techweenie
Apr 6, 10:03 AM
If by normal people he means peopleofwalmart.com then yes.
vincenz
Apr 13, 11:39 PM
The plans are drawn very poorly.
OutThere
Oct 6, 11:29 AM
Multiple screen sizes would throw a wrench into the simplicity of apps that fit one form factor.
I do think there will be potential to include some really awesome OLED screen tech that could increase visual real estate in the iPhone in the next few years, though.
I do think there will be potential to include some really awesome OLED screen tech that could increase visual real estate in the iPhone in the next few years, though.
zeemeerman2
Apr 12, 12:45 PM
So what's fixed?
To me, in Office nothing seemed broken.
To me, in Office nothing seemed broken.
more...
MikeTheC
Nov 3, 01:19 AM
I'd like to tackle a few points in the discussion here.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
iMrNiceGuy0023
Jan 6, 11:37 PM
I updated...but the app store is still telling me I have a facebook app update....anyone else have this issue?
more...
MacRumors
Sep 25, 09:48 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Apple is hosting a Special Event (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060914090209.shtml) today at Photokina. The invite-only media event was first reported (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060821202913.shtml) in late August after members of the UK Press received invitations.
Details on the media event have been particularly scarce, but it is believed the event is currently taking place in Colonge, Germany.
There does not appear to be any live coverage for this event on the web. We will provide links or updates as they are received.
Apple is hosting a Special Event (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060914090209.shtml) today at Photokina. The invite-only media event was first reported (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060821202913.shtml) in late August after members of the UK Press received invitations.
Details on the media event have been particularly scarce, but it is believed the event is currently taking place in Colonge, Germany.
There does not appear to be any live coverage for this event on the web. We will provide links or updates as they are received.
cvaldes
Oct 6, 05:52 PM
It's a Shaw Wu rumor, so it must be poppycock.
Sorry, folks. Nothing here to see. Move along.
:D
Sorry, folks. Nothing here to see. Move along.
:D
more...
Ommid
Apr 24, 06:22 AM
More memory!
I think the Air needs a complete revamp to be honest, I think Apple could sell alot more.
I think the Air needs a complete revamp to be honest, I think Apple could sell alot more.
10layers
Oct 17, 03:55 PM
See Apple filing for iPhone trademarks worldwide (http://10layers.com/2006/10/apple-filing-for-iphone-trademarks-worldwide/).
Apple has filed for trademarks in: the US, the UK, the EU, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and others.
Apple has filed for trademarks in: the US, the UK, the EU, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and others.
more...
fun173
Apr 18, 09:16 PM
I am trading this guy a crappy guitar for it. I don't plan on using it, just wondering if it is something I could flip and make a profit. And the guitar has not been used since I was around 10 and I am pretty sure it is from Walmart.
Don't count on making a profit off of an iMac G3. I think at most it is worth $40. Having the box and everything is a plus, but it is still a G3. With all that said I would definitley buy it and keep. I bought one a while back in box with all the original items and box for $10!!
Don't count on making a profit off of an iMac G3. I think at most it is worth $40. Having the box and everything is a plus, but it is still a G3. With all that said I would definitley buy it and keep. I bought one a while back in box with all the original items and box for $10!!
CalfCanuck
Sep 25, 11:36 AM
Well, without looking at 1.5 itself I'm pretty pleased. Seems many of the things the serious users were asking for (esp on Apple's Aperture Discussion forum) are there.
I REALLY hope / expect that Apple improved the keyword DB code - since they now have the offline option, this all had to be rewritten. I'm expecting this to be the MAJOR improvement in Ap 1.5 in terms of usability and speed, and might be the reason that they dropped the supported specs to includer all Mac Intel boxes.
On a related note, I'm VERY happy to see improved keywording and searching, esp the "no" keyword search option. Though a minor thing (compared to offline support), this always drives me nuts in the current version:
Add, maintain, and update keywords more easily using improved keyword management options � even lock the Keyword HUD to prevent inadvertent changes...
Quickly find all images with �any� keyword assigned or with �no� keyword assigned when searching by IPTC info using the Query HUD...
Search for images by file status � i.e., �offline,� �online,� or �referenced� � using a new Query option...
Correct spelling, revise wording, or completely delete metadata/keyword entries using the new Autofill Editor.
Finally, iPod integration an interesting new feature that we won't fully appreciate for a while - I wonder why the iTunes store video downloads were upgraded in size recently but no current iPod can take advantage of this new format. I still speculate that we'll see a new larger format Video iPod that can do double duty for us photographers. I'd love to see the ability to Stack and apply exisiting keywording to RAW images int the field via an Ipod:
Sync to iPod: Take your photos with you by using iTunes to sync your entire Aperture library � or just selected albums or Smart Albums � to iPod.
I REALLY hope / expect that Apple improved the keyword DB code - since they now have the offline option, this all had to be rewritten. I'm expecting this to be the MAJOR improvement in Ap 1.5 in terms of usability and speed, and might be the reason that they dropped the supported specs to includer all Mac Intel boxes.
On a related note, I'm VERY happy to see improved keywording and searching, esp the "no" keyword search option. Though a minor thing (compared to offline support), this always drives me nuts in the current version:
Add, maintain, and update keywords more easily using improved keyword management options � even lock the Keyword HUD to prevent inadvertent changes...
Quickly find all images with �any� keyword assigned or with �no� keyword assigned when searching by IPTC info using the Query HUD...
Search for images by file status � i.e., �offline,� �online,� or �referenced� � using a new Query option...
Correct spelling, revise wording, or completely delete metadata/keyword entries using the new Autofill Editor.
Finally, iPod integration an interesting new feature that we won't fully appreciate for a while - I wonder why the iTunes store video downloads were upgraded in size recently but no current iPod can take advantage of this new format. I still speculate that we'll see a new larger format Video iPod that can do double duty for us photographers. I'd love to see the ability to Stack and apply exisiting keywording to RAW images int the field via an Ipod:
Sync to iPod: Take your photos with you by using iTunes to sync your entire Aperture library � or just selected albums or Smart Albums � to iPod.
more...
TheSideshow
Apr 30, 04:22 PM
:confused::confused:
It might just be me but I tried the Nexus S for three whole days and I found it incredibly confusing to use than my iPhone.
What's more is, I got used to the iPhone on the first day of using it.
You just made his point
It might just be me but I tried the Nexus S for three whole days and I found it incredibly confusing to use than my iPhone.
What's more is, I got used to the iPhone on the first day of using it.
You just made his point
cheeseblock
Feb 19, 06:34 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
Get your elbow off the table steve, has your mother taught you nothing?!
Get your elbow off the table steve, has your mother taught you nothing?!
more...
Cassie
Nov 11, 02:10 AM
Maybe it's because we watch these ads too much... I too understood what they were saying
CFreymarc
Apr 14, 08:40 PM
Wow, that bar-b-q at Bill's place panned out. Didn't expect a talk over a few beers and ribs over how to manage over 100 million users in a data center would come to something. At least no blood sucking head hunter got a commission on this one and he got a better signing bonus. Welcome to the club!
more...
MistaBungle
Feb 18, 02:53 PM
I'm very glad he looks healthy in that photo. Get well Steve.
asphalt-proof
Oct 18, 08:09 AM
This was the funniest thing I've read all week.
I've been in insurance training, and in addition to financial people, there's been some, uh, "Desparate Housewives" getting their insurance licenses, and I'm picturing them passing around a poor phone and a bedazzler during class now. :eek:
is avril lavigne pregnant
I've been in insurance training, and in addition to financial people, there's been some, uh, "Desparate Housewives" getting their insurance licenses, and I'm picturing them passing around a poor phone and a bedazzler during class now. :eek:
Azathoth
Mar 25, 10:21 AM
They did not avoid digital at all, in fact they were an early entrant to digital. The problem was that they were used to having a lucrative near-monopoly in film, a fat side business in film processing and a nice low-end camera business built around proprietary "connvenience" film packaging. They were now facing aggressive consumer electronics companies who were used to relently feature upgrades and short model lifecycles. Moreover, they could not rely on their film dominance to keep competitors at a disadvantage. In other words, they had to change their business model completely-- from near monopoly to completely competitive-- in order to success in the new business. Only a fraction of companies manage to do this successfully.
Keep in mind, also, due to the increased competition and lack of a film component, that the opportunity for Kodak in digital was much smaller than their film and related businesses. It's very hard to manage a shrinking company, and even harder if you are also trying to reinvent yourself.
Not only that - but the fact that there is no film in a digital camera - Kodak is a "film emulsion" company. Professionals never bought Kodak cameras or lenses. There is no "film" in a digital camera. The most natural progression would have been for Kodak to make memory cards.
Most of the R&D (and they did some great R&D in chemistry, materials and human image perception) were fundementally irrelevant to digital.
The changes that Kodak would have needed to be relevant were so huge (fire 90% of staff, change the entire core business) that I don't think there was any way they could have been succesful.
The successful camera companies today fall into one of two camps: 1. well established camera companies. 2. Consumer electronics companies.
Afga (a film emulsion company): effectively dead.
Fuji: very limited success (though they almost had their head above water for a while).
Keep in mind, also, due to the increased competition and lack of a film component, that the opportunity for Kodak in digital was much smaller than their film and related businesses. It's very hard to manage a shrinking company, and even harder if you are also trying to reinvent yourself.
Not only that - but the fact that there is no film in a digital camera - Kodak is a "film emulsion" company. Professionals never bought Kodak cameras or lenses. There is no "film" in a digital camera. The most natural progression would have been for Kodak to make memory cards.
Most of the R&D (and they did some great R&D in chemistry, materials and human image perception) were fundementally irrelevant to digital.
The changes that Kodak would have needed to be relevant were so huge (fire 90% of staff, change the entire core business) that I don't think there was any way they could have been succesful.
The successful camera companies today fall into one of two camps: 1. well established camera companies. 2. Consumer electronics companies.
Afga (a film emulsion company): effectively dead.
Fuji: very limited success (though they almost had their head above water for a while).
bigpics
Apr 14, 05:33 PM
From what I understand, there are smart and creative people at MS but the company is bloated and unorganized so it is unable to really utilize its people effectively.My friend's son is a senior MS exec, and from what I know (third-hand, mind you), Microsoft has a history of hiring lots and lots of top-tier grads. From about 1990-2000, they pretty much had pick of the litter.
Since then, Apple and Google among others have become magnets in their own right, and IBM and Oracle have also picked up their share - to name a few of the big boys.
You're right about the bloated part too, tho' "overorganized," i.e., bureaucratic, rather than unorganized may be a better description. MS is a collection of jealous baronies where the Win, Server and Office groups can pretty much quash anything else that doesn't fit their grand schema.
Which has resulted, e.g., in their seriously flawed efforts in the phone and "slate"/tablet markets. Including the recent "Pink"/Kin disaster.
So a lot of the talent begins to feel misused, abused and undervalued. But there are interesting things going on with the X-Box, Sync and Surface teams, and a lot of talent and resources are being thrown into the growing (if hard to understand and manage) stable of Live (read: "cloud" and "SaaS) offerings.
One semi-independent team is that developing Office for Mac. I've been in their advisory panel for a year or too now, and they really go out of their way to solicit feedback, suggestions, not just about Office (in some depth), but about how I use my Macs, and my attitudes about things like Office Apps on iOS devices. You get the impression they really care about their product and enjoy what they're doing.
Yeah, yeah, they probably feed it back on ways to make Win more Mac-like, but in the long run, for all users and Apple itself, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.
Both companies are going to be around for a long time, and while they overlap, they also have different missions that occupy different aspects of the whole computing "ecosystem." And both now have a common interest in not letting Google overrun key products.
PS: If you're looking for new companies for Apple to wary about, also keep your eyes on Amazon, and yes, facebook. Both have "ideas."
Since then, Apple and Google among others have become magnets in their own right, and IBM and Oracle have also picked up their share - to name a few of the big boys.
You're right about the bloated part too, tho' "overorganized," i.e., bureaucratic, rather than unorganized may be a better description. MS is a collection of jealous baronies where the Win, Server and Office groups can pretty much quash anything else that doesn't fit their grand schema.
Which has resulted, e.g., in their seriously flawed efforts in the phone and "slate"/tablet markets. Including the recent "Pink"/Kin disaster.
So a lot of the talent begins to feel misused, abused and undervalued. But there are interesting things going on with the X-Box, Sync and Surface teams, and a lot of talent and resources are being thrown into the growing (if hard to understand and manage) stable of Live (read: "cloud" and "SaaS) offerings.
One semi-independent team is that developing Office for Mac. I've been in their advisory panel for a year or too now, and they really go out of their way to solicit feedback, suggestions, not just about Office (in some depth), but about how I use my Macs, and my attitudes about things like Office Apps on iOS devices. You get the impression they really care about their product and enjoy what they're doing.
Yeah, yeah, they probably feed it back on ways to make Win more Mac-like, but in the long run, for all users and Apple itself, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.
Both companies are going to be around for a long time, and while they overlap, they also have different missions that occupy different aspects of the whole computing "ecosystem." And both now have a common interest in not letting Google overrun key products.
PS: If you're looking for new companies for Apple to wary about, also keep your eyes on Amazon, and yes, facebook. Both have "ideas."
awadeee
May 2, 12:54 PM
This is a relief. :D
Moria
Jan 8, 01:17 PM
Cool. Some people say it's fake but I know for a fact that it is legit unless someone photoshopped the Banner in...
Really? :eek:
Really? :eek:
Phil A.
Dec 1, 09:18 AM
Looks like the train has come to the end of the line: the website now just goes to a holding page
chicagdan
May 22, 11:04 AM
Why don't you guys just answer the question -- it's pretty simple. I have to use a PC at work and I keep an old one around for some text-based sports games not available on the Mac. But I prefer Mac because:
1) There's nothing in the PC market remotely similar to my 17" widescreen iMac. If you haven't used one, you can't appreciate it's incredible design and beauty.
2) I don't have to pay extra for basic software required to do most of what I do on a computer -- iTunes, iPhoto, iDVD, etc., all free with Mac OS-X. The Windows equivalents are awful.
3) My Mac crashes very rarely, every PC I've ever used crashes at least once a week and requires a new installation of the OS every six months or so just to clean up the garbage.
4) With a Mac, I don't have to download and install a new patch from MS every few days to close a security vulnerability.
5) Add something to a Mac and you know it will work without having to hunt down drivers.
6) When you own a Mac, you feel like you're carrying a great set of golf clubs around a Country Club, not lugging a toolbox in a dark basement. The Mac community is probably the strongest argument in favor of its continued, unlikely survival.
1) There's nothing in the PC market remotely similar to my 17" widescreen iMac. If you haven't used one, you can't appreciate it's incredible design and beauty.
2) I don't have to pay extra for basic software required to do most of what I do on a computer -- iTunes, iPhoto, iDVD, etc., all free with Mac OS-X. The Windows equivalents are awful.
3) My Mac crashes very rarely, every PC I've ever used crashes at least once a week and requires a new installation of the OS every six months or so just to clean up the garbage.
4) With a Mac, I don't have to download and install a new patch from MS every few days to close a security vulnerability.
5) Add something to a Mac and you know it will work without having to hunt down drivers.
6) When you own a Mac, you feel like you're carrying a great set of golf clubs around a Country Club, not lugging a toolbox in a dark basement. The Mac community is probably the strongest argument in favor of its continued, unlikely survival.
No comments:
Post a Comment