R.I.P., Macintosh?

[jupiter8]

Thanks a lot mate. I owe you one.

Oh i forgot the :They're going to release OSX to run on any computer.
No they won't. Nearly killed them the last time.

I think this one went around at least 3 times. But as with "The Matrix" the sequels weren't nearly as good as the first one.

Now who is going to kick someones ass next?

I just opened a big can of whoop ass and i'm here to kick ass and chew gum and i'm all out of gum.

[eduardo_b]

So why so many pages of response, surely you guys would just pass the page by otherwise? If its no big deal then a lot of people are getting very defensive over it...

I wonder that people aren't defending their personal choices as much as anything. The emotional aspects of these kinds of threads don't really make sense given that either platform can do the same thing in the hands of knowledgeable users.

Mac users used to have a smug attitude that irritated PC users, but the Intel processor brought that pretty much to an end. Now it's down to UIs. Frankly, Mac owners might not want too much success for Apple or the bastard coders will infect the bejesus out of the desktops of complacent Mac users.

[blatanville]

I must be loosing my mind because that makes absolutely no sense still.
Why didn't we build the railway before we did? And why didn't we build the Internet before we did? Is the recession going to last forever ? How is being short on money an incentive NOT to save money ? How about those dinosaurs that cling to their precious server arcitechture going out of business and being replaced with companies adapting to new technolgies that has happened constantly since the first ameoba ?

Let's see...the transcontinental railway system in N.America was built on default. Money went in, some slaves built the railway (not by-definition slaves, but the wages and conditions were very poor), some people skimmed off the top (the "robber barons") and got staggeringly rich, and then the companies that built the railroads defaulted on their loans, leaving the banks and/or the government with the losses. Net result, however, was that the tracks were THERE.

This is also the pattern of the latest global economic meltdown: some players were able to game the system, profit massively, and leave the losses in other people's hands (or, out of their pockets).

Here in Canada, we've just been through a largely ceremonial round of discussions and policy talks about traffic shaping by our ISPs. They claim they're losing $$$ and hurting the service for ALL customers by allowing a minority to stream massive amounts of data (particularly music, TV shows, and bit torrents). They say the infrastructure can't handle the volume, so they have to "shape" the service to IPs that seem to be sucking up "more than their share."

Let's point out that both of Canada's major national ISPs (Bell Canada & Rogers Communications) are also in the content business, offering digital satellite and cable TV services respectively. They both ALSO offer landline telecommunications and wireless services. They are two telecom and content monsters. And they DON'T like the idea that you're getting your TV "For free" by streaming it over your high-capacity home DSL/cable. They want you to pay for cable or digital satellite service if you're going to watch TV. So they drag their feet in upgrading the internet backbone and connected networks, and claim that the narrowing bandwidth is entirely the fault of the consumers, so they have to play traffic cops on the internet.**
They also want to return to metered accounts for internet accounts. Metered accts for internet access disappeared over ten years ago because that wasn't what people wanted. They'll come back because it's what business wants, and we have no choice but to pay to play, or get off the internet...

BTW, what is "the cloud" except a client-server technology? I don't understand who it is you're talking about that is "cling[ing] to their precious server architecture," and thus going out of business.


** (this also brings up the thorny issue wherein they sacrifice their role as a "common carrier," (look it up on Wikipedia, if you don't know what that means) which has legal repercussions that haven't been tested yet)

[xh3rv]

BTW, what is "the cloud" except a client-server technology? I don't understand who it is you're talking about that is "cling[ing] to their precious server architecture," and thus going out of business.

Well, let's try and at least define 'the cloud' -

* Wireless, and accessible in major markets with something like the same predictability as a cellular phone
* Enough bandwith to stream media at high resolutions on demand or close to it
* Secure enough to do business on
* Complete integration of cloud-using devices, with an absolute minimum of tasks for a user (or any device) to hook in to
* Related to above, effortless synching across a user's devices (often through the neat trick of not actually needing to store data on a device)

That's a lot of infrastructure and technology, it's emerging piecewise ... A lot of it, there's proof-of-concept but not a market saturation that is definitive of 'the cloud'. I think the argument is supposed to be about whether or not 'the cloud' is going to happen based on technology that wasn't available a decade ago (and some technology that might not be available for another decade? I dunno).

[egbert]

Coupla things:

Apple was having trouble for all sorts of reasons prior to Steve's return. Apple was selling hardware in direct competition with the clones and they were eating Apple's lunch. The suggestion that Apple could therefore not sell OSX is a non sequitur. Apple no longer derives its main revenue from selling Macs. If they decide to allow sales of OSX it may or may not hurt their revenue. Who knows - it might increase sales of iPads/Final Cut etc.

At its lowest ebb Apple had a market value of ~ $5 billion and there was serious consideration of selling the whole kit to IBM or Sun. The idea that the pre-OSX clones affair is the thing to go by now that Apple has the same market cap as MS and gets 80% or more of its profits elsewhere looks like nonsense from a business POV.

These companies have all been forced to adapt to changes in the market. Prior to the opening up of the internet, online services were all expensive pay-through-the-nose affairs and Apple and MS both had their little walled gardens that they were hocking to the punters - along with AOL and Compuserve etc. All of that stuff got blown away in no-time flat courtesy of Big Al and the WWW. "So much for that business model. What else have ya got?"

[blatanville]

Well, let's try and at least define 'the cloud' -

* Wireless, and accessible in major markets with something like the same predictability as a cellular phone
* Enough bandwith to stream media at high resolutions on demand or close to it
* Secure enough to do business on
* Complete integration of cloud-using devices, with an absolute minimum of tasks for a user (or any device) to hook in to
* Related to above, effortless synching across a user's devices (often through the neat trick of not actually needing to store data on a device)

That's a lot of infrastructure and technology, it's emerging piecewise ... A lot of it, there's proof-of-concept but not a market saturation that is definitive of 'the cloud'. I think the argument is supposed to be about whether or not 'the cloud' is going to happen based on technology that wasn't available a decade ago (and some technology that might not be available for another decade? I dunno).

Agreed, that is a lot of infrastructure and technology - particularly if you insist on having "wireless" as part of the definition. I consider Google Docs to be part of the cloud, even though I access them through my desktop computer (wired to the modem/router) or my netbook (wirelessly, for the most part, but via WiFi, not 3G or what-have-you.)...
And Google Docs most definitely rely on servers, whole great hollow mountains filled with them...

And you'll pardon my paranoia, but I don't store anything particularly sensitive "in the cloud" because I don't trust them. The important stuff stays in my computers. Look at the HipTop hacking incident a few years ago, or any time a major data source gets leaked (health records, credit card transactions, etc.)

[ShawnG]

[quote="blatanville"]

Here in Canada, we've just been through a largely ceremonial round of discussions and policy talks about traffic shaping by our ISPs. They claim they're losing $$$ and hurting the service for ALL customers by allowing a minority to stream massive amounts of data (particularly music, TV shows, and bit torrents). They say the infrastructure can't handle the volume, so they have to "shape" the service to IPs that seem to be sucking up "more than their share."

Let's point out that both of Canada's major national ISPs (Bell Canada & Rogers Communications) are also in the content business, offering digital satellite and cable TV services respectively. They both ALSO offer landline telecommunications and wireless services. They are two telecom and content monsters. And they DON'T like the idea that you're getting your TV "For free" by streaming it over your high-capacity home DSL/cable. They want you to pay for cable or digital satellite service if you're going to watch TV. So they drag their feet in upgrading the internet backbone and connected networks, and claim that the narrowing bandwidth is entirely the fault of the consumers, so they have to play traffic cops on the internet.**
[/quote]

yes, because everybody knows that massive server upgrades and node architecture is really cheap for ISPs to put in to support the needs of a few. pretty soon grandma, who checks her email twice a month is forced to pay 75$ a month because a few people who are committing copyright infringement on a mass scale can't be satisfied with less than 500 gigs per month of traffic.

everybody also knows that the MOST efficient way of distributing video content is to have everybody streaming away independently

Net neutrality is an important thing and it needs to be resolved. anybody who thinks the issue is simple, though is just kidding themselves. there's no free lunch.

Don't make me choose between corrupt companies and corrupted end users either.

[blatanville]

yes, because everybody knows that massive server upgrades and node architecture is really cheap for ISPs to put in to support the needs of a few. pretty soon grandma, who checks her email twice a month is forced to pay 75$ a month because a few people who are committing copyright infringement on a mass scale can't be satisfied with less than 500 gigs per month of traffic.

everybody also knows that the MOST efficient way of distributing video content is to have everybody streaming away independently

Net neutrality is an important thing and it needs to be resolved. anybody who thinks the issue is simple, though is just kidding themselves. there's no free lunch.

Don't make me choose between corrupt companies and corrupted end users either.

1. So...you support net neutrality AND traffic shaping? Those are contradictory positions.

2. Grandma's already been upsold to a high-speed connection as part of a "bundle" with her phone and TV service...

3. Rogers (the cable company) seems to think that independent streaming is great - when you pay for your TV from them. It's called Rogers On Demand, and it does just what you're rolling your eyes at: streams content to the user ON DEMAND.
3a. It's even slightly more egregious in the case of Rogers vs Bell, as Rogers is using the SAME DAMNED CABLE to transmit either the cable TV signal, or the broadband Internet information. They don't really care that someone is "hogging cable bandwidth" - they only care to make sure that you've got both the Cable TV access AND the internet access, so they can charge you for both services, while providing them through the same pipe.

Did I also mention that Bell and Rogers are content creators/licensors?
Yep, they make the content, own the delivery mechanisms, and they want to charge you twice to access the content.
You know who doesn't own their own delivery system? The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, our national TV & Radio service (like the BBC in the UK). And since the CBC would like to stream content to their viewers, but it has to go over Bell or Rogers equipment (equipment that Bell initially built with the money from their monopoly, don't forget), Bell and Rogers want use their position to squeeze people out of watching the CBC on their computers. Sounds like anti-trust to me.

Tell me how out of all those service fees (my family pays ~$80/month for mid-grade broadband and landline phone service) they don't have the funds to upgrade their services.
Somehow, when customer dissatisfaction drives people from one side of the fence to the other, they manage to come up with lower-priced packages to offer you! Rogers did that when we switched to Bell last year: suddenly they were offering significantly cheaper package deals in an effort to get us to switch back. Telus, a cellphone provider, did the same thing when I left them years ago. I told them the per-minute rate and the long distance rates were too high. Suddenly, the rep was able to knock 30% off the per-minute price and $0.10 cents/min off long distance! Funny that...

And for your last point: Don't make the mistake of assuming that everyone who d/ls large quantities of info is torrenting. Visit facebook, and every page is 0.25MB download for just the XHTML & CSS...spend a lot of time playing a MMORPG and you can suck up a lot of bandwidth, too. Those are legitimate uses.

[mcnoone]

@blatanville
You have bought up a good topic.
It is worthy of it's own thread.
This thread needs to R.I.P. though.

Although it's just a suggestion...maybe "The future of the internet" for a title would be cool.

[hibidy]

I dunno, the thread is pretty civil. I few harmless barbs but it's not hurting anyone

[mcnoone]

Yea but his topic seems to be more interesting than the original.
It would be something worth it's own thread to talk about.

[tomg]

Yea but his topic seems to be more interesting than the original.
It would be something worth it's own thread to talk about.

You are a member. Stop bitching about this thread and start your own if that's what you want to do. The title is a reflection of the link that inspired this thread and I don't care that you think it's offensive because it's not. No offense intended but you seem to be easy to offend. Toughen up.

[dhalfen]

I dunno, the thread is pretty civil. I few harmless barbs but it's not hurting anyone

But it IS dragging on, and on, and on...

What this proves: threads withOUT funny GIFs aren't nearly as entertaining or inspirational.

At least no one's mentioned the vuvuzela yet!

(Yeah, pretty much what they say...)

[hibidy]

Yea but his topic seems to be more interesting than the original.
It would be something worth it's own thread to talk about.

Oh, maybe I misunderstood

[hibidy]

Yea but his topic seems to be more interesting than the original.
It would be something worth it's own thread to talk about.

You are a member. Stop bitching about this thread and start your own if that's what you want to do. The title is a reflection of the link that inspired this thread and I don't care that you think it's offensive because it's not. No offense intended but you seem to be easy to offend. Toughen up.

Yes Sir! Standing at attention SIR!

Common' man!

btw, I spoke too soon