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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #58812 > unrolled thread

Mac sales in mild decline

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

Contents

  Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-23 18:20 -0400
    Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-23 18:33 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-23 19:27 -0400
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-24 01:01 +0000
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-23 21:57 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-24 16:30 +1200
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-23 23:05 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-24 00:05 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-25 15:54 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-27 21:27 +0000
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 19:20 -0400
                Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-28 05:41 +0000
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-23 23:05 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-26 12:39 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-04-27 11:15 +1200
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 19:21 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-26 19:20 -0400
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-26 20:35 -0400
                Re: Mac sales in mild decline Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2014-04-27 02:28 -0700
                  Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 10:54 -0400
                  Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-28 09:03 +1200
                    Re: Mac sales in mild decline John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2014-04-28 11:29 +0100
                      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-29 09:14 +1200
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-24 16:10 +1200
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-24 16:16 -0700
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-25 16:13 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-25 15:05 +1200
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-25 00:28 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-25 18:11 +1200
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-25 16:00 -0400
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Rob Noland <not@this.com> - 2014-04-25 20:16 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-25 20:54 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-26 09:59 -0400
    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-04-23 16:33 -0700
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-23 20:00 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-04-23 21:25 -0700
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-24 18:25 +1200
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-04-24 12:15 -0700
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-24 18:04 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-04-24 15:09 -0700
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-24 18:32 -0400
                Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-04-24 17:33 -0700
                  Re: Mac sales in mild decline Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-04-24 21:01 -0700
                  Re: Mac sales in mild decline Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-04-24 21:31 -0700
                    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-04-24 21:48 -0700
                      Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-25 04:42 -0400
                        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-26 10:23 +1200
                    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-27 21:35 +0000
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-25 16:07 -0400
    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-24 00:59 +0000
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-23 23:05 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-04-25 14:55 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-25 15:53 -0400
    Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-23 22:03 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-24 02:13 +0000
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-04-25 14:58 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-26 10:26 +1200
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-04-26 13:56 -0400
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-27 10:13 +1200
                Re: Mac sales in mild decline John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-04-27 10:09 -0400
                  Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-27 10:31 -0400
                    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 10:55 -0400
                      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-27 21:21 +0000
                        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 17:42 -0400
                          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 17:46 -0400
                  Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-27 21:19 +0000
                    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 17:45 -0400
                      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-28 05:38 +0000
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-04-27 11:15 +1200
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-26 19:20 -0400
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-27 10:12 -0500
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 11:09 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-25 18:38 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-27 10:10 -0500
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-24 16:34 +1200
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-24 00:48 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-24 18:30 +1200
    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-04-26 00:02 -0500
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-26 18:22 +1200
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-04-26 09:02 -0500
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-26 09:41 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-04-26 11:43 -0500
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-26 13:05 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-27 21:36 +0000
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 20:41 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-28 05:44 +0000
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-28 16:40 -0400

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

#58940

In article <535d0f8d$0$44758$862e30e2@ngroups.net>, John Albert
<j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

> > Sure, if you want to "jailbreak" your devices and open them up to all
> > sorts of malware ... but GateKeeper looks like it's heading towards a
> > App Store only approach.
> 
> Heh. One of the very first things I did when I got my late 
> 2012 Mac Mini was to turn Gatekeeper OFF.

that's an incredibly stupid thing to do.

> I don't want the OS to tell me what I can run or can't run.
> Whether I make mistakes or not, I want that decision to rest 
> with ME.

the decision always rests with you. 

gatekeeper's default setting blocks unsigned apps which is a signal
that you should investigate whether or not that app is safe to run. 

if you decide the app is legitimate, simply right-click and select
open. it's a one-time thing and all subsequent launches will just work
without issue.

if you decide it's not safe, drag it to the trash and be glad that it
caught a potential risk.

> Whatever happend to "the power to be your best" ?????

it's always been there.

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

#58943

On 2014.04.27, 10:31 , nospam wrote:
> In article <535d0f8d$0$44758$862e30e2@ngroups.net>, John Albert
> <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
>
>>> Sure, if you want to "jailbreak" your devices and open them up to all
>>> sorts of malware ... but GateKeeper looks like it's heading towards a
>>> App Store only approach.
>>
>> Heh. One of the very first things I did when I got my late
>> 2012 Mac Mini was to turn Gatekeeper OFF.
>
> that's an incredibly stupid thing to do.

Not at all.  It's his choice.  I have it off too.

Indeed before the option everyone did.

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

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

#58957

In message <YuSdna_LzMHGh8DOnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2014.04.27, 10:31 , nospam wrote:
>> In article <535d0f8d$0$44758$862e30e2@ngroups.net>, John Albert
>> <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Sure, if you want to "jailbreak" your devices and open them up to all
>>>> sorts of malware ... but GateKeeper looks like it's heading towards a
>>>> App Store only approach.
>>>
>>> Heh. One of the very first things I did when I got my late
>>> 2012 Mac Mini was to turn Gatekeeper OFF.
>>
>> that's an incredibly stupid thing to do.

> Not at all.

I don't often agree with mr weasel boy know-it-all, but yes, it is an
incredibly stupid thing to do.

> It's his choice.

Stupidity is always a choice.

> I have it off too.

Quell shock.

-- 
Some people are like a Slinky toy - not really good for anything, but
you still can't help but smile when you shove them down the stairs.

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

#58963

On 2014.04.27, 17:21 , Lewis wrote:
> In message <YuSdna_LzMHGh8DOnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>    Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2014.04.27, 10:31 , nospam wrote:
>>> In article <535d0f8d$0$44758$862e30e2@ngroups.net>, John Albert
>>> <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Sure, if you want to "jailbreak" your devices and open them up to all
>>>>> sorts of malware ... but GateKeeper looks like it's heading towards a
>>>>> App Store only approach.
>>>>
>>>> Heh. One of the very first things I did when I got my late
>>>> 2012 Mac Mini was to turn Gatekeeper OFF.
>>>
>>> that's an incredibly stupid thing to do.
>
>> Not at all.
>
> I don't often agree with mr weasel boy know-it-all, but yes, it is an
> incredibly stupid thing to do.
>
>> It's his choice.
>
> Stupidity is always a choice.
>
>> I have it off too.
>
> Quell shock.


What did you do before this feature was added in all those years of Mac use?


-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

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

#58966

On 2014.04.27, 17:42 , Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2014.04.27, 17:21 , Lewis wrote:
>> In message <YuSdna_LzMHGh8DOnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>    Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2014.04.27, 10:31 , nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <535d0f8d$0$44758$862e30e2@ngroups.net>, John Albert
>>>> <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, if you want to "jailbreak" your devices and open them up to all
>>>>>> sorts of malware ... but GateKeeper looks like it's heading towards a
>>>>>> App Store only approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heh. One of the very first things I did when I got my late
>>>>> 2012 Mac Mini was to turn Gatekeeper OFF.
>>>>
>>>> that's an incredibly stupid thing to do.
>>
>>> Not at all.
>>
>> I don't often agree with mr weasel boy know-it-all, but yes, it is an
>> incredibly stupid thing to do.
>>
>>> It's his choice.
>>
>> Stupidity is always a choice.
>>
>>> I have it off too.
>>
>> Quell shock.
>
>
> What did you do before this feature was added in all those years of Mac
> use?

I withdraw that question - see my other recent post.


-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

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

#58956

In message <535d0f8d$0$44758$862e30e2@ngroups.net> 
  John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
> On 4/26/14 6:13 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> Sure, if you want to "jailbreak" your devices and open them up to all
>> sorts of malware ... but GateKeeper looks like it's heading towards a
>> App Store only approach.

> Heh. One of the very first things I did when I got my late 
> 2012 Mac Mini was to turn Gatekeeper OFF.

That is a foolish thing to do. Gatekeeper is a very effective tool at
preventing unknown apps from running.

> I don't want the OS to tell me what I can run or can't run.

That's not what gatekeeper does. It WARNS you when an application that
has never been launched before is launching. This is a useful security
level to have.

-- 
Lobotomy means never having to say you're sorry -- or anything else.

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

#58965

On 2014.04.27, 17:19 , Lewis wrote:
> In message <535d0f8d$0$44758$862e30e2@ngroups.net>
>    John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
>> On 4/26/14 6:13 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>> Sure, if you want to "jailbreak" your devices and open them up to all
>>> sorts of malware ... but GateKeeper looks like it's heading towards a
>>> App Store only approach.
>
>> Heh. One of the very first things I did when I got my late
>> 2012 Mac Mini was to turn Gatekeeper OFF.
>
> That is a foolish thing to do. Gatekeeper is a very effective tool at
> preventing unknown apps from running.
>
>> I don't want the OS to tell me what I can run or can't run.
>
> That's not what gatekeeper does. It WARNS you when an application that
> has never been launched before is launching. This is a useful security
> level to have.

I may be mistaking what "gatekeeper" is - if it's the bit that gives you 
a warning about new apps running, then yes, I do have that on.

What I have off, and what John may be referring to as well, is the 
feature that blocks installing apps in the first place (the three level 
feature that only allows App Store apps, identified developers and 
"anywhere".

And even with that set to "anywhere" I do of course get the warning when 
an app is run the first time.  I don't object to that one at all.

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

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

#58979

In message <AKidnXuB4JcT58DOnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2014.04.27, 17:19 , Lewis wrote:
>> In message <535d0f8d$0$44758$862e30e2@ngroups.net>
>>    John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
>>> On 4/26/14 6:13 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> Sure, if you want to "jailbreak" your devices and open them up to all
>>>> sorts of malware ... but GateKeeper looks like it's heading towards a
>>>> App Store only approach.
>>
>>> Heh. One of the very first things I did when I got my late
>>> 2012 Mac Mini was to turn Gatekeeper OFF.
>>
>> That is a foolish thing to do. Gatekeeper is a very effective tool at
>> preventing unknown apps from running.
>>
>>> I don't want the OS to tell me what I can run or can't run.
>>
>> That's not what gatekeeper does. It WARNS you when an application that
>> has never been launched before is launching. This is a useful security
>> level to have.

> I may be mistaking what "gatekeeper" is - if it's the bit that gives you 
> a warning about new apps running, then yes, I do have that on.

That is part of gatekeeper.

> What I have off, and what John may be referring to as well, is the 
> feature that blocks installing apps in the first place (the three level 
> feature that only allows App Store apps, identified developers and 
> "anywhere".

There si nothing that blocks INSTALLING Apps. There is an option to
prevent apps running that are not signed (this is the default) but it
does not prevent the apps being installed. It doesn't even prevent them
running, it just warns you first, and if the app is unsigned, it forces
you to rclick->open the app instead of just double clicking it.

This is a very useful security feature so that you know when you are
running an app that is not signed with a developer certificate.

Open Source apps are not signed, most everything else is, regardless of
where it comes from. If you get a utility that is unsigned, you might
want that extra little step to remind you that this app is a bit riskier
than others.

> And even with that set to "anywhere" I do of course get the warning when 
> an app is run the first time.  I don't object to that one at all.

And I don't object to the unsigned warning. A couple of times it's
caused me to take a much closer look at an application.

It also keeps other people from running tings willy nilly because they
don't know about rclick->Open.

My 80yo Dad is set to Mac App Store only so he can't accidentally launch
anything. Everyone else's computer is MAS/signed.

-- 
When and where does this "real world" occur?!

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

#58926

John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

> On 4/25/14 6:26 PM, Your Name wrote:
> > If Apple takes Mac software fully down the App Store route, as it
> > appears to be heading, then you'll HAVE to buy via iTunes (or whatever
> > replaces it).
> 
> Unlikely.
> 
> I sense there will always be another way to get the software 
> one needs, even from "non-authorized" channels, if one so 
> chooses.
> 
> I have many gigabytes of music, not a single track was 
> purchased via iTunes.
> I -do- buy from amazon.com -- just picked something up there 
> yesterday.
> 
> When the Apple Store lets me register so that I may look 
> around without having to provide credit card info -first-, 
> then I will register. Until that happens, I will never 
> register...

I assume you meant "App Store' in that paragraph. (The "Apple Store" is
either Apple's online store which lets you buy mostly physical products,
or one of the physical retail stores run by Apple.)

The iTunes Store, App Store and online Apple Store don't require you to
register to "look around".

The App Store also doesn't require you to provide credit card info to
obtain free items (which includes upgrading to the latest OS X version,
now that it is free). You can choose "None" as a payment method when you
set up your account in the process of buying a free item.

You don't even need to supply credit card info to buy non-free items
from the App Store. You can buy an iTunes or App Store gift card in many
retail outlets, redeem it on the App Store and use the credit balance
for App Store purchases.

Even without a credit card, to get anything from the App Store you do
need an Apple ID, whch is linked to an e-mail address. It could be a
newly created one on icloud.com rather than an existing e-mail address.
You will also need to supply a name and address.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

#58929

In article <535bf350$0$44783$862e30e2@ngroups.net>, John Albert
<j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

> When the Apple Store lets me register so that I may look 
> around without having to provide credit card info -first-, 
> then I will register. Until that happens, I will never 
> register...

there is no need to provide a credit card.

you will be limited to free downloads, and should you want to buy
something, you can use an itunes gift card, available pretty much
anywhere.

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

#58948

On 4/26/14 12:56 PM, in article 535bf350$0$44783$862e30e2@ngroups.net, "John
Albert" <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

> On 4/25/14 6:26 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> If Apple takes Mac software fully down the App Store route, as it
>> appears to be heading, then you'll HAVE to buy via iTunes (or whatever
>> replaces it).
> 
> Unlikely.
> 
> I sense there will always be another way to get the software
> one needs, even from "non-authorized" channels, if one so
> chooses.
> 
> I have many gigabytes of music, not a single track was
> purchased via iTunes.
> I -do- buy from amazon.com -- just picked something up there
> yesterday.
> 
> When the Apple Store lets me register so that I may look
> around without having to provide credit card info -first-,
> then I will register. Until that happens, I will never
> register...

I *KNEW* it!!!

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

#58946

On 2014.04.25, 18:26 , Your Name wrote:
> In article <535ab048$0$44944$862e30e2@ngroups.net>, John Albert
> <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/23/14 10:13 PM, billy@MIX.COM wrote:
>>> verybody with an Apple ID has an iTunes account, whether they
>>> use it, or (like me) not.
>>
>> I have several Macs, and I don't have an Apple or iTunes
>> account.
>>
>> I have never purchased anything from iTunes, and never will.
>> There is no chance that that will change.
>>
>> I've been a Mac user since 1987 -- and an Apple // user
>> before that...
>
> If Apple takes Mac software fully down the App Store route, as it
> appears to be heading, then you'll HAVE to buy via iTunes (or whatever
> replaces it).

It does not appear to be heading there at all.  There are 3 flavours to 
getting and installing s/w (4 if you count what you write for yourself).

As it is it's a sensible balance of gatekeeping v. risk and reward.

(I leave it off on my iMac and on on my SO's MBA.  I don't know how my 
son has it set).

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

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

#58901

In article <535ab048$0$44944$862e30e2@ngroups.net>, John Albert
<j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

> > verybody with an Apple ID has an iTunes account, whether they
> > use it, or (like me) not.
> 
> I have several Macs, and I don't have an Apple or iTunes 
> account.
> 
> I have never purchased anything from iTunes, and never will.
> There is no chance that that will change.

why not?

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

#58947

On 4/25/14 5:38 PM, in article 250420141838045848%nospam@nospam.invalid,
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <535ab048$0$44944$862e30e2@ngroups.net>, John Albert
> <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
> 
>>> verybody with an Apple ID has an iTunes account, whether they
>>> use it, or (like me) not.
>> 
>> I have several Macs, and I don't have an Apple or iTunes
>> account.
>> 
>> I have never purchased anything from iTunes, and never will.
>> There is no chance that that will change.
> 
> why not?

Fear of "The Force"?

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

#58839

In article <53587110$0$61489$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> 
> Tim Cook brags about health and growth of iTunes.
> 
> 800 million accounts, most of those attached to a credit card.
> 
> As you may recall there were some Wall Street Casino Analysts who
> speculated Itunes was not doing well. Timk Cook started his speech with
> iTunes success, killing those casino analysts' speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> Tablets will surpass the PC market IN A FEW YEARS. So it appears PC is
> still bigger.

Tablets are currently still somewhat useless in a business environment
for doing real work (which is why it's mostly management who have them)
and that's where most computers are bought.

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

#58842

On 14-04-24 00:34, Your Name wrote:

> Tablets are currently still somewhat useless in a business environment
> for doing real work (which is why it's mostly management who have them)
> and that's where most computers are bought.

Actually, tablets are used by grunts too. Tim Cook mentioned FedEx
workers for instance.

For upper management, they would be in addition to a real computer in
their office.

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

#58844

In article <5358979f$0$10067$c3e8da3$69010069@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 14-04-24 00:34, Your Name wrote:
> > 
> > Tablets are currently still somewhat useless in a business environment
> > for doing real work (which is why it's mostly management who have them)
> > and that's where most computers are bought.
> 
> Actually, tablets are used by grunts too. Tim Cook mentioned FedEx
> workers for instance.

For specific purposes they are used by various people, but not for
general office work.



> For upper management, they would be in addition to a real computer in
> their office.

Most upper management barely know how to use a computer - that's what
secretaries are for and why upper managemtn can get away with only a
tablet (which is still far more than they need or know how to use).

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

#58906

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:20:21 -0400, Alan Browne 
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild 
> decline that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are 
> quarterly peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter 
> average shows a continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.

Along with desktops and laptops as a whole.  I know people with a tablet 
or smartphone who have not replaced the laptop they no longer use in 
several years.  The laptop market will continue to fade slowly, teh 
desktop market will continue to fade steeply and these two will become 
niches (probably already are).  Smartphones and tablets will grow and 
level off, to be replaced when Google Glass type products take over the 
marketplace, to themselves be replaced when implantable computing takes 
over.

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

#58908

In article <slrnllmfej.1gn.timmcn@sugaree.local>, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:20:21 -0400, Alan Browne 
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> > With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild 
> > decline that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are 
> > quarterly peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter 
> > average shows a continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
> 
> Along with desktops and laptops as a whole.  I know people with a tablet 
> or smartphone who have not replaced the laptop they no longer use in 
> several years.  The laptop market will continue to fade slowly, teh 
> desktop market will continue to fade steeply and these two will become 
> niches (probably already are).  

Most people have never really needed a computer as such. They want to
be able to do simple tasks like send a few emails, visit a few
websites, type up the occasional letter, etc. That's why a relatively
cheap and easy to use tablet has become so popular.

It's in the business world with real work being done where computers
will stay for some time yet, but even then it will only be for those
who do the real work while managers play on their tablets.



> Smartphones and tablets will grow and level off, to be replaced when
> Google Glass type products take over the marketplace, to themselves be
> replaced when implantable computing takes over.

Google Glass will never "take off". It's only nerds and geeks who want
them because they think they're "cool" ... in reality they're useless
rubbish that make people wearing them look incredibly stupid. Google is
already working on a contact lens device instead, but that's likely to
be just as unpopular (except perhaps with those silly enough to already
poke things into their eyes).

Even the current watch / bracelet devices look incredibly silly, as did
the old Casio Calculator watches (and still do - last time I lookd
Casio stil made them).

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

#58913

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 18:22:50 +1200, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> 
wrote:
> In article <slrnllmfej.1gn.timmcn@sugaree.local>, Tim McNamara
><timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:20:21 -0400, Alan Browne 
>> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> > With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild 
>> > decline that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are 
>> > quarterly peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter 
>> > average shows a continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
>> 
>> Along with desktops and laptops as a whole.  I know people with a 
>> tablet or smartphone who have not replaced the laptop they no longer 
>> use in several years.  The laptop market will continue to fade 
>> slowly, teh desktop market will continue to fade steeply and these 
>> two will become niches (probably already are).
>
> Most people have never really needed a computer as such. They want to 
> be able to do simple tasks like send a few emails, visit a few 
> websites, type up the occasional letter, etc. That's why a relatively 
> cheap and easy to use tablet has become so popular.
>
> It's in the business world with real work being done where computers 
> will stay for some time yet, but even then it will only be for those 
> who do the real work while managers play on their tablets.

Some jobs will require that kind of computing power, but most will be 
done on tablets via the cloud.  My own job is trending in that direction 
technologically as we install an EHR (which will have upsides and more 
than a few significant downsides), all of which will be "in the cloud."

>> Smartphones and tablets will grow and level off, to be replaced when 
>> Google Glass type products take over the marketplace, to themselves 
>> be replaced when implantable computing takes over.
>
> Google Glass will never "take off". It's only nerds and geeks who want 
> them because they think they're "cool" ... in reality they're useless 
> rubbish that make people wearing them look incredibly stupid. Google 
> is already working on a contact lens device instead, but that's likely 
> to be just as unpopular (except perhaps with those silly enough to 
> already poke things into their eyes).
>
> Even the current watch / bracelet devices look incredibly silly, as 
> did the old Casio Calculator watches (and still do - last time I lookd 
> Casio stil made them).

Google Glass as it exists now is not the future, but points the way to 
the future: wearable, heads-up displays that are constantly with us.  
Once social media and interpersonal connectibility arrives (e.g., the 
killer app) it will take off and disrupt smartphones and tablets.  The 
key thing will be subtle control- being able to use it without obviously 
using it.

I agree about the current crop of smartwatches.  They are not the 
future, they are a cul de sac on the road to the future.  The best 
looking options were the various watchbands that converted an iPod Nano 
to a wrst contraption.

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

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

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

csiph-web