snom370
And, knowing just how much can go wrong both with software and with flying, I know I'm not going to fly with such an airplane. Auto-pilot and auto-land systems today work well because they do a very narrowly defined thing with great precision, with the amount of software needed kept to a minimum. A software system that would be able to account for all that can go wrong when flying would have to be very complex and difficult to get defect free (and don't get me started on the idea of remote controlling passenger planes).
"You could directly attribute the fact that Apple isn't responsible for most of that hardware R&D for their high profit margins. They know to buy the cutting edge from the rest of the industry, put some software on it, and they've got a product."
I read this to mean that Apples high margins were primarily due to their offloading their hardware business to others. And I only pointed out that this is only _partly_ responsible for Apples high margins. But I see that I've read you incorrectly.
I never heard anyone say that the 3GS was shoddy when the iPhone 4 came out. Even before the iPhone 4 was released, everyone agreed that the screen resolution, camera etc. was a generation or two behind, and most reviewers had started recommending other phones with more features.
Like I said, some people "get" or appreciate Apples product design, and some don't. The fact that you're say that there's nothing special about their products shows that you don't. There's nothing wrong with that, just as there's nothing wrong with me not wearing designer clothing and being unable to tell the difference betewen a generic and a designer suit.
But as you say, it makes it impossible to discuss their products. Which is why this discussion is pointless :)
If Apples advantage was something very measurable, for instance if all their laptops had 20GHz processors and 256GB RAM, it would be obvious to everyone, including their competitors, why they were able to make so much money with such a small market share.
But it's difficult to quantify what "good product design" is. I can give countless examples of small details that Apples designers have thought about that other laptop makers haven't, but this is simply irrelevant to people who don't appreciate that. Similarly, a BMW owner could point to lots of small features and details that they like about their car, but others simply see an overpriced car with high maintenance costs.
Still, unlike Monster cables, you can point to many features or details that you simply don't get with other cars that still do the job of transporting people. The question is simply whether someone is willing (and able) to pay for the added design, features, and comfort.
I think that Apples success shows that there are enough people who _do_ care about it, and I think that's a big reason for their high profit margins.
Finally, I think you'll see that Motorola has won a lot of praise and attention for some of their better designed products, even though Apple is the current media darling.
And I think this is key to Apples success, because I suspect that a lot of CEOs and product managers in other companies simply don't see this either.
You see this with a lot of laptops where the only attention to detail is in the obviously visible parts. Compare this to Steve Jobs / Jony Ive that obsess over how their products look on the _inside_ (http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s...)
Unlike many other companies, Apple _doesn't_ just take various technologies and piece them together to make a product. And they do a lot of core technologies in-house, which is why they've bought companies like FingerWorks and PA Sami.
The interview with Jony Ive in the Objectified movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0fe800C2CU) shows some of the thought process that is involved in Apples hardware design process.
By your logic, other PC/mobile manufacturers should have similar profit margins to Apple, but they don't. Now, the usual answer is that Apple has a "cult-like following" that will pay a higher price for "more or less the same hardware in a different box".
A better explanation, given that the "cult following" has only increased the last few years, is that Apple manages to make more appealing products by being extremely involved in _both_ hardware and software, leaving other companies to compete by sticking together commodity components. Apple did not say that they expected decreased profit margins because they would have to slash their prices, what they did warn was that their forthcoming products would have higher hardware costs. But of course, time will show.
I'm not sure if this command will help with that.
But in any case, I'm sold on the trackpad now, and I'm not going back. :)
Using synergy and an external Linux PC to drive the mouse solves the problem. But I like the Mac touchpads so much that the mouse problem sort of disappears, especially now with the new external touchpad. Now, I find even using a mouse (or touchpad) on other Windows / Linux computers is slightly annoying.
1) the guy would also need the HMAC key, or 2) the zero-day is in the code that looks at the HMAC signature.
It's not that I only count on this for security, but it's a matter of reducing the attack surface. Likewise, I don't have passwordless guest accounts on all my servers, since that would make the attack surface even greater.
On the other hand, you can have brilliant business operations and virtually no innovation for decades, until a better technology comes along and tanks your business. Although investing in technology is risky, failing to invest in new technology can be far riskier.
I'm pretty sure Nokia has great business operations, but considering how they're scrambling to release a new (wait, two new) mobile operating systems in response to the iPhone, they apparently failed to invest (or invest in the right) technology.
But Perl6 running on Parrot? Oracles JVM-related patents may very well apply, so your best bet is to hope that your favourite language never gets used by a high profile company in one of the next leading mobile platforms.
Google went out of its way not to use any code created by Sun, and didn't even use the JVM as a foundation in order to (hopefully) be in the clear.
So be careful what you wish for. My first reaction was also that of "good riddance!", but in the end the whole situation is just sad. I never liked programming Java, so I decided to keep it out of my programming life. Maybe that's why I don't hate it so much. :)
That doesn't mean that creating maintainable PHP software can't be done - it's actually been done many times. While I agree that languages can make a big difference in maintainability, please stop blaming a programming language for your own mistakes.
From http://www.schiratti.com/humour.html:
Control: You're unreadable, say again.
Motor-glider: I've turned off the engine, is that better?
Control: (looong pause)
1) Never solely rely on PayPal for your income. 2) Never keep large amounts in your PayPal account - they can be come PayPals for 6m+ at a moments notice.
I think Nokia could have challenged Apple if they had fully focused on Maemo when they first released the 770, and developed a culture of making better, more bug-free software. Now, I'm not so sure. Android has taken the place that Maemo could have had. Steve Jobs was actually right when he said that smartphones had "baby software" during the iPhone introduction - and the mobile industry didn't realize it at that point because _everyone_ were making baby software for their phones until Apple came along.
The people complaining that Apple didn't use the Newton OS for the iPhone doesn't realize that Apple would have been in the same position if they had (regardless of all the innovative features of the Newton).
AFAIK, H.264 is an open standard. That it's patented and not royalty free doesn't make it closed, it simply makes it non-free. Another example is the G.729 voice codec, which has lots of open source implementations, but to use it you will have to buy a license. Open source PBX vendors like Digium provide licenses to those that need them. It's not an ideal situation, which is why G.729 is not as popular in the open source world, but it's still better than Skypes proprietary protocol.