davidwb's Profile

You assume that Apple went out of its way to brick the iPhone. It is possible that's true but it is also true that the update may have been so extensive that bricking was a side affect that was unavoidable. Impossible you say? Not in the least. Once upon a time I worked for a company that produced Mac software. The company utilized quite a few hacks rather than using the toolbox simply because their hacks were more convenient. Apple had warned programmers not to do this and from time to time these hacks failed as the OS changed. Then came OS 8.5 and soon thereafter there went the company I worked for. Fixing our programs, management decided, would be too difficult, time consuming, and costly. Gee, if we'd only done it right to begin with. The hackers who found ways to make things work on the iPhone may well have been pulling the same kind of (brilliant) tricks my former employer did. In fact, it is likely since no developers toolkit exists, other than the web based one. But then the update ruined them, just as OS 8.5 ruined my employer's software. But the fault wasn't Apple's, was it?

First, you ignore that every product is a compromise. Every car, every pair of jeans, every engagement ring, every item you buy. The iPod is no different. And the consumer is also always forced to compromise - sometimes on price, sometimes on features, sometimes on need. Heck, the best selling automobile in the US in one no one really wants to buy - the minivan. Its features best meet the needs of the modern family. Apple is offering four distinct products because the market wants them - because we each have our list of needs, wants, and constraints. * some want an iPod but have very little to spend. Apple covers them with the shuffle. * some want to carry their large catalog of music and videos. Apple give them the classic * some want a sturdier device than the classic, light like the shuffle, but with more features. Apples give them the nano * some are awed by the iPhone but for one reason or another aren't going to buy an iPhone. Apple gives the the touch Does the product line make it hard for some of us to choose? Sure...just like I found it hard to choose when I bought a new TV this summer. But I'm better off than if Sony offered only one HD TV.

Saying DRM sells iPods is nonsense! The iTunes Store is a convenience that MIGHT tend to keep an iPod user tied to the iPod, but its importance to selling iPods right now is minimal. Why is it so hard to understand that the iPod is king because it combines THREE powerful tools: an easy to use mp3 player that looks great too, a way to catalog music and get it onto the hardware, and a way to acquire music. The iTunes store is just one way to acquire music, using the iTunes software to rip CDs is another, downloading from other sites (legal and illegal) is yet another. In other words, the iTunes store (and DRM) is a very very small part of the whole enchilada. (Not to mention, easily avoidable.) DRM or no DRM - that has nothing to do with the iPod's success.

Correct, with valid ID Apple Stores will sell HARDWARE at education prices. My last purchase was a MacMini a few months ago. But Apple stores don't sell software at education prices mainly because most education prices software comes in special packaging/serial numbers.

The fact is, it is still Windows and the warts are still there under the spackling compound. The Registry still rocks - oops - I mean to say the Registry is still a rock tied around the user's neck. Microsoft still thinks everyone is an idiot so it is still difficult to get to the proper configuration dialog and just enter the values that need entering. The Explorer is still too busy visually. I could go on. Yes, Vista, like all the other iterations of Windows is 'just good enough' and there are plenty of people who find that suffices. Fine, let them use it.

The answer to Microsoft's fear of the iPod is simple once you accept the simple idea that Microsoft is a software company. Why did MS build the Xbox, certainly not to make money selling the hardware. MS saw Nintendo and Sony making cash hand over fist selling games and MS wanted a cut of the game pie. So it's all about money right? Well, no. That Apple currently owns the digital audio player market isn't the issue. Apple also owns the audio download market too and is making inroads into televisio as well as rumored to be in talks with Hollywood. And this is the problem. If Apple manages to tie up the audio and video download markets then who will buy Microsoft's DRM solutions? In the future DRM is either going to be huge for whoever gets the nod, or it is going to be a massive boondogle for whoever gets the nod, or it is going down the tubes. Take your choice but I don't think DRM is going away anytime soon. Whether the 'winner' will turn out to be the winner is another question. But the fact remains MS thinks the delivery of content and the protection of content will be another license to print money. But MS only has a chance if it is still seen as a player in the market. Thanks to Apple's success and the failures of everyone else, MS now risks being locked out of a big market if it doesn't take decisive steps. Whether the company can pull off something that is in no way a part of its core strengths is another question. Someone inside the company should be asking this question: "If Sony can't do it, why should we think we can?"

Listen to people talking about their cell phones or their digital cameras and you'll soon discover that they are a largely disatisfied group; disatisfied not because their gadget doesn't do enough but because they can't figure out how to make them do what their supposed to do. Listen to people talking about their iPod and you'll soon discover that a small number of them are disatisfied because their gadget doesn't do enough. So tell me. Who would you rather be? Apple or Motorola, Nokia, Canon, Samsung, and Sony? You want extra features? Buy an add-on gadget for your iPod or some extra-featured iPod knock off. But leave your mitts off the iPod design.

Will Vista be the last OS Microsoft ships? Good question. We know Microsoft has had one heck a time getting Vista out the door and that in doing so has been forced to drop lots of the original features. But it is quite possible Microsoft has learned something along the way. Microsoft was forced to retreat to a stable baseline and start Vista over from scratch. We also know that Microsoft has begun utilizing modern-day software engineering techniques to build the new code. This is important because Microsoft's program design has lived in the dark ages for the last decade. One question, which can only be answered by the top Windows engineers, is did they retreat far enough. Does their base code represent a 'black box' that is stable but no one at Microsoft really understands or is that base code fully transparent to the coders? It makes a difference to Windows future. One problem that has plagued Microsoft throughout its Windows history is that code that no-one really understands kept getting dumped in. Each promise of a full-rewrite was abandoned as time ran out. If that core contains code that isn't fully 100% understood Microsoft's ability to move forward on the new code will be compromised. Will Vista be the last OS Microsoft ships? Almost certainly not, but it is likely to be the last Windows (as we know it) OS that Microsoft ever ships. I've read too much from current and former Microsoft employees to make me think the Windows code is sustainable. I posit two possibilities: 1) Microsoft truly starts over and writes a new OS. This will be a tremendous undertaking and will mean that the company will probably be stuck supporting Vista for 5-6 years. Will it - can it - be backwards compatible? Maybe but don't count on it. One reason Microsoft is in its current fix is the company's insistence on backwards compatibility. 2) Microsoft starts with a known stable kernel and builds a new Windows compliant OS atop that. Sounds familiar doesn't it? And since Microsoft is now researching *nix inhouse, it makes for intriguing speculation.