty much the same features (and
> in many places, the iPhone is late to market with features such as NFC).
> So the ability to command higher prices may also diminish, especially as
> carriers wish to reduce or eliminate subsidies.
> 
> The Wall Street Casino is  short term machine. That pushes the "don't
> sacrifice profit margin" calls.  However, if Apple looks at the longer
> term, it must ask itself what a niche player will look like 5 years down
> the down. Will the iPhone still have sufficent market presence to still
> attract developpers/applications ?
> 
> What happens if Apple maintans high prices, loses market share, and then
> carriers decide to no longer subsidize expensice iPhones ? Apple will
> have to lower its profit margin, but by then, will have already lost
> much market share. In this scenario, Apple would have been better off
> lowering profit margin today in order to fight for market share it can
> retain high volumes instead of being forced back to niche player.
> 
> 
> The thing is that short term thinking is all in the pink because despite
> loss of market share, Apple si sstill growing and still generating
> record sales etc.
> 
> And remember that with the smartphone market maturing, the ability to
> for Apple to differentiate itself will diminish, so it will be harder
> for it to command higher prices.
> 
> The contradictory stuff from the Wall Street Casino Analysts reflects a
> debate betwene short and long term thinking, a debate I am sure is held
> within Apple's board.
> 

Interesting comparison...

<http://www.thestreet.com/story/11828124/1/why-tiger-woods-and-apple-are-cur
sed.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39233

On 13-01-31 11:16, George Kerby wrote:
> http://www.thestreet.com/story/11828124/1/why-tiger-woods-and-apple-are-cur
> sed.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO


Interesting that the article mentions that Apple sold 17 million fewer
iPhone5 in 3rd quarter than Samsung SIII.

Yet, based on what I read, Apple sold 47.8 million iPhones in 4th
quarter versus estimate of 40 million SIIIs.

Goes to show how one can generate statistics to say whatever you want.
And this hurts a company's image when so many are intent on portraying
Apple as a loser.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39199

On 2013.01.30 03:16 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
> I'd say that this article covers every cockamamie, idiotic, criticism of
> Apple and Tim Cook, but I'm sure that our resident applephobes can come up
> with more.
>
> <http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2013/01/28/how-tim-cook-should-real
> ly-be-running-apple/>
>
> How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple

Amusing.


-- 
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
  were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
                                           -Sir John A. Macdonald

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web