Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Clues That Apple's Bought Another Processor Design House

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the unless-that-was-an-april-fool's-prank dept.

Businesses 183

According to Ars Technica: "Apple's gigantic bankroll may be burning a hole in its pocket. Almost two years after purchasing PowerPC designer P.A. Semi, Apple appears to have snapped up ARM design house Intrinsity. According to a report that first appeared on electronista, a number of engineers at the company have indicated that they are now or soon will be employed by Apple. Some of them have even gone as far as to change their LinkedIn profiles, with one reverting it, possibly out of fear of drawing the wrath of his new, secretive employer." Updated 20100404 1:15 GMT Brian Dipert points out the earlier coverage at EDN, from which both of the above reports draw.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I wonder... (2, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714300)

I wonder how long it'll take the otherwise intelligent geeks at /. to finally figure out that Apple is just as dangerous as Microsoft. They (Apple) just haven't gotten to the market share level they need yet to take over the world as it were.

I know I'll get modded down by all the Jobs Koolaid drinkers, but Apple is every bit as hungry and willing to use any means necessary to dominate as is Microsoft. MS is on the wane while Apple is on the rise. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Re:I wonder... (3, Insightful)

bbqsrc (1441981) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714316)

Not the same. MS was openly destructive. At least, sometimes, Apple offers something new and competitive.

Re:I wonder... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31714384)

Ah, the first reply proving OP right about the Koolaid drinkers. The only thing new and competitive Apple ever offered was its marketing. As far as its products are concerned, they were never special.

I dispute that EVER part (3, Insightful)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714428)

I loved my //e

Re:I wonder... (5, Insightful)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714536)

Well they are a lot more innovative than Microsoft are that's for sure.

When Microsoft released a tablet PC it was just a tablet with Windows and some trivial extensions. The head of the Office team wouldn't rework Office to work with the tablet controls as he "doesn't like touch screens".

Hardly the sort of thing you want to buy is it, a tablet running an OS designed for a mouse and keyboard with some hacks on the top to make it try to work with a stylus.

Why is it "drinking koolaid" to want to simply buy a computer and use it? have the hardware and software working in unison to give a good user experience?

I'm well versed with Linux, Windows etc.. I've built up MythTV media centres using Linux (compiling my own kernel and all that). I choose to own a Mac because computers are just a tool to get things done. They shouldn't be like a car requiring lots of maintenance.

Re:I wonder... (1)

CFD339 (795926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715070)

When Microsoft released a tablet PC it was just a tablet with Windows and some trivial extensions.

Um...and when Apple released a tablet it was just an iPod touch with a bigger screen and some incremental os extensions (that also apply to the ipod). The thing is, at least to me, very impractical to even hold on to while using it. It's too big to be snug in one hand but it has no handle. If you set it down, you'll have to prop it up because it's got no kickstand. There's no usb for an optional mouse or keyboard. If you do use it as a touch screen when set down, the damn thing will rock back and forth because the back is rounded.

It's a really nice looking, stunningly pretty, very tactile version of the iPod touch -- but it misses so much of the benefit of the touch in terms of mobility that I just don't see it as anything you'll want to drag around with you.

Re:I wonder... (4, Insightful)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715104)

I'm sorry. I can't swallow this shit. The PC industry owes its existence to Microsoft. While just about every other player in the industry was working on either big iron type systems (IBM, DEC) or absurdly unprofitable business models (Apple, BBC), Microsoft was paving the way with a simplified operating system that was cheap enough to develop that there were no huge R&D costs to recoup and that worked on commodity hardware cheap enough to become the modern day one-in-every-home PC.

Nobody else at the time would have done it, and it possibly would have happened eventually without MS, but give credit where credit is due. That they have become too big for their boots, turning into a bully does not take away from their past achievements. It's like criticizing Mohamed Ali's sporting record on account of his present poor level of physical fitness.

It's easy for us to look at them now and claim to have been all visionary like "oo I never liked them I knew they were bad guys". Bullshit. You had a PC, and you loved it. You played games on it. You did *not* know that in the late 90s MS would become an industrial and political bully.

Kinda like now, really. In 5-10 years all you groupies will be saying the same thing "oo I was never an Apple/Google fan, I always knew they were up to no good!".

Re:I wonder... (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715498)

I agree with the general idea. Open source happened largely because lots of amateurs had access to cheap machines. This is probably much more due to clones of IBM PC than the original, but Microsoft's effect is notable nevertheless. However, I'm pretty sure there were other, equally capable OS vendors at the time; for example the one that had actually written the DOS Microsoft sold to IBM, and the guy that missed the meeting with IBM. Then again, it's equally possible that this other vendor would have become equally evil.

It's easy for us to look at them now and claim to have been all visionary like "oo I never liked them I knew they were bad guys". Bullshit. You had a PC, and you loved it. You played games on it. You did *not* know that in the late 90s MS would become an industrial and political bully.

I did not exactly love my PC , but it was the best thing I could have at the moment. (It was a 286, while most of my fellow geeks had at least a 386, so they had access to much better software ;) I remember when Digital announced the Alpha, and of course it was every geek's dream architecture, but completely out of our league as teenagers. The PC was the most affordable machine for somewhat serious computing.

However, I also remember when Windows 95 was announced. It was all oohs and aahs of marketing, and I did not see any technical improvement. Some of my geek friends realized this as well, others did not. Eventually, I moved from DOS and Windows 3.1 to Linux.

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31715184)

I'm well versed with Linux, Windows etc.. I've built up MythTV media centres using Linux (compiling my own kernel and all that). I choose to own a Mac because computers are just a tool to get things done. They shouldn't be like a car requiring lots of maintenance.

I'm glad you've mentioned your credentials. Now I can rest assured that your opinion isn't tainted or biased in any way and I can take your word as gospel and the final say on the matter. Thank you for sharing.

By the way, I've been reading opinions for 22 years and am well versed in reading and understanding them.

Re:I wonder... (1)

knappe duivel (914316) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714554)

Ah, the first reply proving OP right about the Koolaid drinkers.

Learn to read. GP claims he will be modded down. As he is now at +4 I think his claim has been proven false.

Re:I wonder... (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714930)

Learn to read. GP claims he will be modded down. As he is now at +4 I think his claim has been proven false.

Wrong.

As of the last time I refreshed this page a couple of minutes ago, he was at +4, but that broke down as follows:-
50% Insightful
20% Flamebait
20% Overrated

I don't know which came first, but the guy *was* modded down- he just also got modded up enough to compensate.

s/never/generally somewhat/g (4, Insightful)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714740)

I see. Anyone at Slashdot that doesn't believe that Apple is the new Microsoft (despite marketshare, history, and product differences) and that doesn't find Apple's products to be mediocre is a Koolaid drinker and fanboi.

Just about the most irrational and blinkered topic on Slashdot in years, this Apple emergence. A broad swath of Slashdotters (presumably the last/youngest wave of those that felt special just for being well-versed in technoesoterics) clearly feels their identities and statuses deeply threatened by the (relative) success of Apple, who is having influence out of all proportion to their marketshare as a result of the fact that much of the public finds them to be a tremendous innovative and specifically NON-Microsoft-alike company.

Re:s/never/generally somewhat/g (4, Insightful)

smallfries (601545) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714900)

I must be a fan of the Koolaid then. Tastes groovy.

Apple are clearly a larger and more relevant player than they were five years ago. Being the next Microsoft does not immediately follow from that. There are some extra requirements (like breaking intercompatability, sabotaging the competition, throwing chairs etc).

My main machine is a macbook. It the only decent unix laptop I could find. Yes, I am familiar with linux on laptops, no it doesn't cut it. I want a POSIX environment with a full tool-chain and all of the other command-line goodness that I'm used to. But I want the user interface to work and a decent level of integration between the two (provided by open -a and pyappscript). Windows doesn't cut it for that kind of work, and linux only solves half the problem. To me the concept of 'freedom' is far less important than day-to-day productivity here and now.

My phone is a n900 (and it is still in the new toy honeymoon phase so can do no wrong). So why not an iPhone? The nicely packaged concept of a Walled Garden may have taken smartphones into the mainstream, but it is not for me. Again I want a decent POSIX environment on my smartphone with all of the tools that I am used to. Maemo certainly seems to be good fun there and now that I've found the python interpreter and the Qt bindings it is going to be exactly what I'm looking for in a phone - but then again I'm not the mass-market.

Everything that is wrong about the iPhone for me is what ha made it a mainstream success story. Sitting on a bus back from the airport the other night almost every person (across a wide age range) had a smartphone. 90% of them were iPhones. Packaging up a chunk of functionality (even if it is as simple as a web-page with some live data) into a a funky icon and selling it was a stroke of marketing genius. I, like many geeks, am left scratching my head and saying "What? You'd pay for that shit?".

So they have in a real sense made the smartphone market. Just as they made the mp3 player market. They didn't invent either product, but they found the right form to convince people that they needed it. Is that Microsoft? Nah, that's bloody good marketing that it. Hats off to them.

Mac vs. PC / iPhone vs. Cellphone (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31715010)

Sitting on a bus back from the airport the other night almost every person (across a wide age range) had a smartphone. 90% of them were iPhones.

Hm. Another piece of anecdotal evidence. But please, remember, the US isn't the world. The iPhone has a minuscule share of the world's mobile phone market. The only sense in which Apple "made" the smartphone market is by manipulating the tech press to redefine the smartphone as an iPhone. Remember the false dichotomy that Apple insisted existed between the Mac and the PC. More of the same. And so, by definition, the Mac is the best Mac, and the iPhone is the best iPhone.

Re:s/never/generally somewhat/g (2, Insightful)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715154)

There are some extra requirements (like breaking intercompatability, sabotaging the competition, throwing chairs etc).

1. breaking intercompatability: iTunes. Works with other media players in the way that Internet Explorer works on other operating systems. Ever tried syncing iPhone with anything other than iTunes? Ever tried putting MacOSX on anything other than Apple hardware?

2. sabotaging the competition: here [slashdot.org] , here [slashdot.org] , here [slashdot.org] , here [slashdot.org] , here [slashdot.org] , here [slashdot.org] .

3. Alas, I was unable to find a YouTube vid of jobs throwing a chair. You win that point.

Re:s/never/generally somewhat/g (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31715504)

made the smartphone market huh? yeah. right. take a look at the numbers man. The orientals have been running around with smart phones way longer. I also heard there's this company called nokia run by vikings and these canuks had this wildly successful thing called a blackberry for a decade.......... i think my captcha 'crackpot' is speaking to you.

Re:s/never/generally somewhat/g (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714902)

"Anyone"? How about "many"? Or "a vocal minority"? You're putting the word "anyone" into the GP's mouth. He was replying to someone who stated that Apple, in contrast with Microsoft, aren't destructive but owe its success entirely to that it "offers something new and competitive". Where's the "anyone"? Strawman much?

As for your stupid ad hominem: it's stupid. Since you can't find a rational counter-argument to everything that's been said about Apple's well-known and destructive policies, you make up for it by inventing an irrational psychology in their critics.

And someone found your comment "insightful", even though you don't have one single argument at all. Come on, do you seriously think there's anything "irrational" and "blinkered" to attacking that kind of fanboy logic?

Re:s/never/generally somewhat/g (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715210)

If Apple gets on the level of Microsoft, that could be a good thing. Because then we have two equally competitive system makers and neither has the total control that Microsoft has had. The fact is, Windows 7 was not "my" idea. Apple came up with a new style to stay competitive and Microsoft ripped it to stay competitive. As long as we have two competitive players, there will be "innovation". As long as we only have one, there will be Windows ME.

Re:I wonder... (1)

Waccoon (1186667) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714440)

For now?

Re:I wonder... (-1, Troll)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714456)

At least, sometimes, Apple creates a better illusion of offering something new and competitive.

There, fixed that for you. ^^

iPhone -> Midrange phone with little functionality and touch screen (was already done by many other companies [e.g. japanese] before them. (Seen as a gift from god in the extremely deprived US market.)
iPod -> Just a plain and simple MP3 player. Even el-cheapo companies from Taiwan did it years before them.
The Mac -> Just an expensive PC.
iPad -> Yet another try at the “tablet”, that nobody wanted, the last dozen times other companies tried the same.

Their marketing is beyond excellent (Especially the viral one with all the delusional fanbois doing the work for free. [Watch them doing it to this comment too.]). But their products are not at all new, and with those prices not competitive anyway.

Not true. (2, Insightful)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714760)

Please see my post in yesterday's anti-Apple party [slashdot.org] for a discussion of why your'e wrong.

I owned other phones with touch screens for years before buying an iPhone. The user interface makes it substantively different.

I owned a Creative MuVo2 and a Diamond Rio before an iPod (which I no longer own, replacing it with my iPhone). The user interface made it substantively different.

I keep an installation of Mac OS X 10.5.8 on a ThinkPad partition for cases when I need to run Mac apps for compatibility with someone's files. The user interface makes it substantially different.

I owned a Fujitsu Stylistic, a Vadem Clio, an Asus R2H, and most recently a Toshiba M200, all tablet PCs. Having seen the iPad demoed and used the iPhone for some time, it is clear that the user interface will make the iPad substantively different.

The user interface is perhaps the single most important substantive component of the computing experience, yet posters like you routinely pretend as if it isn't even there.

Re:Not true. (1, Troll)

rmav (1149097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714888)

The user interface is perhaps the single most important substantive component of the computing experience, yet posters like you routinely pretend as if it isn't even there.

Right, but we all know that software developers and sophisticated manufacturing processes cost nothing, right?

These trolls act like developing OS X costed nothing (after all, its "just BSD," right? with a fancy UI that any 12 year old kiddo can draw, right?), that OS research, compiler research, writing browsers (even with an originally lifted codebase), doing usability studies is all done for free...

Roberto

Re:Not true. (2, Insightful)

kklein (900361) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715328)

Thank you.

I often point out that almost every cellphone I've ever had did more on paper than the iPhone. The reason I love my iPhone, though, is that it actually does the things it says it does on paper, and does them with an ease that makes you likely to do them.

Re:I wonder... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714816)

Having used touchscreen phones from other manufacturers for a few years before the iPhone came out, I have to say that they did change the game a lot. I've still never wanted or bought an iPhone as I prefer real keyboards, but I like that they're forcing the other manufacturers to get their act together when it comes to design and interface speed on other phones.

The iPod was just another MP3 player sure, but Apple made the experience easy, even for idiots. The click wheel was a fun concept too. Again I myself bought a HP iRiver because it was better featured and cheaper for the same amount of storage, but I can see why iPods are popular. The fact that so many devices these days are designed to have iPods plugged in still tempts me from time to time (my car stereo and treadmills at the gym are 2 prime examples). iTunes must also be a big part of this as far as allowing computer illiterate users to synch up their music collection, but I hate it. I'm very fussy about media players.. loved Winamp, but the only other media player I've actually liked since moving away from Windows is Exaile (I love just having a dynamic playlist and browsing my media collection by folder structure rather than tags).

Modern macs are just expensive PCs sure, but Mac OS and OSX have always been much nicer to use than Windows even back in the 68k and PPC days. Then again, opening a tin can with your fingernails is nicer than using Windows. But OSX is even better these days for power users than it used to be, as well as still being good for noobs.

Since the iPad uses the already liked interface from the iPhone, I think it might actually make some headway. Again if this encourages other manufacturers to make a decent tablet, I'd be happy. The HTC Athena was the closest thing I'd seen to a decent real world tablet before the iPad, and it was in essence just a big phone too.

Anyway, their products may never use new tech, but they often do involve new or simply well executed ideas. You have to respect Apple's interface design if nothing else - they basically do what the Wii did for consoles, they take already established concepts and change them so that anyone and their granny can get involved.

Re:I wonder... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31714482)

MS never sued their direct competitors when they produced a better product.

Re:I wonder... (3, Informative)

cbreak (1575875) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714716)

Have you forgotten about the SCO incident? Who do you think sponsored it?

Re:I wonder... (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714518)

The underdog in the game sells a better product. But ultimately it's a product, which needs to earn costs+profit margins, and when it goes in the garbage, another will be sold, which will help the earnings.

Re:I wonder... (1)

Bob_Who (926234) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714360)

I totally agree. Its a human nature thing. Like Elvis Costello sang it: "History repeats the old conceits -- the glib replies the same defeats -- keep your finger on important issues -- with crocodile tears and a pocket full of tissues"

Re:I wonder... (2, Insightful)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714548)

I totally agree. Its a human nature thing. "

Although the expression "human nature" is common, and human beings do have tendencies which they almost always repeat, similar to nature, where humans have come from, humans can also break their tendencies and go against them, which is basic to human evolution. So if there is a human nature, it is to modify his own natural conditions. At this point in history, this is still rather primitive and not too visible. (Not my ideas, I got them from humanism. )

Re:I wonder... (5, Interesting)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714378)

I wonder how long it'll take the otherwise intelligent geeks at /. to finally figure out that Apple is just as dangerous as Microsoft.

When will most people agree with your silly argument? Never.

Apple isn't Microsoft. Because Microsoft has a monopoly in a few areas of computing and caused great damage doesn't mean that any other company achieving a lot of success in different areas of computing will cause damage. Apple's influence over the industry over the years has been generally a good one.

Its a question of interests (4, Insightful)

CdBee (742846) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714432)

MS was dangerous to the competitive Operating System market - and later on, office software.. geeks acknowledged the danger as systems like OS/2 disappeared despite their popularity.

if Apple is a competitive threat, its to the makers of media players and to the producers of content, due to their homogenising influence on the market and their major-media-outlet status. Its less likely to directly affect us....

Re:Its a question of interests (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31714916)

"OS/2 disappeared despite their popularity"

Interesting take. I was working at IBM in the 90s, around when Win 95 came out. It was a mass rebellion inside the company to go from slow OS/2 to Win95. OS/2 died because nobody wanted to use it.

Re:I wonder... (0, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714626)

no they are far bigger assholes then MS ever were. apple is a sue happy company that redefines vendor lock in.

Re:I wonder... (2, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714772)

Apple locks Apple users into Apple.
MS wants to lock all computer users into aspects of MS.

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31715186)

How the hell does a non-MS user get locked into MS? I have a Linux laptop, a Linux desktop, all my docs are OpenOffice created and I run my own email server on Debian. How the FUCK does MS lock me into anything? And you're saying MS *wants* me to be locked into them? Do you really think that Apple does not *want* to somehow, sometime, make me a customer of theirs? You think MS want it more than Apple? Fuck me drunk on the bonnet of a Chevvy, I can't fathom your idiocy. The mind boggles at the level of fanboyism required to make statements like this.

Re:I wonder... (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715630)

I can answer that, actually. I use a Macbook as my main computer, running Snow Leopard. I work in an office environment where OpenOffice doesn't really cut it. In fact, Word doesn't cut it either. Wordperfect is the optimum choice for the work I do (legal work). Alas, Corel no longer ports Wordperfect over to Mac, so I'm stuck. I can use Office 2008 for OS X, or I can run Windows in a VM and run Wordperfect in Windows. I'm locked in to Microsoft products, despite having a Mac.

Now my case isn't really that typical, but it is illustrative of the effect of MS using their OS monopoly to leverage their Office suite into a monopoly position as well. The fact that they did it so long ago, and that it's still having an effect on users now, should demonstrate how powerful that monopoly abuse really was. And MS has gone totally unpunished for that one, as far as I know.

Re:I wonder... (2, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715744)

That's why they use such "locked in" codecs like H.264, AAC, and "locked in" protocols like NFS, and a "locked down" OS core, and "locked down" human readable preference files, or "locked down" standard PC components, or "locked down" non-DRM, non-encrypted, install disc with no serial numbers or online activation...

Ok, so the iPhone OS is controlled. They *do* do other things, y'know.

Re:I wonder... (2, Insightful)

salmonmoose (1147735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714388)

I've been wagging this flag for years now. Apple is more dangerous than Microsoft, they're not only tying users to their software, they're tying them to their hardware.

Re:I wonder... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714462)

You’re forgetting that there are a bazillion Asiatic companies, who will sell you a Beowulf cluster of 10 equivalent hardware products for the same price. Or one for 10% of the price, including a shiny Linux distribution. They won’t go away. And people most people won’t have the money to buy Apple products anyway. The only question is, where MS will fit in there... if at all. ^^

Re:I wonder... (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714868)

Oh dear, I wish they would go away. They're as bad as those street vendors selling "genuine Rolex" watches for $20. You literally do not know what motherboards, CPU's, or controllers those vendors have used. Opening one up and finding that the drives behave erratically because the RAID controller is some unlabeled card whose chips have had the numbers scraped off is a serious problem. And calling one to get the known BIOS update for the motherboard is an amazing adventure in being asked "have you rebooted your Windows machine? please open the control panel and look up this information" that is a complete waste of time for Linux admins.

I use iTunes and a mix of OSX/Win/Linux systems (1)

Burz (138833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715122)

...and I don't see the tie-down anywhere other than the normal situation of not being able to run native apps on other platforms.

When you see a non-Apple program unable to browse an internal work website because it doesn't have the right Apple voodo, then drop us a datagram. Until then, you'd better keep your eye on how MS is trying to expand this common office situation to the wider Internet by making their Son-of-Active Directory the defacto protocol for single sign-on to websites.

Apple's biggest threat to date is actually the iPad, because if they get the tablet form factor to take off and supplant personal computers, it will be with a closed iPhone-like architecture which is much worse in terms of freedom than having a tablet Mac.

Re:I wonder... (2, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714424)

It’s much more general. Any company, that has the sole goal to make money (always with nobody asking why), will have exactly those priorities.
The problem is, that when there is competition, in our “society”, the one with the least scruple, is the one “winning”. (And then destroying itself with the exact same tactic; making place for the next one.)

Re:I wonder... (2, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714472)

The problem is, that when there is competition, in our "society", the one with the least scruple, is the one "winning". (And then destroying itself with the exact same tactic; making place for the next one.)

In most lines of business, there isn't one winning. There are usually a variety of companies, with none holding a monopoly sized share of the market. Nor do they rise and fall in a continual succession. People way overgeneralise from the IBM->Microsoft monopoly transition in computing.

Re:I wonder... (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715244)

Any company, that has the sole goal to make money (always with nobody asking why), will have exactly those priorities.

Indeed. But it's not the companies themselves that are the danger here, it's government supported monopoly rights that hands them the power to subvert and damage the market.

Without copyright or patents neither Apple nor Microsoft would have the power to engage in anti-competitive behaviour to anywhere near the extent they do.

Re:I wonder... (1)

Vahokif (1292866) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714444)

I'd say they've become more evil while MS became less evil actually.

Re:I wonder... (4, Insightful)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714486)

Hmm? And what crimes has Apple been convicted of? What SCO equivalent has Apple created to try to destroy Linux? I could go on; I suspect you're astroturfing. I hope it's not successful - there are valid complaints about Apple, but you haven't brought any of them up, merely flamed the fans of paranoia with hyperbole.

regular money game rules (0)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714496)

I have a company. It makes money and pays the bills and salaries. But I was always a rebel. Every company ultimately exists to earn profit, it functions for its costs plus profit margin, profitable accounting, and does things to that objective. Unfortunately that often leads to not so good for humanity in general, but great things for the company -- all PR and rationalizations aside. Many of us have said "I don't want to do this, I just don't see an alternative, and I want to keep the job." Either you conform, and get paid and rewarded as part of the "famiglia", or you rebel, and become an outcast, and earn little, or nothing. Art, justice, principles and nature don't make money. Products that become garbage do. If you have a job, you do what you're paid for - and that is not to think and question and create revolution in society, or the company. Apple and Google are companies, as Microsoft and IBM. Monopoly is good for the company, the objective, the earnings. Perhaps they preach "capitalism-light" or "capitalism with a heart and brain", but at the end of the day, the primary purpose must prevail, or they convert to an NGO, or an association of engineers, or go under and dissolve. Real change of the purpose and motivation would mean changing society, the financial system, the work-rewarding system, the motivation given to all of society, the social psychology.

Re:regular money game rules (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714552)

Real change of the purpose and motivation would mean changing society, the financial system, the work-rewarding system, the motivation given to all of society, the social psychology.

OK, I'm up for it.

Re:regular money game rules (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715392)

Another person who does not understand captialism in the Adam Smith sense. Capitalism is NOT about profit profit profit, its about rational self interest! Say you have a pasture, your could put 50 head of cattle on it to graze this year and make a nice sum. Lets say you could also put 100 head on that same pasture but they would eat and trample the flora faster than it can reproduce. You could make more profit this year but its not in your self interest to do so because it will leave you with a ruined field you can't use in subsequent years.

Our problems are two fold. The fist being my simplistic cattle ranching example is much to simple. If the inputs, outputs, and rates were always that strait forward there would be little room for gaming the system but the real world cattle ranching included is more complex. The second being our attention spans are much to short. You have CEO's who only expect to hold the job for 18months and are only concerned with the next quarters profits, and complex enough situations that boards of directors and investors can't often predict the long term implactions of the CEO's strategy if they are even in it for the long term themselves. The CEO who usually knows a little more then everyone else is able to sell out tomorrow for the sake of today make himself look good and bail before anyone knows what happened.

Take Microsoft its was not really to their interest to stifle innovation and development of desktop computing. They hurt the entire industrty to the point its getting replace. We are going back to time sharing or um...Cloud computing.. they call it this week. I think that has a bit to do with a certain vendor creating a ecology that made it hard to solve certain problems in the PC industry. Now they are being marginalized and forced to compete in a different segments where they are by no means the best, or masters.

Re:I wonder... (5, Insightful)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714504)

Except Apple is increasing market share by producing new products, innovating and taking risks.

Microsoft is only where it is today due to being rather lucky with getting IBM to take their vapour ware OS product DOS. Most of Microsoft's revenue still comes from Windows and Office, in fact they make more from Office than Windows!

There are many big technology companies and nobody was complaining when Sony entered the games console market and dominated it? So why should Apple be prevented from doing well in the consumer electronics market?

Just because they are good at it and other brands release products that are largely inferior doesn't mean Apple should be stopped.

Re:I wonder... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31714820)

Vapourware is a term that's come a long way. Now it refers to products that have actually been released for decades.

Plenty complained about Sony entering the console market. Still, it was kind of a duopoly that they entered into.

Re:I wonder... (1)

celibate for life (1639541) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715068)

Except Apple is increasing market share by producing new products,

Nope, it's just taking old products and making bigger versions of them.

Re:I wonder... (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715160)

Microsoft is only where it is today due to being rather lucky with getting IBM to take their vapour ware OS product DOS.

You know what... NO

Apple was the first computer company, one of the first 'blockbuster' IPOs, and they almost went bankrupt.
Commodore came and went, Amiga came and went. Apple came and almost went.
Before MS Office there was Wordstar / Wordperfect / Lotus / Visicalc etc

Yes, MS got a lot of money from the IBM deal, but they kept the ball rolling. Using dirty tricks yes, but also intelligence. Cause when MS bets and invests in something, 'hold on to your hats'.

Re:I wonder... (2, Interesting)

director_mr (1144369) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715358)

The ignorance and bias in this post is breathtaking. Apple increased its market share by producing new products, innovating and taking risks. I sure agree with that. They are moving up to 5% of the phone market, and perhaps 10% of the phone market (WAG). They dominate the personal music department much like sony did in the late 80's and early 90's.

But Microsoft only got where it is today (dominating around 95% of the computer market) by selling IBM vaporware in 80s? Wow. How about by kicking Apples butt in the '80s by producing a workable OS that would run on cheap computers? How about by producing windows 95 which answered the advantages of apples ui, while still allowing backwards compatibility (a word apple fears and despises)? How about by producing arguably the best and most stable operating system of its time in Windows 98 (after the first service pack maybe, but still)? Lets not talk about Windows ME, that was depressing. How about by producing the most stable and successful operating system again with Windows XP? Sure, they stumbled with Vista, but then Windows 7 is again the best and most stable operating system (beating OS X by a wide margin in my book). Please note I am posting this from my personal MacBook.

I like apple products, but don't be ignorant by trashing the company that holds over 90% of the computer marketshare. They didn't get that by pure luck and chance.

Re:I wonder... (5, Interesting)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714506)

They (Apple) just haven't gotten to the market share level they need yet to take over the world as it were.

...and its hard to see how they would get to that market share without the massive leg-up that Microsoft and the Wintel platform got from IBM (the big evil monopolist of the day) back in the early days of personal computing. MS managed to inherit IBM's customer base and ride the "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" meme (and eventually left IBM in the dust).

Remember, MS still has a virtual stranglehold on the corporate sector, which Apple hasn't even tried to penetrate - and if anybody shakes MS loose from that, my bet would be Google rather than Apple.

Also, unlike the early 80s, we now have the concept of standards-based computing (and the internet, which is a force for standardization which wasn't relevant to PCs in the 80s), something which only MS are big enough to ignore. Plus, even if the will had been there, 1980s PCs didn't have the horsepower that goes with the extra layers of abstraction required for most standards.

Yes, native apps for Apple are non-standard (although OS X is also POSIX compliant) and the case of the iPod/Phone/Pad (but not their "real" desktop/laptop computers) is locked to Apples "App Store". However, it seems quite probable that as internet connectivity improves, native apps are going to become increasingly irrelevant compared to browser-based applications (for which Apple offer one of the better, more standards-based, platforms, and which can be run without restriction on the iProducts). Aside from the proprietary binary API, Apple's OS is built on open-source projects like Webkit, Apache, PHP/Python, Samba, CUPS the GNU compilers and the BSD toolkits, and can build and run most of the popular FOSS applications.

So, maybe we'll see a competetive market split between (say) MS, Google and Apple. That would be vastly more healthy than the almost complete Wintel monoculture that had developed by the end of the 20th century.

Remember - Apple helps Linux just by existing and having a significant market share: if a Website supports only IE, then only Windows can access it; if it supports Safari then its very likely to work on Linux browsers. If a USB peripheral supports Mac, then it probably uses one of the standard USB protocols (rather than requiring a custom windows-only driver) and will probably work on Linux. As long as there is more than one platform with market share, standards are more likely to be observed. Heck, even MS is now being dragged kicking and screaming into supporting HTML5...

Of course, it pays to be vigilant against a new monopoly and keep half an eye on what MS, Apple, Google are up to (especially if there's any danger of a merger) but if you think what Apple's doing bears any resemblance to the birth of the Wintel monoculture, you presumably weren't paying attention back in the 80s.

Godwin's Game (3, Insightful)

epine (68316) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715274)

People, take a quick bunny hop through List of cognitive biases [wikipedia.org] and ask yourself how many of these constitute cognitive feeder arteries for Godwin's law [wikipedia.org] .

Every so often a topic comes up where everyone simultaneously decides to let their amygdalas off the leash in the same dog park, who all quickly pair up for a circular open-jaw square dance. After the dust settles, what do you have? A giant patch of lawn to circumvent until the next heavy rainfall.

I suppose the game is a bit more earnest for the born complainer, who does have to somehow realign the pole of supreme evil with every successive regime change. Those of us with the attention span to get through the first page of Anna Karenina understand that evil has a multitude of poles, any one of which can erupt into the supreme pimple in the rapidly shifting context of real life.

if anybody shakes MS loose from that, my bet would be Google rather than Apple

Apparently, slashdotters don't read Swift, either.

There are at least half a dozen major players tugging on different fingers of the Beast of Redmond. Sony is doing their ineffective best tugging on the pinky finger with their once-powerful PS3 franchise. The unholy alliance Snoracle has a firm but limp-wristed grasp on the middle finger on office suite revenue streams. Linux/Apache/Firefox inflicted a hairline fracture on a wristbone. Google extracted a fingernail from the ring finger when it became the ultimate talent drain. That had to hurt. And now they're proceeding to bend back the index finger by sucking up the air supply in online search. Learn from the best. A horsefly named Gnome Evolution landed on the thumb and carted off the largest divot of flesh it could manage, which considering all the other wounds, is of no real consequence whatsoever, unless horseflies are a vector for Ebola, and so far it appears that they aren't. All things considered, I think that Microsoft can hang there by their relatively undamaged, enterprising thumbs for another thirty years or so.

The biggest risk with Apple is that they manage to leverage their carefully cultivated charisma (if it survives their having become a big enough company to matter in these discussions) to make DRM palatable to the masses.

Sony is far more evil in the DRM department (witness the recent "other OS" rescindment fiasco) but they suffer from a bad case of cartoon evil: whatever their grasping ambition, it's soon equally matched by their incompetence. They managed--on the back of a half billion dollar war chest--to leverage their dominant Play Station franchise into a slow and lukewarm victory in a dying physical media platform.

This rivals anything accomplished by the Hudson Bay Company (oldest corporation in North America) which once laid claim to half the natural resources in Canada, but decided the crown jewel was retailing dress shirts. If Warren Buffett had gained control of HBC in the late 1700s, America might now be the 11'th Canadian province, or an economic protectorate, like Puerto Rico. (If BG gained control of the HBC in the late 1700s, Russia would now be the world's great democracy and white knight of freedom.)

Wish the Sony/HBC disease were true of Apple, but it isn't.

I could continue grave digging in this vein for another day or two, but hey, it's Easter, and whatever your opinion on the back story, there was an important lesson in there about the rush to judgement.

Re:I wonder... (2, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715620)

and if anybody shakes MS loose from that, my bet would be Google rather than Apple.

This is probably the only thing you wrote that makes sense. Apple can not make inroads into the corporate market despite all attempts (and they have been trying, the sheer amount of Apple propaganda that comes out of universities is staggering) because MS knows that if it sells a business the tools and leaves them well enough alone they can collect another cheque next year. Google is following the same strategy with a lot less gusto.

Apple helps Linux just by existing and having a significant market share

Wrong, Apple is doing far more harm to Open Source by showing that it can be taken, locked down and nothing of note contributed back. Apple is doing exactly what the GPL is meant to prevent.

and the case of the iPod/Phone/Pad (but not their "real" desktop/laptop computers) is locked to Apples "App Store"

And you honestly think Apple will not bring the same fantastic lockdown to their desktop line. Look at the Ipad, it is the first step in moving all of Apple's "computers" into their device line utilising an ARM processor all running the Iphone OS. Six or twelve months down the track Apple release the A4 Imac (A5, A6 or whatever the latest generation ARM chip is labelled), then the ARM macbook, then finally they phase out x86-64. This will be done for the following reasons.

1. The Iphone has proven that people will accept any abuse and limitations if you continue to produce enough spin that panders to their ego (the Iphone makes you cool/attractive to the opposite sex, you'd have to be a fool not to have one, ad nauseum).

2. Homogeneity, Apple prides itself on keeping everything simple. Maintaining two disparate operating systems is the antithesis of the "just works" philosophy.

3. Finally control. By removing x86 and moving to an ARM processor with a proprietary component which the OS is dependent on will practically eliminate the idea of the hackintosh.

Apple is buying up processor design houses, hiring ARM experts (HW and SW). This to many does not look like a concerted push towards moving their entire product line to ARM?

Apple is becoming exactly what Stallman is arguing about (and for the record, I think Stallman is a borderline nutcase), slowly our rights to our own devices and computers are eroded, this can be done imperceptibly over time with sufficient spin applied. I don't think Apple are becoming the new MS, they've already become the new MS, now they are going beyond MS, all Microsoft wanted was money, Apple wants control.

Re:I wonder... (1)

fsamurai (1766172) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714512)

I wonder where you find in Apple history analogous examples of the douchebaggery that MS has shown us throughout the years. The DR-DOS situation comes to mind as does Stacker, CPAV... ad aeternum, ad nauseum. Now I'm not saying that in 5 years time you won't be right, what I'm saying is that what Apple has done so far to get it's market share is in no way comparable to MS's path. If it's willing to use "any means necessary" like you put it, it might in the future...but it hasn't so far unlike MS, so crying "just as bad as" is, from my point of view, a crass overstatement.

Re:I wonder... (4, Insightful)

mrcalire (1734480) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714556)

That's funny, i only buy apple products because they meet my needs (wants) that other companies seem unwilling to.

Small example. Bought a first gen Zune as it was a little nicer then the iPod 5g that had come out a year before. Problem Is I wanted a video store.

After all what the hell is the point of a nice screen, for um music?. I wanted my tv shows.movies to go and I wanted them now. Microsoft said they were getting a video store so I waited... and waited... and waited. Finally got a iPod instead. It took microsoft till 2008 3 freaking years after apple to get a video store. Apple, funny thing opened their store in 2005.

Let them dominate. Let them make a zillion dollars as long as I get what I want. When they start making what I don't want I will stop buying.

Re:I wonder... (1)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714610)

I wonder how long it'll take the otherwise intelligent geeks at /. to finally figure out that Apple is just as dangerous as Microsoft.

You mean that Apple is *more* dangerous than Microsoft, as it is lurking in our life as a "cool" and "trendy" thing.

Re:I wonder... (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714730)

Apple is just as dangerous as Microsoft.

Is clearly false, because of this:

They (Apple) just haven't gotten to the market share level they need yet to take over the world as it were.

Lots of people want to take over the world. Its only worth worrying about the ones that have a reasonable chance of doing it.

Re:I wonder... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714826)

Being "as hungry and willing to use any means necessary to dominate" is peachy-keen so long as people still have a choice. MS got in trouble because they continued to use aggressive tactics after already becoming a monopoly, and they used their monopoly to muscle into other markets.

Apple has a monopoly on exactly nothing.

Besides, Apple will probably never dominate any market since they don't do low-end. They want profit margins and you don't get that by chasing the low-end. See Dell for a lesson in this.

Too late for Apple (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714856)

That might be indeed what Apple tries to achieve, except that it doesn't work that way in the industry.
There are always leader and wannabes. But long-time leader seldom lose it to newcomers. It's too late for Apple to dominate the market.

Generally, what happens is a disruptive shift of paradigms, of what matters the most, which makes the stronghold of the previous king obsolete, and helps a completely new market arise with its own new kings.

IBM used to be the top of the heap in term of big iron hardware. Other companies wanted to be "the new IBMs" but never succeeded.
Instead, with the arrival of the PC (ironically by IBM themselves !) hardware stopped to be the most important element. Hardware became a commodity, and what started to matter was the software. Big mainframe from big name brand left their place free to a world of beige-box built out of random noname components. IBM didn't matter anymore, because software could be run anywhere (at least on any PC-clone built from Asian knock-off parts).

This enabled Microsoft to rise (using its dubious tactics) as the quasi-monopoly of software. The new IBM wasn't a new hardware monopoly, but a software one.
Currently there are a lot of "Microsoft-wannabes". But none of them will reach software monopoly. Ever.

What will happen, what is happening currently, is another shift of paradigm. With the rise of Internet, we start to see strong need for interoperability, which in turn brings standards. Former vendor software lock-in won't work that great in a decade when even the mythical "internet-enabled-fridge" has to be HTML5-compliant.
And thus, slowly, software stops to matter. As long as it is standards-compliant, and let you surf, mail and chat (in a way compatible with the rest of the internet) the OS and the software isn't important anymore. The widespread use Linux is having in the embed and handhelds world and its recent success with netbooks are both a testimony of that. Microsoft won't matter, because people can access the web and cloud-based activity, and can open standard-compliant data out of any software they choose or happens to come with their hardware (as long as said software is compliant).

The next battle won't be fought between Microsoft wannabes. The next battle won't be about software monopoly.
The next battle will be about data and online service. This battle will be fought between Google, Facebook, and the likes. It will see its new kings (my bet on Google), and its new hard-to-enter-into monopolies (today, its nearly impossible to begin competing against Google on the search engine front. And its impossibly hard to create a new huge social network, because Facebook is where everyone is and they don't want to interoperate much).

Re:Too late for Apple (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715246)

Instead, with the arrival of the PC (ironically by IBM themselves !)

Well, that depends if you mean the personal computer as a generic concept- which existed for a number of years before IBM released theirs- or the later meaning of the term "PC" as "IBM PC compatible".

But IBM only released *their* PC a number of years after others had done so already, and it was clear that they weren't going away. I'm very sure that given the choice IBM would have preferred the computer world to remain focused on the mainframe market that they dominated, but that wasn't going to happen. Had IBM not released their own computer, someone else- possibly Apple- would eventually have grabbed the market.

Even then, the IBM PC only came out of a "skunkworks" project, semi-detached from the rest of the company.

IBM's PC became the standard for business because- although it was a pretty generic product- it was powerful enough and came from a company who already dominated the business market. But don't believe for a second that IBM willingly opened up the PC market or that it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't done that. They were already quite late to the party and did it because, one suspects, they realised that they *had* to do it or risk losing a whole new market to someone else. They got away with being late because they were IBM- had they not been, they probably wouldn't have had as much success- but they couldn't get away with being much later.

IBM's PC (2, Interesting)

DrYak (748999) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715668)

Well, that depends if you mean the personal computer as a generic concept- which existed for a number of years before IBM released theirs- or the later meaning of the term "PC" as "IBM PC compatible".

No, I really specifically meant IBM's PC machine.

But IBM only released *their* PC a number of years after others had done so already, and it was clear that they weren't going away.

Yes. Small machine targeted at individuals have existed before the PC.
The huge difference: all these previous machine were either home-made kits or small proprietary series.

IBM's PC was the first which :
- had a large scale success (thank to the IBM name written on it)
- was opened-up (probably because the initial intent from IBM was to make it easy for 3rd party to create compatible peripherals) and ended up being more a platform than a specific machine from a specific constructor.
- thanks to the 2 above (and efforts from Pheonix BIOS to provide an alternative for the last non-open part), a whole ecosystem of cheap no-name clones arose.
- Thanks to all 3 above, the whole platform met a gigantic success, becoming the "de-facto standard", controlled by no single corporation in particular, to run your softwares on it (and the monopolist role migrated to software thanks to microsoft piggy backing with the whole MS-DOS scam).

There were a lot of other personal machines at the same time. But they were all proprietary and not open.
Sure, as you point out, they were "IBM" and part of their success was due to this.
But in the end, if the PC won against the Amigas and Atari ST, it was not because of superior qualities or capabilities.
It was because Commodore and Atari weren't only battling against IBM, but against Compaq, and countless of other clone makers, all trying to sell their clones cheaper than the concurrence.

And I think too that the whole result were accidental for IBM.

I only suspect different motives: not that IBM was playing catch-up with the other personal computer manufacturer, but that they envisioned their PC as a glorified terminal, a client to connect to the enterprise mainframe (which will definitely happen to have an IBM stamp on it).

That's probably why they chose to go for an inferior architecture (8086 and 8088 at an era when 16/32 processors like the 68k were starting to appear) and a rather limited OS (so the PC doesn't pose a menace to their "big brain" business) designed (stolen) by an idiot who couldn't properly plan memory mapping for the next decade.

And that's why they probably choose to make their architecture more open and were tolerant toward clone : their core business was mainframe and in the end it shouldn't matter that much who produces the terminal, as long as it connects to their big iron. (and why not let the IBM brand associate with the brain and the clone name only with the "glorified terminal" dumb machine ?)

Only the history happened slightly differently.

Oh you got a point, but it is moot (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714906)

If Apple had become the dominant IT company, if it hadn't screwed up like everyone else with the PC and allowed Wintel to completly own the industry, then we might have been even worse off.

But that didn't happen. All the lock-in, proprietary, sneakiness of Apple is "mostly harmless". It sucks if it bites you in the ass, but the rest of the world isn't affected.

And that makes all the difference. Apple is a big player in PC's but it got lots of healthy competition and this means that if I don't like the crap that they pull with their display connector, I don't have to like it. Plenty of other PC/laptop makers around.

Now Apple is becoming more powerful, you can see this with the sudden ditching of flash with the coming of the iPad. And that could be bad... give me a minute, got to come up with a reason the painful agonizing and humiliating death of flash is a bad thing... anyone?

Well, it is not bad in itself, but it shows just how powerful a company can become. A techonolgy that was used widely, that you couldn't get rid of with endless security holes and browsers consuming 100% cpu, GONE because a company releases a single product that might still bomb (yeah right). That is pause for thought. What if this extends? What if Apple becomes so powerful it can stop the acceptance of USB 3.0 (Its laptop range still does not support), or a new CPU range (Again, its laptops are still on the ancient Core 2 Duo).

Would Apple have created OSX if it wasn't the underdog? Would it have pulled an IE6 and just kept its old crap around with no development because they owned the market? Maybe.

I for one think that healthy competition is good, so next time you blindly buy an iThingy because everyone buys one, remember what might happen if EVERYONE buys iThingies just because everyone does.

Dominate what exactly? (1)

QuatermassX (808146) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714918)

I do wonder what exactly one thinks Apple is looking to control beyond their devices and the user experience of those devices? As far as I can tell, the only evil Apple does is in their desire to control the use of those devices once they've been sold. I see no evidence that Apple seeks to dominate the entire media landscape, nor whole computer market. Apple is in the business of making the "best" devices possible - no more, no less. The control freakery is all about producing superb, useful products.

Of course there are knock-on effects in some areas and Apple isn't terribly interested in being anyone's partner. Nevertheless, every day I appreciate the user-focused design of their devices.

I do however miss their maker/creator-centric perspective regarding the iPhone (and presumably the iPad). Still, my iPhone is an indispensable navigation/information/communication tool when I'm out and about (I live in London and whenever I travel beyond the M25, O2 do a pretty good job so I can always figure out where I am and where I need to go).

So Apple will dominate the non-crap devices and Apple market, right? Sounds ok to me and very much in the spirit of free-market capitalism.

Re:I wonder... (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715270)

Ok, I was bored with your message from the get-go because it amounts to "Apple is a corporation trying to make money just like every other corporation out there." Ok. Yeah. And? Guess what - damn near any company that answers to shareholders, especially once they become even vaguely successful, is going to do everything they can to make a profit. Nothing new. We know. Kthnxbai.

But, then, after spouting off all the rhetoric that is already obvious, you throw in one of the most over-used cliches currently making the rounds - one that simply annoys the ever-lovin'-crap out of me.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

At the very least, if you could be so kind, could you reserve that useless gem of wisdom for discussions of politics where it's at least vaguely relevant even if it is played out and utterly predictable? Please leave that trite garbage out of tech discussion. Please.

Re:I wonder... (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715670)

[citation needed]

So they bought a processor shop that has the experience to design processors for a product that they are selling. Oh my! The world will soon end!

I think it's clear from the choices being made by both companies that Apple has no interest in "World Domination" - they don;t even sell a cheap, headless iMac-type box, which is seemingly the "no brainer" product that would cause "Apple's market share to take off" - of course, they are not interested in selling such a device or they would have done so long ago. They're quite happy with the market they have carved out for themselves as it exists now.

They are certainly going to make business decisions that benefit them for the most part, tempered with decisions that benefit everyone in the industry (OSS projects). Anything counter to that really doesn't benefit their shareholders, which they are fundamentally in business to support.

You may as well state that any business "is just as dangerous as MS but without the marketshare to take over the world". What else do you expect a company to do other than grow its business?

Speaking my peace! (2, Interesting)

voodoo cheesecake (1071228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714396)

Ya know, say what you will about Microsoft, Apple, Google etc... they are doing what businesses do and people are willing to pay or sacrifice freedom and/or privacy for what they offer. They got there because of marketing. I don't understand people who gripe about someone or something more successful or powerful than they are and/or what they support. If you're have the energy and insight to gripe, use that energy to find a solution - here's mine! Why not push for hardware manufacturers to not only provide open source drivers, but also put Tux right on the box as Linux compatible? Hell, why not build hardware specifically for Linux that can be used with other operating systems? Maybe I'm too much of a "noob" to really know what I'm talking about here, but it makes sense to me. You build it, they will come.

Scary that... (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714494)

they are doing what businesses do and people are willing to pay or sacrifice freedom and/or privacy for what they offer.

There is something terribly wrong with the world where you must sacrifice anything other than money in order to buy products/services.
What happened to "legal tender for all debts, public and private"?

Re:Scary that... (1)

voodoo cheesecake (1071228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714744)

Ok, maybe I imply too much, that's a habit I have. Open source has definitely made its mark and affected the economy of software. Well, I think a good next step is to actually alter the infrastructure and overcome the so called evils of proprietary business practices. I'm saying rip it up by the roots and make it seem like a distant fading bad dream. Saying something is terribly wrong is in vain unless some extra effort is made to take it to the next level. It's standing up for what you believe in so strong and centered in your heart that it makes you overcome all obstacles to make it happen. I implied, why not learn to give and teach others the same? Enter the hardware market with that concept and all you have to show is that you are there! Let word of mouth keep flowing and watch it all change before your eyes! Let the movement eradicate the greed! I started using Linux because a friend showed me what was actually on a cd. From that moment on, I strove to find out what else had been hidden right in front of my face all along in every aspect imaginable! It woke me up and I felt right at home. I was quickly humbled by seeing all the things I had to learn if I wanted to see something work that wasn't there yet. I mean humbled! Instead of being greedy I became active and sometimes I still feel overwhelmed by all there is available and all the reading I need to do. Well, I'm still here and so are many others who have hung in there through all the bugs. I got two kids who bug me to let them use Fedora after they do their homework. They also have access to XP and a bunch of games - that are collecting dust! They hate it when a piece of hardware doesn't work, but they happily work with what they've got until they find a solution. It just makes sense to me to make a bigger move forward. Demolish the mindset of greedy rip-offs by replacing it with something that builds you up at the same time. Put it in their faces - the consumers faces.

Re:Scary that... (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714878)

It's for all debts, and only applies to actual bank notes and coins (not, for example, credit cards or cheques), and even then only so long as the creditor belongs to the same country as the one that issued the currency. It doesn't mean they have to sell you something in exchange for cash (you don't have that debt to them yet, and thus the legal tender thing no power), it means that they have to accept cash in payment for debts.

Those debts are strictly defined as monetary debts, not as metaphorical "debts". As such, it specifically doesn't have anything to do with whether you must sacrifice anything other than money in order to buy products/services.

Re:Speaking my peace! (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714750)

i think linux and open source will grow in users on the measure that they have cheaper and better stuff, for general consumers. For techs and programmers, also on the measure conscience and technical requirements demanding open source grows. Open source has succeeded in lower costs, and in many cases technically better products, but as for the user interface, functions and usability by non-techs, it still is behind, which is what's still holding it back. Solving the technical issues behind the usability and functions appears technically quite possible, but it appears to be a stuctural problem more of the motivation of programmers and technical types and groups involved, mostly oriented towards the needs of techs, not so much of regular users.

Re:Speaking my peace! (1)

voodoo cheesecake (1071228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714796)

"It has to start somewhere, it has to start sometime. What better place than here? What better time than now? - RATM.

Could this "story" (3, Insightful)

ffreeloader (1105115) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714404)

possibly be any more slanted? I'm no Apple fanboy. I've never owned any Apple products and don't like the way Apple does business, nor their history of employee relations, but come on. Claiming someone "possibly" changed their LinkedIn profile due to fear of Apple is out of line.

It's nothing more than rank speculation. If fear of Apple--use of intimidation against the engineers by Apple is implied--was the motivation for changing a LinkedIn profile why didn't the rest of the engineers change their profiles back? Was Apple capable of intimidating only one out of several engineers? Are the majority of the engineers too stupid to know what Apple is like?

The slant taken by this story assumes way too many facts not in evidence.

Re:Could this "story" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31714894)

Could your post's unfinished subject be any more annoying? Save these antics for your blog.

Re:Could this "story" (1)

DannyO152 (544940) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715552)

Plus, Apple is a publicly traded company. If the deal is signed, then it has to promptly tell its shareholders and the general investor. Somebody who heard something juicy at the water cooler and who takes the rumors/inside information public, treating negotiations, due diligence, and closing as a fait accompli is doing something incredibly, obviously wrong. "Malice or stupidity" debate wrong.

I would expect his current employers would have been the ones to read him the riot act and it is they that made him fix that LinkedIn post. With insider trading liability and the deal on the line, I'd expect the leaker to be terminated shortly.

You know, something else comes to mind: could these things have appeared on April 1 and disappeared April 2?

OSX on ARM (and I don't mean a tattoo) (3, Interesting)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714502)

OSX will build on ARM without a problem and the ARM CPU would be better than the Intel Atom in a netbook.

However, as the world inside the Reality Distortion Field now knows, netbooks will never sell because no one really wants them and anyway, as a failed product, they have been replaced by the magical iPad.

Ideally, you are reading this post a) on your iPhone or b) while waiting in line to buy your Really Big iPhone.

Re:OSX on ARM (and I don't mean a tattoo) (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714622)

OSX will build on ARM without a problem

It not only will, but it has been been built AND SHIPPED on ARM since the release of the first iPhone.

and the ARM CPU would be better than the Intel Atom in a netbook.

I don't know about that. But the ARM is vastly superior for computing appliances, and ships in orders of magnitude more products than all X86 CPUs combined.

However, as the world inside the Reality Distortion Field now knows, netbooks will never sell because no one really wants them and anyway, as a failed product, they have been replaced by the magical iPad.

The funny thing about the RDF is that it's people who talk of its existence that say things that don't correspond with reality. Like you for example.

Re:OSX on ARM (and I don't mean a tattoo) (2, Insightful)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714648)

OSX will build on ARM without a problem and the ARM CPU would be better than the Intel Atom in a netbook.

Provided you didn't expect your desktop apps and games to run on your netbook. Give it a few years until everything is browser- or virtual machine based and that's not a problem, but here and now if people perceive their "netbook" as a portable version of their main computer, they'll want application compatibility.

Sure, Apple are past masters at seamless CPU emulation, but that overhead will probably wipe out the benefit of ARM vs. Atom.

However, as the world inside the Reality Distortion Field now knows, netbooks will never sell because no one really wants them and anyway, as a failed product

No distortion field required: the original netbook concept (e.g. the EEE PC 700) was a small, non-windows computer for web browsing, email and casual gaming. It failed* (sure, it sold by the shedload, but it was a dead end: hands up if you have an original EEE PC gathering dust - or serving some nerdy purpose like a mini-server or SSH terminal). I do, because even with its size, the iPod Touch is a better instant-on internet appliance.

Go out to buy a netbook today and what you'll be offered is an entry-level, full-featured subnotebook. Nothing like the original concept.

, they have been replaced by the magical iPad.

Which is Apple's attempt at doing the original "netbook" concept properly, using hardware that can't be seen as a replacement for a full-size laptop or desktop.

Ideally, you are reading this post a) on your iPhone or b) while waiting in line to buy your Really Big iPhone.

No, because, after spotting a few interesting /. threads on my iPod Touch while sitting in the comfy chair in the lounge, I fired up my real computer to comment, because its easier to type on. Sounds like, on the iPad, the threshold is higher, and short replies and emails would be do-able, but ultimately the iProducts are devices for consuming content.

(* Blame Asus for using an obscure Linux distro, doing a half-baked job of optimising the key applications for a small screen and then Osbourning it by announcing a new model every five minutes, or blame MS for reviving XP and dumping it on the netbook market at silly prices...)

Re:OSX on ARM (and I don't mean a tattoo) (4, Interesting)

bregmata (1749266) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714838)

Blame Asus for using an obscure Linux distro, doing a half-baked job of optimising the key applications for a small screen and then Osbourning it by announcing a new model every five minutes, or blame MS for reviving XP and dumping it on the netbook market at silly prices...

For the consumer, all Linux distros are obscure. The problem was really that Microsoft rereleased XP for these devices, and suddenly everyone expected to be able to install pirated versions of software on them just like they do on all their other Microsoft-based computers (no, Photoshop will not be useable on a 7" screen even of you didn't pay for it or the copy on your home desktop). The trick with the iPad is it doesn't look like Microsoft Windows. It doesn't act like Microsoft Windows. If it doesn't walk like a duck or quack like a duck, people will not expect to be able to steal Photoshop and run it like, uh, a duck.

Re:OSX on ARM (and I don't mean a tattoo) (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715626)

For the consumer, all Linux distros are obscure.

But the custom version of Xandros used on the EEE was more obscure than most. What consumers might have noticed is the very limited range of software in the default repository c.f, say, Ubuntu. (/.ers wouldn't think twice about adding the Debian repos or installing tarballs, but typical consumers would rely on the repository).

That would have been forgivable if the applications ASUS offered had been carefully optimized for the small screen - but, by and large, they were just out-of-the-box versions of OpenOffice, Thunderbird etc. which filled the screen with toolbars.

The problem was really that Microsoft rereleased XP for these devices

I agree that was the major problem... but I think there were other flaws in the implementation which helped ensure that MS were pushing on an open door. Netbook manufacturers saw Linux as a cheap way of getting an off-the-peg operating system rather than as a building block for a proper mobile OS. Had netbooks launched with something like Android*, things might have gone differently.

The trick with the iPad is it doesn't look like Microsoft Windows. It doesn't act like Microsoft Windows. If it doesn't walk like a duck or quack like a duck, people will not expect to be able to steal Photoshop and run it like, uh, a duck.

I'm glad somebody else gets it :-) The reason that its "just a big iPod Touch" is because a big iPod touch has a lot of potential uses (I've been wanting one since I got my regular sized iPod touch).

* I quite like Android - I have an Android phone (for variety, and because the iPhone tariffs sucked) - but it doesn't have quite the consistency and attention to detail you get with the Apple OS.

Re:OSX on ARM (and I don't mean a tattoo) (1)

ffreeloader (1105115) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714864)

Go out to buy a netbook today and what you'll be offered is an entry-level, full-featured subnotebook. Nothing like the original concept.

What you really mean that MS changed their policies so they could get into the netbook market and destroyed that market, by changing people's expectations of what a netbook was, just to keep Linux out of the market place.

Re:OSX on ARM (and I don't mean a tattoo) (1)

Nevynxxx (932175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715422)

Sure, Apple are past masters at seamless CPU emulation, but that overhead will probably wipe out the benefit of ARM vs. Atom.

Except the people who did Apples last CPU emulation are now owned by IBM....

Re:OSX on ARM (and I don't mean a tattoo) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31714834)

uh, how about no? I'd rather read this on a $450-$800 laptop. Something I can install Windows/Linux/OSX/whatever I want on, run the games I like on, rip movies on, etc, etc. The last thing I want is a giant iPod. I'd rather buy something like the Lenovo IdeaPad U1 Hybrid, but here s a non-apple iPad options out there:

"Can't name my employer"?!?!? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31714560)

I wonder who the employees are going to put as their employer on their resumes! This whole "can't name my employer" sounds like a bit of BS to me. Also wouldn't APPLE have to do some filing with the SEC regarding the purchase of a design house? It's not exactly the same as buying a stapler!

From a business point of view. (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714614)

It may not make a lot of sense for a computer company to buy a microprocessor company. The microprocessor company will lose clients that are competitors of the computer company, the microprocessor will lose market share, and the computer company will find itself with processors that only it has, which are not supported elsewhere. Unless of course it has visions of magnificent grandiosity, unlimited inventiveness capability, inventing chips and computers that nobody else can, selling products nobody has ever imagined. Apple is one of few companies which design computer architectures, along with Intel, and IBM perhaps, which make their own chips, so maybe they are foreseeing becoming more of a competitor of Intel. It wouldn't be their first crazy move.

Re:From a business point of view. (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714964)

I dont think so, I personally think Apple wants to get deeper into the consumer electronics field now they have a stronghold there, Intel will not help them to get in there, seriously Atom is a joke, once it comes to that area, it simply makes sense for them to get an ARM core designhouse to reach their goals, given the history they had with their processor supply chain leaving them hanging dry in the air.
The problem I see is that might darken the relationship with Intel in the long run.

The point is not to compete with Intel (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715460)

the microprocessor will lose market share, and the computer company will find itself with processors that only it has, which are not supported elsewhere.

Well, that's not going to happen with the current buy, because :
- ARM is an architecture used by lots of chip makers, almost everywhere. Apple is just buying one of the numerous chip maker which make ARM-based chips.
- Even if it was a separate architecture, it won't matter. Apple want to make cheap chips to put into its iPhone/iPods/iPad, they'll compile their own software for it. It doesn't matter if that architecture doesn't run Wolrd of Warcraft, that was never the intention.

so maybe they are foreseeing becoming more of a competitor of Intel.

Apple's point is not to compete with intel. Their target is not to have a line of "Apple CPUs" that poeple built their desktop machine around. You're never going to see "Apple" as a 3rd brand, beside Intel and AMD.
Their goal is just to have their own stable supply of chips for their devices. Currently they source their chips from a 3rd party : Texas Intrument's OMAPs. Thus, if they want access to a new generation of technology (like ARM Cortex A9 CPU or a PowerVR SGX 540 GPU), they are at the mercy of TI's choices to release new product. And TI currently target mobile market only, they provide OMAP 44x0 for mobilephone markets, but only plan to release 45x0 later this year for Netbooks, embed and other smaller scale projects. Or same goes if they needed higher clocked Cortex A8 based chips, etc.

That's why they had a custom "Apple A4" made for their iPad, and that's why they are buying an ARM designing shop.

what evil? (4, Insightful)

knappe duivel (914316) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714616)

Can somebody please explain what is evil about Apple buying Intrinsity?

Re:what evil? (2, Insightful)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714650)

nothing in particular. --- everything in general.

Re:what evil? (1)

knappe duivel (914316) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714904)

like: it's Apple-bashing time, no arguments needed?

From what I gather, it goes like this: (4, Insightful)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31714898)

1. Regular people like Apple products.
2. But Apple products have nice user interfaces and can be used by most anyone.
3. Therefore they are like a totalitarian dictator marching the unwashed masses to their graves.
4. Plus they're just sexy, not real.
5. Therefore, anything Apple does is evil.
6. And anyone that doesn't think so is a blinded member of the politburo or a metrosexual fashionista.
7. Plus, OSX sucks and is just like Windows, iPod sucks and is just like Zune, iPhone sucks and is just like Blackberry, and iPad sucks and is just like Microsoft tablet PC.
8. 1337 H4x0rs Ru13!

I think I covered everything.

Seriously, the walled garden property sucks and I'd love to be able to use a bluetooth keyboard with my iPhone without unlocking it. But the Apple hate around the online tech world is truly a sphere of irrationality to behold right now, out of any proportion to anything anyone has done; Microsoft and Microsoft users were never even talked about this way.

Re:what evil? (4, Interesting)

makomk (752139) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715136)

You may recall that, at one point, NVidia had a neat technology for hardware-accelerated onboard sound called SoundStorm [wikipedia.org] based on technology designed and licensed by an obscure company called Sensaura. Then Sensaura were bought up by the big competitor Creative Audio and NVidia were forced to drop SoundStorm from their next generation of chipsets.

It looks like the purchase of Intrinsity by Apple will have the same effect in the mobile phone system-on-chip market. Currently, anyone can buy the low-power Samsung ARM chips designed by Intrinsity for mobile use, but now they've been swallowed by Apple there won't be an improved version. Any future Intrinsity SOCs will be Apple-only. Do this for a few more companies, and...

Re:what evil? (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715554)

Dunno about Intrinsity, but I feel bad about the other company Apple had bought, and this seems like a similar case.

PA Semi had developed a particularly power-efficient version of PowerPC. Something like a dual-core G4 or G5, except that it only consumed around 10 watts at 2 GHz. Including the integrated memory controller, etc. Who wouldn't want that? Well, Apple bought them, and thus we have not heard of their wonderful technology again. And if we do, it will only be available inside an Apple product.

This purhcase is about Apple protecting itself (1)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715024)

I think people really need to look closer at what is in Apples products and how they relate to products sold by Apple "now". The CPU in the iPhone is an ARM Cortex cpu supplied by Samsung but guess who is the joint developer of the cpu, yep you got it Intrinsity. What Apple are doing here is making sure they can control the technology under the hood of their products no more no less. It is a good business decision and also makes sure they don't have any legal (patents) problems down the road.

The Cult of Apple scares me. (1)

Ice Station Zebra (18124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715162)

You thought Microsoft was evil. Well Steve Jobs is the devil himself.

Re:The Cult of Apple scares me. (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715714)

You thought Microsoft was evil. Well Steve Jobs is the devil himself.

Well, if it wasn't for the serpent proffering apples, Adam and Eve would probably have died of scurvy or constipation for lack of fibre and vitamin C. Plus, he broke them out of a "walled garden"!

Plus, the iDevil has all the best iTunes...

Looks like it was just an April Fools joke (1)

triplejai (1763082) | more than 4 years ago | (#31715272)

Jim Blomgren's profile now says "I also work for Apple on April 1 :-)"... I think people have gotten a little excited over not much...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?