[OT, sorta] How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple

[Michelle Steiner]

I'd say that this article covers every cockamamie, idiotic, criticism of
Apple and Tim Cook, but I'm sure that our resident applephobes can come up
with more.

<http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2013/01/28/how-tim-cook-should-real
ly-be-running-apple/>

How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple

According to his critics:

• Grow Apple’s (AAPL) market share. But keep margins above 44%.

• Put out 8 different versions of the iPhone simultaneously, including
ones with larger screens, like Samsung. But keep the margins above 44% and
recall you only get the full profit benefit of a new iPhone in the 2nd half
of its production run.

• Spend billions on marketing like Samsung. But let the product sell
itself so that it stays premium.

• Get more people in the emerging markets on to the iOS platform. But
don’t put out a cheaper iPhone and sacrifice margins.

• Reinstate Google (GOOG) as the primary Maps supplier on iPhone. But
strategically position Apple to be a leader in mobile, search, and maps in
the future.

• Shut down Siri because it never works. But figure out how to leapfrog
Google in search in the future.

• Use the $137 billion cash on the balance sheet. But don’t make
wasteful high-priced acquisitions.

• Innovate.  But wring every dollar of profit of your existing product
portfolio.

• Build every product in the USA instead of China. But stop making
premium priced products and don’t charge a dollar more for your existing
products.

• Don’t try to be Steve Jobs. But do everything that Steve Jobs would
have done.

• Don’t let the iPads cannibalize Mac sales. But sell way more iPads.

• Buy back more of your stock. But innovate, vertically integrate more
through buying more microprocessor companies, and keep some powder dry to
buy Twitter or a few other big companies.

• Get better in Web Services. But don’t spend money buying Yahoo (YHOO),
Twitter, or Foursquare.

• Don’t give customers a bad experience by kicking out Google search,
Maps, and YouTube. But don’t strengthen Google any more by supplying
virtually all of their mobile search revenue.

• Don’t pursue costly patent battles. But protect your core IP and don’t
let Samsung rip off your innovations.

• Move faster in China. But make money doing it.

• Hire back Scott Forstall. But also retain Bob Mansfield and Jony Ive
the way Steve Jobs was able to.

• Ship the Apple TV immediately. But make sure it’s a perfect experience
for the consumer so that it’s not another Maps screw-up before shipping.
• Move faster. But don’t rush.

• Kill Facebook (FB), Amazon (AMZN), and Google. But don’t spread
yourself too thin and get distracted from the core focus.

• Deliver amazing products. But do it a lot faster and in a lot more
varieties.

• “Innovate” a few more products out of thin air that people will buy
100 million of within two years. But do it every year if possible.
• Be more charismatic like Steve Jobs. But continue to be an expert on
supply chain.

• Change Apple. But never let Apple change from how it was under Steve.

[Davoud]

Did Forbes make any suggestions as to what Tim Cook should do /after/
lunch?

*****

Post by Michelle Steiner
I'd say that this article covers every cockamamie, idiotic, criticism of
Apple and Tim Cook, but I'm sure that our resident applephobes can come up
with more.
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2013/01/28/how-tim-cook-should-real
ly-be-running-apple/>
How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple
• Grow Apple’s (AAPL) market share. But keep margins above 44%.
• Put out 8 different versions of the iPhone simultaneously, including
ones with larger screens, like Samsung. But keep the margins above 44% and
recall you only get the full profit benefit of a new iPhone in the 2nd half
of its production run.
• Spend billions on marketing like Samsung. But let the product sell
itself so that it stays premium.
• Get more people in the emerging markets on to the iOS platform. But
don’t put out a cheaper iPhone and sacrifice margins.
• Reinstate Google (GOOG) as the primary Maps supplier on iPhone. But
strategically position Apple to be a leader in mobile, search, and maps in
the future.
• Shut down Siri because it never works. But figure out how to leapfrog
Google in search in the future.
• Use the $137 billion cash on the balance sheet. But don’t make
wasteful high-priced acquisitions.
• Innovate.  But wring every dollar of profit of your existing product
portfolio.
• Build every product in the USA instead of China. But stop making
premium priced products and don’t charge a dollar more for your existing
products.
• Don’t try to be Steve Jobs. But do everything that Steve Jobs would
have done.
• Don’t let the iPads cannibalize Mac sales. But sell way more iPads.
• Buy back more of your stock. But innovate, vertically integrate more
through buying more microprocessor companies, and keep some powder dry to
buy Twitter or a few other big companies.
• Get better in Web Services. But don’t spend money
buying Yahoo (YHOO),
Twitter, or Foursquare.
• Don’t give customers a bad experience by kicking out Google search,
Maps, and YouTube. But don’t strengthen Google any more by supplying
virtually all of their mobile search revenue.
• Don’t pursue costly patent battles. But protect your core IP and don’t
let Samsung rip off your innovations.
• Move faster in China. But make money doing it.
• Hire back Scott Forstall. But also retain Bob Mansfield and Jony Ive
the way Steve Jobs was able to.
• Ship the Apple TV immediately. But make sure it’s a perfect experience
for the consumer so that it’s not another Maps screw-up before shipping.
• Move faster. But don’t rush.
• Kill Facebook (FB), Amazon (AMZN), and Google. But don’t spread
yourself too thin and get distracted from the core focus.
• Deliver amazing products. But do it a lot faster and in a lot more
varieties.
• “Innovate” a few more products out of thin air that people will buy
100 million of within two years. But do it every year if possible.
• Be more charismatic like Steve Jobs. But continue to be an expert on
supply chain.
• Change Apple. But never let Apple change from how it was under Steve.

[gtr]

Post by Davoud
Did Forbes make any suggestions as to what Tim Cook should do /after/
lunch?

Yes: don't HAVE eaten lunch!

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Post by Michelle Steiner
I'd say that this article covers every cockamamie, idiotic, criticism of
Apple and Tim Cook, but I'm sure that our resident applephobes can come up
with more.

Actually it's a great article. If Apple tanks, they can say, "see we told
them what to do and they did not do it".

If Apple does well, they can say "see we told them what to do and they did it".

If it just does ok, they can say "see we told them what to do and they did
not do everything, so they barely survived". (or however they did).

In plain English, no matter how Apple does, they can take the credit and
not the blame.

Geoff.

[George Kerby]

Isn't this about two months early?


On 1/30/13 2:16 AM, in article

Post by Michelle Steiner
I'd say that this article covers every cockamamie, idiotic, criticism of
Apple and Tim Cook, but I'm sure that our resident applephobes can come up
with more.
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2013/01/28/how-tim-cook-should-real
ly-be-running-apple/>
How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple
€ Grow Apple¹s (AAPL) market share. But keep margins above 44%.
€ Put out 8 different versions of the iPhone simultaneously, including
ones with larger screens, like Samsung. But keep the margins above 44% and
recall you only get the full profit benefit of a new iPhone in the 2nd half
of its production run.
€ Spend billions on marketing like Samsung. But let the product sell
itself so that it stays premium.
€ Get more people in the emerging markets on to the iOS platform. But
don¹t put out a cheaper iPhone and sacrifice margins.
€ Reinstate Google (GOOG) as the primary Maps supplier on iPhone. But
strategically position Apple to be a leader in mobile, search, and maps in
the future.
€ Shut down Siri because it never works. But figure out how to leapfrog
Google in search in the future.
€ Use the $137 billion cash on the balance sheet. But don¹t make
wasteful high-priced acquisitions.
€ Innovate.  But wring every dollar of profit of your existing product
portfolio.
€ Build every product in the USA instead of China. But stop making
premium priced products and don¹t charge a dollar more for your existing
products.
€ Don¹t try to be Steve Jobs. But do everything that Steve Jobs would
have done.
€ Don¹t let the iPads cannibalize Mac sales. But sell way more iPads.
€ Buy back more of your stock. But innovate, vertically integrate more
through buying more microprocessor companies, and keep some powder dry to
buy Twitter or a few other big companies.
€ Get better in Web Services. But don¹t spend money buying Yahoo (YHOO),
Twitter, or Foursquare.
€ Don¹t give customers a bad experience by kicking out Google search,
Maps, and YouTube. But don¹t strengthen Google any more by supplying
virtually all of their mobile search revenue.
€ Don¹t pursue costly patent battles. But protect your core IP and don¹t
let Samsung rip off your innovations.
€ Move faster in China. But make money doing it.
€ Hire back Scott Forstall. But also retain Bob Mansfield and Jony Ive
the way Steve Jobs was able to.
€ Ship the Apple TV immediately. But make sure it¹s a perfect experience
for the consumer so that it¹s not another Maps screw-up before shipping.
€ Move faster. But don¹t rush.
€ Kill Facebook (FB), Amazon (AMZN), and Google. But don¹t spread
yourself too thin and get distracted from the core focus.
€ Deliver amazing products. But do it a lot faster and in a lot more
varieties.
€ ³Innovate² a few more products out of thin air that people will buy
100 million of within two years. But do it every year if possible.
€ Be more charismatic like Steve Jobs. But continue to be an expert on
supply chain.
€ Change Apple. But never let Apple change from how it was under Steve.

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by George Kerby
Isn't this about two months early?

Unfortunately, no. It's an accurate summation of the contradictory
criticisms being leveled at Cook.

[JF Mezei]

Post by Michelle Steiner
Unfortunately, no. It's an accurate summation of the contradictory
criticisms being leveled at Cook.

In the last days of Digital Equipment Corp, there was much debate on
whether DEC should continue with its high price low volume or switch to
lower price higher volume mantra.

DEC responded with its unwillingness to sacrifice profit margin and
*risk* going to higher volume because it wasn't sure it was able to
truly increase volumes sufficiently to balance out the loss of prfit margin.

DEC is dead.

prior to the iPod, Apple was a niche player. Not mass market. And Wall
Street didn't care about Apple.

All of a sudden, with iPod and then with iPhone, Apple not only became
mass market , but also dominated it. That got Wall Street's attention.

Now, Apple appears to be on a path where it must decide whether to
remain a dominent player or cede the place to Samsung without a fight
and downgrade itself back to niche player.

Apple seems to have made it clear that it will hapily cede its market
dominence because it won't want to jeoperdize profit margin. And for
now, Apple continues to grow even if it is losing market share and
letting Samsung dominate.

This isn't such a simple cut and dry decision. One must also consider
that Apple's ability to truly differentiate itself will diminish as
smart phones mature and they all get pretty much the same features (and
in many places, the iPhone is late to market with features such as NFC).
So the ability to command higher prices may also diminish, especially as
carriers wish to reduce or eliminate subsidies.

The Wall Street Casino is short term machine. That pushes the "don't
sacrifice profit margin" calls. However, if Apple looks at the longer
term, it must ask itself what a niche player will look like 5 years down
the down. Will the iPhone still have sufficent market presence to still
attract developpers/applications ?

What happens if Apple maintans high prices, loses market share, and then
carriers decide to no longer subsidize expensice iPhones ? Apple will
have to lower its profit margin, but by then, will have already lost
much market share. In this scenario, Apple would have been better off
lowering profit margin today in order to fight for market share it can
retain high volumes instead of being forced back to niche player.


The thing is that short term thinking is all in the pink because despite
loss of market share, Apple si sstill growing and still generating
record sales etc.

And remember that with the smartphone market maturing, the ability to
for Apple to differentiate itself will diminish, so it will be harder
for it to command higher prices.

The contradictory stuff from the Wall Street Casino Analysts reflects a
debate betwene short and long term thinking, a debate I am sure is held
within Apple's board.

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by JF Mezei
This isn't such a simple cut and dry decision. One must also consider
that Apple's ability to truly differentiate itself will diminish as
smart phones mature and they all get pretty much the same features (and
in many places, the iPhone is late to market with features such as NFC).
So the ability to command higher prices may also diminish, especially as
carriers wish to reduce or eliminate subsidies.

That's assuming that Apple doesn't reinvent itself as it did with the iMac,
iPod, iPhone, and iPad.

[JF Mezei]

Post by Michelle Steiner
That's assuming that Apple doesn't reinvent itself as it did with the iMac,
iPod, iPhone, and iPad.

Apple essentially renamed itself from Apple Computers to Apple Phones.
I say this because the iPhone is what the Wall Street Casino measures
Apple on.

So, what you are saying is that you are hoping that Apple can let go of
the iPhone and move to the iToaster so that Wall Street Casino will now
measure Apple based on the sucess of the iToaster (or whatever they come
up as a totally new Apple product)

So in a way, this makes sense. reap the benefits of pionneering a new
market for a few years as Apple did with iPod and then iPhone and then ,
while continuing those products, no longer rely on them and focus on
something totally new.

The problem right now is that the "totally new" appears to be the
Television. And that is a tought market to crack open and re-invent, and
until this "hobby" bears fruits, you need to continue to make the iPhone
your big success because it remains your primary product line by which
you are measured.

[AV3]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Michelle Steiner
That's assuming that Apple doesn't reinvent itself as it did with the iMac,
iPod, iPhone, and iPad.

Apple essentially renamed itself from Apple Computers to Apple Phones.

No, they renamed it Apple (computers and peripherals), Inc. That was
when the iPod had captured a major share of its market, and then the
iPhone captured a notable share of its market. Although growing somewhat
until the most recent report, computers and Mac OSX continue to lag
behind Windows with no prospect of reaching even ten per cent of that
market. No wonder they adjusted the name to reflect current reality.

Post by JF Mezei
I say this because the iPhone is what the Wall Street Casino measures
Apple on.
So, what you are saying is that you are hoping that Apple can let go of
the iPhone and move to the iToaster so that Wall Street Casino will now
measure Apple based on the sucess of the iToaster (or whatever they come
up as a totally new Apple product)
So in a way, this makes sense. reap the benefits of pionneering a new
market for a few years as Apple did with iPod and then iPhone and then ,
while continuing those products, no longer rely on them and focus on
something totally new.
The problem right now is that the "totally new" appears to be the
Television. And that is a tought market to crack open and re-invent, and
until this "hobby" bears fruits, you need to continue to make the iPhone
your big success because it remains your primary product line by which
you are measured.

Apple's product line, including computers, is spectacularly profitable.
There may be a growth problem, but the company isn't in trouble. I doubt
that many BMW shareholders fight to get the company to shift over to
Volkswagen's business plan, even during the occasionally slow model year.

[JF Mezei]

Post by AV3
Apple's product line, including computers, is spectacularly profitable.
There may be a growth problem, but the company isn't in trouble. I doubt
that many BMW shareholders fight to get the company to shift over to
Volkswagen's business plan, even during the occasionally slow model year.

That is because BMW has never held a dominant share of the market. Any
investor who bouht BMW knew they were buying into a high end niche
market player.

This was not the case for Apple even since the phenomenal rise of the
iPod followed by the even greater phenomenal rise of the iPhone.

Apple's $700 share price was set based on expectations Apple would
continue to dominate. If Apple is to return to a high end niche player,
what will be the fair value of AAPL ? $300 ? $400 ? $500 ?

That valuation will likely change when Apple moves from iPhone to the
iToaster and the iToaster takes over the world and dominates that
market. But as long as the iPhone continues to be the product by which
Apple is evaluated by the Wall Street Casino, loss of market share will
cause the analysts to lose interest in AAPL.


Remember, they punished Apple rather severely just because Apple didn't
beat their randomly set target for iPhone sales (without any guidance
from Apple). This, despite Apple having record sales for the iPhone (and
despite a shorter quarter).

[Jolly Roger]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by AV3
Apple's product line, including computers, is spectacularly profitable.
There may be a growth problem, but the company isn't in trouble. I doubt
that many BMW shareholders fight to get the company to shift over to
Volkswagen's business plan, even during the occasionally slow model year.

That is because BMW has never held a dominant share of the market. Any
investor who bouht BMW knew they were buying into a high end niche
market player.
This was not the case for Apple even since the phenomenal rise of the
iPod followed by the even greater phenomenal rise of the iPhone.

LOL! You have got to be kidding me. What planet do you inhabit normally?
Here on Earth, Apple's been ridiculed for decades about being a high-end
niche player.

Post by JF Mezei
Apple's $700 share price was set based on expectations Apple would
continue to dominate. If Apple is to return to a high end niche player,
what will be the fair value of AAPL ? $300 ? $400 ? $500 ?

Thank goodness Apple is smart enough to know better than to make
juvenile knee-jerk reactions to idiot Wall Street speculations. If Apple
cared as much about share price as you, the company very likely would
have died long ago.

Post by JF Mezei
That valuation will likely change when Apple moves from iPhone to the
iToaster and the iToaster takes over the world and dominates that
market. But as long as the iPhone continues to be the product by which
Apple is evaluated by the Wall Street Casino, loss of market share will
cause the analysts to lose interest in AAPL.

Those aren't analysts - they are speculators. And fuck the gamblers if
they can;t see past their drink glasses. Again, as long as Apple's
customers are happy and Apple as a company is fundamentally strong, the
rest will fall in line.

Post by JF Mezei
Remember, they punished Apple rather severely just because Apple didn't
beat their randomly set target for iPhone sales (without any guidance
from Apple). This, despite Apple having record sales for the iPhone (and
despite a shorter quarter).

And yet strangely, as if to defy all of your supposed odds and
dreamed-up rules, Apple's business strategy is unaffected. Imagine that!
Go figure.

[D.F. Manno]

Post by JF Mezei
Remember, they punished Apple rather severely just because Apple didn't
beat their randomly set target for iPhone sales (without any guidance
from Apple). This, despite Apple having record sales for the iPhone (and
despite a shorter quarter).

A lot of the recent Apple criticism was designed to drive the stock
price down to benefit short sellers.

[Michelle Steiner]

Although growing somewhat until the most recent report, computers and
Mac OSX continue to lag behind Windows with no prospect of reaching even
ten per cent of that market.

Apple's share has been increasing for years, and even with the downturn of
sales in the last report, the downturn was less than the industry average,
so Apple actually increased market share.

[JF Mezei]

Post by Michelle Steiner
Apple's share has been increasing for years, and even with the downturn of
sales in the last report, the downturn was less than the industry average,
so Apple actually increased market share.

When Digital started to make personal computers in the mid 1990s, it was
able to boast the industry's fastest growth rate.

When you go from selling 1 computer per month to 2/month, you have a
growth rate of 100%

But if you already sell 100/month, increasing by 1 only gives you 1%
growth rate.


The hard fact remains that OS-X is still a small part of the desktop
computing installed base, despite nice numbers showing growth in slaes
and percentage of installed base.

What is important is that OS-X maintain enough momentum to continue to
attract the important applications (such as Adobe's etc).

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Michelle Steiner
Apple's share has been increasing for years, and even with the downturn of
sales in the last report, the downturn was less than the industry average,
so Apple actually increased market share.

When Digital started to make personal computers in the mid 1990s, it was
able to boast the industry's fastest growth rate.
When you go from selling 1 computer per month to 2/month, you have a
growth rate of 100%

Growth rate and market share growth rate are not the same. You can have
negative growth and still have an increase in market share; in fact, that's
what happened in Apple's most recent quarter for the Macintosh.

[AV3]

Post by Michelle Steiner

Although growing somewhat until the most recent report, computers and
Mac OSX continue to lag behind Windows with no prospect of reaching even
ten per cent of that market.

Apple's share has been increasing for years, and even with the downturn of
sales in the last report, the downturn was less than the industry average,
so Apple actually increased market share.

True, but I only picked ten per cent, because Apple has been creeping
toward that lowly goal since the onset of the iMac and still hasn't got
there in more than a decade. I am more than anything loyal to the Apple
computer, not to my beloved iToys, and I wish its market share were
growing faster and higher.

[D.F. Manno]

Post by AV3
I am more than anything loyal to the Apple
computer, not to my beloved iToys, and I wish its market share were
growing faster and higher.

Why? How are you affected in any way by Apple's market share?

[AV3]

Post by D.F. Manno

Post by AV3
I am more than anything loyal to the Apple
computer, not to my beloved iToys, and I wish its market share were
growing faster and higher.

Why? How are you affected in any way by Apple's market share?

Relatively low ranking of OSX and computers compared with much higher
share ranking of other Apple products suggests lower priority for them,
noting that computers are no longer the core product in the corporate name.


It is quite natural in these circumstances to suppose that OSX and
computers will not attract or receive the attention of Apple's most
talented workers, and I can foresee a day when OSX and computers may be
regarded as an expendable vanity legacy.

[Doc O'Leary]

Post by AV3
It is quite natural in these circumstances to suppose that OSX and
computers will not attract or receive the attention of Apple's most
talented workers, and I can foresee a day when OSX and computers may be
regarded as an expendable vanity legacy.

Then clearly you know nothing of the technology behind Apple's products.
Every competent iOS developer will tell you that Mac OS X is a key part
of the apps they write. That's to say nothing of the vast amounts of
workhorse software that is better run on a 8+ core machine connected to
a power outlet. It's Microsoft that has mistaken the mobile market for
a universal market, not Apple.

[Jolly Roger]

In article

Post by Doc O'Leary

Post by AV3
It is quite natural in these circumstances to suppose that OSX and
computers will not attract or receive the attention of Apple's most
talented workers, and I can foresee a day when OSX and computers may be
regarded as an expendable vanity legacy.

Then clearly you know nothing of the technology behind Apple's products.
Every competent iOS developer will tell you that Mac OS X is a key part
of the apps they write. That's to say nothing of the vast amounts of
workhorse software that is better run on a 8+ core machine connected to
a power outlet. It's Microsoft that has mistaken the mobile market for
a universal market, not Apple.

*clap* *clap* *clap*

[AV3]

Post by Doc O'Leary

Post by AV3
It is quite natural in these circumstances to suppose that OSX and
computers will not attract or receive the attention of Apple's most
talented workers, and I can foresee a day when OSX and computers may be
regarded as an expendable vanity legacy.

Then clearly you know nothing of the technology behind Apple's products.
Every competent iOS developer will tell you that Mac OS X is a key part
of the apps they write.

I don't expect OS X to disappear but to merge with iOS eventually. I do
expect the resulting OS to be much more iOS-like than OSX-like.

Post by Doc O'Leary
That's to say nothing of the vast amounts of
workhorse software that is better run on a 8+ core machine connected to
a power outlet. It's Microsoft that has mistaken the mobile market for
a universal market, not Apple.

I expect the desk top computer to go the way of the console radio, and
the laptop to merge with a future super-iPad, which will have the
capacity to edit the most complex files and connect with devices like
today's computers. Apple itself removed the word "computer" from its
corporate name, so I would suppose that it will be called a super-iPad,
not a computer.


Indeed Apple may be ahead of Microsoft and traditional computer makers.
but the original question was why I took the market share of Mac and OSX
seriously. It's because I think they're on the way out, but not without
a worthy replacement, or should I say evolution.

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by AV3
I don't expect OS X to disappear but to merge with iOS eventually.

I don't expect either of those. People at Apple have repeatedly said that
the two OSes will remain distinct from each other, although they will share
commonalities. Nor do I expect your expectations (in subsequent parts of
your message) to happen either.

[JF Mezei]

Post by Michelle Steiner
I don't expect either of those. People at Apple have repeatedly said that
the two OSes will remain distinct from each other, although they will share
commonalities.

It is the commonalities that I don't want. Stuff such as removing the
concept of documets you save and try to hide that from you, making the
user interface really dumb and more suited for games (full screen stuff)
rather than work.

Better integration and synching is fine. But the UI elements of a
desktop should remain desktop, and IOS elements remain IOS.

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Michelle Steiner
I don't expect either of those. People at Apple have repeatedly said that
the two OSes will remain distinct from each other, although they will share
commonalities.

It is the commonalities that I don't want. Stuff such as removing the
concept of documets you save and try to hide that from you, making the
user interface really dumb and more suited for games (full screen stuff)
rather than work.

Um, I haven't had the OS try to hide any of my documents from me. And the
full screen stuff is entirely optional; I don't use it, and frankly, I had
forgotten about it until I read the above quoted material.

[JF Mezei]

Post by Michelle Steiner
Um, I haven't had the OS try to hide any of my documents from me.

Removing "save as" (and only sort of putting back on to save face), and
that thing when starting an aplication causing it to automatically open
the last document you worked on even if you don't want that app to touch
it are concepts associated with "document less" platforms such as IOS
which are ill suited for computers.

I had to endure this on my old PSION 5 PDA (predecessor to Symbian OS)
with absolutely terrible UI concept even for a PDA.

It is about dumbing it down for those people who don't understand the
concept of a document copy in your application which is different from
the copy saved on disk.

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Michelle Steiner
Um, I haven't had the OS try to hide any of my documents from me.

Removing "save as" (and only sort of putting back on to save face), and
that thing when starting an aplication causing it to automatically open
the last document you worked on even if you don't want that app to touch
it are concepts associated with "document less" platforms such as IOS
which are ill suited for computers.

That has nothing to do with hiding documents from the user.

[Davoud]

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by JF Mezei
Removing "save as" (and only sort of putting back on to save face), and
that thing when starting an aplication causing it to automatically open
the last document you worked on even if you don't want that app to touch
it are concepts associated with "document less" platforms such as IOS
which are ill suited for computers.

That has nothing to do with hiding documents from the user.

Mr. Mezei tends to be absolutist. If a single Apple application lacks
"Save as" then that's it--no application from any publisher has "Save
as." He probably thinks they've got five feet of snow in Key West just
now.

I have no idea where he got the concept of the OS hiding documents. I
can't see that Mountain Lion on my newest Macs handles files in a
fundamentally different way from System 5(?) on my Mac Plus, at least
not as seen by the user. Except that, contrary to being hidden from me,
files are a bit easier to find these days. The creation date on my
"Excel" and "Word" folders is sometime in 1985.

Mr. Mezei reminds me of a guy I know who says that the fun went out of
motorcycle riding when they put turn signals on them. "Might as well be
driving a semi." A look at the earliest cycles ever made and today's
most advanced bikes shows no fundamental differences; handlebars, two
wheels, engine under driver.

[JF Mezei]

Post by Davoud
Mr. Mezei tends to be absolutist. If a single Apple application lacks
"Save as" then that's it--no application from any publisher has "Save
as." He probably thinks they've got five feet of snow in Key West just
now.

Consider that IOS is a UI without a file system. An app has its own
hidden documents and you lose the concept of "save" because of autosave
and you can't save a spreadsheet along with keynote and Pages documenst
in the same folder because there are no folders in IOS.

Apple tried to *start* to move OS-X that way with Lion (autosave,
auto-open, no save as, versions and icloud), but had to take a step
back with Moutain Lion because they apparently got the message that
people want a file system they can manage. Whether Apple complertly
steps back from "back to mac" features tried in Lion remains to be seen
post Mountain Lion.

Only time will tell.

[Lewis]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Davoud
Mr. Mezei tends to be absolutist. If a single Apple application lacks
"Save as" then that's it--no application from any publisher has "Save
as." He probably thinks they've got five feet of snow in Key West just
now.

Consider that IOS is a UI without a file system. An app has its own
hidden documents and you lose the concept of "save" because of autosave
and you can't save a spreadsheet along with keynote and Pages documenst
in the same folder because there are no folders in IOS.

And that makes sense in iOS.

Post by JF Mezei
Apple tried to *start* to move OS-X that way with Lion (autosave,
auto-open, no save as, versions and icloud)

Bullshit, these have nothing to do with 'hiding' documents, they have to do with making life easier on users. And they do.

I use Numbers for exactly one purpose, tracking Apple App Store
purchases for the kids. Other people use it for other things, but that's
all I use it for. When I open Numbers, my iOS spreadsheet is open. I
enter the app purchased and put the price in the appropriate person's
column and I quit Numbers.

Sometimes I do this on the iPad.

Every time I open Numbers, there is the file I need and the cursor is
where I need it to be. Entering the purchases takes 5-10 seconds instead
of 2-3 minutes, which means that it *always* gets done.

[JF Mezei]

Post by Lewis
Bullshit, these have nothing to do with 'hiding' documents, they have to do with making life easier on users. And they do.

This is the problem. Emulating IOS may make life easier for low end
users, but it makes life much harder for users who actually need a
computer because they have tasks that are more complex than can be
achieved on IOS iPad.

So trying to dumb down OS-X when OS_X is designed for power user is
wrong. Move the dumbed down users to IOS and keep OS-X for power users
without dumbing down its UI.

[Lewis]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Lewis
Bullshit, these have nothing to do with 'hiding' documents, they have to do with making life easier on users. And they do.

This is the problem. Emulating IOS may make life easier for low end
users, but it makes life much harder for users who actually need a
computer because they have tasks that are more complex than can be
achieved on IOS iPad.

But it doesn't make it harder, and certainly not much harder.

Post by JF Mezei
So trying to dumb down OS-X when OS_X is designed for power user is
wrong.

Well, a dumbed down OS X would certainly be of benefit to *you*.

[Bread]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Lewis
Bullshit, these have nothing to do with 'hiding' documents, they have
to do with making life easier on users. And they do.

This is the problem. Emulating IOS may make life easier for low end
users, but it makes life much harder for users who actually need a
computer because they have tasks that are more complex than can be
achieved on IOS iPad.
So trying to dumb down OS-X

Nobody's dumbed down OS X and all your complaining about this thing
which hasn't happened (and for which there is no evidence whatsoever
that it is happening or will happen) is at best goofy.

[Bread]

Post by Lewis

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Davoud
Mr. Mezei tends to be absolutist. If a single Apple application lacks
"Save as" then that's it--no application from any publisher has "Save
as." He probably thinks they've got five feet of snow in Key West just
now.

Consider that IOS is a UI without a file system. An app has its own
hidden documents and you lose the concept of "save" because of autosave
and you can't save a spreadsheet along with keynote and Pages documenst
in the same folder because there are no folders in IOS.

And that makes sense in iOS.

Arg. Don't make me agree with JF. It makes sense only in the context of
a system that's meant for small, solitary tasks. In iOS, it's more a
matter of extra security than intention. Nobody seriously wants their
documents silo'd by application because nobody thinks "I want to work on
a Numbers". They think "I want to work on my task and right now I need
a spreadsheet".

Thankfully, however, JF is entirely wrong in that nothing in OS X forces
or even encourages people strongly to do the iOS-ish thing with files.

The closest OS X comes to that is the default behavior of iCloud Documents,
which is entirely optional and can easily be turned off (or never turned on).

Meanwhile, we have *excellent* alternatives which give us cloud functionality
without the application silos - Dropbox, Wuala, Box.net, Sugarsync and others.

Post by Lewis

Post by JF Mezei
Apple tried to *start* to move OS-X that way with Lion (autosave,
auto-open, no save as, versions and icloud)

Bullshit, these have nothing to do with 'hiding' documents, they have
to do with making life easier on users. And they do.

Agreed - nothing to do with hiding documents. However, I do strongly
believe that AutoSave and Versions are both (a) a *great* idea; and (b)
a flawed implementation. Apple's tried to fix a flaw or two in the
move from Lion to ML, but they've still got a ways to go.

Post by Lewis
I use Numbers for exactly one purpose, tracking Apple App Store
purchases for the kids. Other people use it for other things, but that's
all I use it for. When I open Numbers, my iOS spreadsheet is open. I
enter the app purchased and put the price in the appropriate person's
column and I quit Numbers.

I use it for *hundreds* of spreadsheets. Auto-re-open is an abominably
bad idea for me. Thankfully, I am able to turn it off.

I almost like Auto-Save, however, I am well aware that Versions is
*not* a revision control system. At best, it's a way to revert
*sometimes* because the version repository is not tied to the file, nor
is it able to be synced between computers -- and it gets lost if you
move the file from one drive to another even on the same system. So
before I do any any major work on a file, I have to duplicate it
(either in the app or in the Finder) and rename the copy (usually with
a new date in the filename).

[Lewis]

Post by Bread
Agreed - nothing to do with hiding documents. However, I do strongly
believe that AutoSave and Versions are both (a) a *great* idea; and (b)
a flawed implementation.

I'd agree with that. There are a lot of issues that need to be ironed
out, but I still love it. Autosave makes my life a lot easier.

Post by Bread
I use it for *hundreds* of spreadsheets. Auto-re-open is an abominably
bad idea for me. Thankfully, I am able to turn it off.

Right. Options. What a concept, eh?

Post by Bread
I almost like Auto-Save, however, I am well aware that Versions is
*not* a revision control system. At best, it's a way to revert
*sometimes* because the version repository is not tied to the file, nor
is it able to be synced between computers -- and it gets lost if you
move the file from one drive to another even on the same system.

Yep, these are some of the issues that need to be ironed out.

[Wes Groleau]

Post by Lewis

Post by JF Mezei
Apple tried to *start* to move OS-X that way with Lion (autosave,
auto-open, no save as, versions and icloud)

Bullshit, these have nothing to do with 'hiding' documents, they have to do
with making life easier on users. And they do.

The quantity of pissed-off users suggests otherwise.

[J.J. O'Shea]

Post by Wes Groleau

Post by Lewis

Post by JF Mezei
Apple tried to *start* to move OS-X that way with Lion (autosave,
auto-open, no save as, versions and icloud)

Bullshit, these have nothing to do with 'hiding' documents, they have to do
with making life easier on users. And they do.

The quantity of pissed-off users suggests otherwise.

No kidding.

[Bread]

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Michelle Steiner
I don't expect either of those. People at Apple have repeatedly said that
the two OSes will remain distinct from each other, although they will share
commonalities.

It is the commonalities that I don't want. Stuff such as removing the
concept of documets you save and try to hide that from you, making the
user interface really dumb and more suited for games (full screen stuff)
rather than work.

Um, I haven't had the OS try to hide any of my documents from me. And the
full screen stuff is entirely optional; I don't use it, and frankly, I had
forgotten about it until I read the above quoted material.

Unfortunately, certain app writers do that, with a little bit of complicity
on the part of the OS. But in no way does the OS force it.

(ie. apps which want to store their data in ~/Library and which don't behave
well when you try to keep your data elsewhere)

And, of course, iCloud uses the iOS application/document model rather than
a general filesystem model, but that's not OS X. That's iCloud, and nothing
forces anyone to use it.

The usual chicken littles are saying the same old things.

(I note in a followup,
a reference to the whole Save As business as if that were an example of the
iOS-ification, which I think is just silly. I think it's a badly done part of
a great idea - the whole business of Versions and auto-save - which I
still think
they're going to keep making iprovements on. It would also be awfullly nice if
apps would give one the *option* of using it - I have yet to see an app which
had a switch for it).

[David Empson]

(I note in a followup, a reference to the whole Save As business as if
that were an example of the iOS-ification, which I think is just silly. I
think it's a badly done part of a great idea - the whole business of
Versions and auto-save - which I still think they're going to keep making
iprovements on. It would also be awfullly nice if apps would give one the
*option* of using it - I have yet to see an app which had a switch for
it).

GraphicConverter is one which has a preference for whether to use
Autosave/Versions.

[Lewis]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Michelle Steiner
I don't expect either of those. People at Apple have repeatedly said that
the two OSes will remain distinct from each other, although they will share
commonalities.

It is the commonalities that I don't want. Stuff such as removing the
concept of documets you save and try to hide that from you

What are you on about?

[AV3]

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
I don't expect OS X to disappear but to merge with iOS eventually.

I don't expect either of those. People at Apple have repeatedly said that
the two OSes will remain distinct from each other, although they will share
commonalities. Nor do I expect your expectations (in subsequent parts of
your message) to happen either.

I am expressing opinion with no technical expertise to back it up. But
from casual observation, I notice that the MacBook Air has lots fewer
functions than my MacBook Pro, but it seems to have found a place in the
market. Isn't it an evolutionary step towards an iPad? And I understand
that new Macs will no longer have internal CD/DVD drives. Isn't that
more iPad-like? And of course I long thought I would never see "Intel
Inside".


It seems to me that Apple really likes thinking differently. This is my
guess about the next surprise. And it is my answer to the question of
how importantly their market share indicates that the lagging computer
and OS X operations at Apple will inevitably be radically reviewed. It
seems to me just like Apple to leapfrog Microsoft, nursing along its
eighty per cent OS clientele, with a new kind of "computer" that appeals
to a younger and more adventurous crowd.

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by AV3
I am expressing opinion with no technical expertise to back it up. But
from casual observation, I notice that the MacBook Air has lots fewer
functions than my MacBook Pro, but it seems to have found a place in the
market. Isn't it an evolutionary step towards an iPad?

Fewer functions, or fewer I/O ports? Regardless, that has nothing to do
with the iPad.

Post by AV3
And I understand that new Macs will no longer have internal CD/DVD
drives.

Some models. It's no big thing as fewer and fewer people actually use
those drives any more. And for those who do, there are USB drives
available.

Post by AV3
Isn't that more iPad-like?

Neither has a built-in modem. Does that make them alike?

Post by AV3
And of course I long thought I would never see "Intel Inside".

Of course, that has nothing to do with the iPad. At one time, I never
thought that Apple would use a CPU based on IBM technology, but that
happened as well.

Post by AV3
It seems to me that Apple really likes thinking differently.

Yup; they have to do that in order to maintain their business. If they
didn't think differently, they wouldn't be different, and if they're not
different, they don't have a rationale for existence.

Post by AV3
And it is my answer to the question of how importantly their market
share indicates that the lagging computer and OS X operations at Apple
will inevitably be radically reviewed. It seems to me just like Apple to
leapfrog Microsoft, nursing along its eighty per cent OS clientele, with
a new kind of "computer" that appeals to a younger and more adventurous
crowd.

The way to do that is not to make the Macintosh run on iOS.

[AV3]

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
I am expressing opinion with no technical expertise to back it up. But
from casual observation, I notice that the MacBook Air has lots fewer
functions than my MacBook Pro, but it seems to have found a place in the
market. Isn't it an evolutionary step towards an iPad?

Fewer functions, or fewer I/O ports? Regardless, that has nothing to do
with the iPad.

Fewer I/O ports and no internal CD/DVD drive, depriving one of a source
for importing files into iTunes. Also, some peripherals, like printers,
won't function remotely from an external USB hub. I am speaking of the
first generation of Airs, as I haven't even looked at one since.


I think of the Air as a proto-iPad, because it discovered a class of Mac
laptop users who didn't care about losing the eliminated functions. The
iPad expanded that clientele to PC tablet users as well, who found iOS
and a touchscreen intuitively easy and attractive to use.

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
And I understand that new Macs will no longer have internal CD/DVD
drives.

Some models. It's no big thing as fewer and fewer people actually use
those drives any more. And for those who do, there are USB drives
available.

Post by AV3
Isn't that more iPad-like?

Neither has a built-in modem. Does that make them alike?

As a matter of fact, yes. But reduced ports and loss of internal CD/DVD
drives are more recent points of similarity. To say nothing of the
nature of the Air's hard drive.

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
And of course I long thought I would never see "Intel Inside".

Of course, that has nothing to do with the iPad. At one time, I never
thought that Apple would use a CPU based on IBM technology, but that
happened as well.

I meant that as a reply to your citing Apple sources that the two OS's
will never completely merge.

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
...

[Lewis]

Post by AV3

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
I am expressing opinion with no technical expertise to back it up. But
from casual observation, I notice that the MacBook Air has lots fewer
functions than my MacBook Pro, but it seems to have found a place in the
market. Isn't it an evolutionary step towards an iPad?

Fewer functions, or fewer I/O ports? Regardless, that has nothing to do
with the iPad.

Fewer I/O ports and no internal CD/DVD drive, depriving one of a source
for importing files into iTunes.

I imported my last CD in 2004, and I purchased my last CD (that wasn't
directly fromt he artist) in 2001. All my music gets into iTunes via the
Ethernet, as is the case for everyone I know.

Post by AV3
Also, some peripherals, like printers,
won't function remotely from an external USB hub.

Old printers? Perhaps. Most new printers don't need USB at all.

Post by AV3
I think of the Air as a proto-iPad,

You are wrong.

Post by AV3
As a matter of fact, yes. But reduced ports and loss of internal CD/DVD
drives are more recent points of similarity. To say nothing of the
nature of the Air's hard drive.

Optical drives are a waste of space and most users never use them, or
use them so rarely there is no justification for having them on every
computer. If you really need one, buy an external one.

Post by AV3

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
And of course I long thought I would never see "Intel Inside".

Of course, that has nothing to do with the iPad. At one time, I never
thought that Apple would use a CPU based on IBM technology, but that
happened as well.

I meant that as a reply to your citing Apple sources that the two OS's
will never completely merge.

When did Apple sources ever say "Never Intel"?

Everyone who knew anything knew that Intel Macs were possible. OS X is
based largely on NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP, and OPENSTEP ran on Intel.
Certainly Intel Macs were a possibility. Admittedly, I didn't think it
would ever happen, but then I didn't think Motorola would fuck up the G5
line as badly as it did, nor that Intel would ever come out with a
decent low-power chip like they did.

[Erilar]

Lewis <***@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
.

Post by Lewis
I imported my last CD in 2004, and I purchased my last CD (that wasn't
directly fromt he artist) in 2001. All my music gets into iTunes via the
Ethernet, as is the case for everyone I know.
.

Well, I do buy CDs from tome to time, because not all music I enjoy is
available in mid-air, and I use the CD drive to add them to iTunes for my
iPod. My laptop is also my only DVD player. I wouldn't buy a computer
without one.

Note: i do not buy popular music at ANY time.

[AV3]

Post by Erilar
.

Post by Lewis
I imported my last CD in 2004, and I purchased my last CD (that wasn't
directly fromt he artist) in 2001. All my music gets into iTunes via the
Ethernet, as is the case for everyone I know.
.

Well, I do buy CDs from tome to time, because not all music I enjoy is
available in mid-air, and I use the CD drive to add them to iTunes for my
iPod. My laptop is also my only DVD player. I wouldn't buy a computer
without one.
Note: i do not buy popular music at ANY time.

Nor do I, but the same principles apply. I collect classical music and
listen to it repeatedly on my iPod. It now takes me more than a year to
run through my iPod transferred collection. There is the collection I
had from years before the iPod, and I have acquired numerous CD's since,
because many compositions and performances are not available from
on-line sources as cheaply or at all. I assume the same applies to older
pop music and spoken word recordings.


Furthermore, thanks to a blessed Christmas gift turntable converter a
couple of years ago, I can transfer LP and other disk recordings to
CD's, which are medium for transfer to iTunes and my iPod. There is an
endless supply of such disk rarities from eBay, local auctions, and
donations from owners who want to unburden themselves of no longer used,
bulky collections.


In addition, while traveling, CD's and DVD's are still the medium for
tourist and informational mementos, and thanks to the internal drive on
my laptop I can inspect them and knowledgeably thank the occasional
donor. In remote Western China a PC laptop user and I bought copies of
the same local music CD. Due to bad CD material it played sluggishly on
my laptop and not at all on her PC. I was able to import the tracks for
flawless play on my iPod, and on a blank CD I burned her a playable
copy, demonstrating to many in our group the superior qualities of the
Mac and the condescending pity its user took on a hapless PC user.


Long live the internal CD/DVD drive!

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by AV3
Furthermore, thanks to a blessed Christmas gift turntable converter a
couple of years ago, I can transfer LP and other disk recordings to
CD's, which are medium for transfer to iTunes and my iPod.

One of my turntables has a USB output, so I can transfer LPs directly to
the computer without bothering with CDs.

[Erilar]

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
Furthermore, thanks to a blessed Christmas gift turntable converter a
couple of years ago, I can transfer LP and other disk recordings to
CD's, which are medium for transfer to iTunes and my iPod.

One of my turntables has a USB output, so I can transfer LPs directly to
the computer without bothering with CDs.

I can do that, too, but it's useless for Cds or DVD s

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by Erilar

Post by Michelle Steiner
One of my turntables has a USB output, so I can transfer LPs directly
to the computer without bothering with CDs.

I can do that, too, but it's useless for Cds or DVD s

So is the turntable that's connected to my AV system.

[AV3]

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
Furthermore, thanks to a blessed Christmas gift turntable converter a
couple of years ago, I can transfer LP and other disk recordings to
CD's, which are medium for transfer to iTunes and my iPod.

One of my turntables has a USB output, so I can transfer LPs directly to
the computer without bothering with CDs.

Could any noise from simultaneous work on the computer possibly leak
into the file being created? Just asking out of superstitious ignorance.

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by AV3

Post by Michelle Steiner
One of my turntables has a USB output, so I can transfer LPs directly to
the computer without bothering with CDs.

Could any noise from simultaneous work on the computer possibly leak
into the file being created? Just asking out of superstitious ignorance.

I have no idea; I don't do any other work on the computer when I'm
importing music.

[AV3]

Post by Lewis

Post by AV3

Post by Michelle Steiner
...

Fewer I/O ports and no internal CD/DVD drive, depriving one of a source
for importing files into iTunes.

I imported my last CD in 2004, and I purchased my last CD (that wasn't
directly fromt he artist) in 2001. All my music gets into iTunes via the
Ethernet, as is the case for everyone I know.

You don't know Erilar or me. I detailed in a message to her the
usefulness I still find in my internal CD/DVD drive. But thank you for
snarkily confirming my original point that internal CD/DVD drives and
multiple connection ports are on their way out on laptops and never
present on iPads.

Post by Lewis

Post by AV3
Also, some peripherals, like printers,
won't function remotely from an external USB hub.

Old printers? Perhaps. Most new printers don't need USB at all.

Again thanks for confirming my point that Air laptops and iPads presume
no need for a constant USB connection.

Post by Lewis

Post by AV3
I think of the Air as a proto-iPad,

You are wrong.

Post by AV3
As a matter of fact, yes. But reduced ports and loss of internal CD/DVD
drives are more recent points of similarity. To say nothing of the
nature of the Air's hard drive.

Optical drives are a waste of space and most users never use them, or
use them so rarely there is no justification for having them on every
computer. If you really need one, buy an external one.

Not to me, but I cheerfully concede that users of Airs and iPads will
have to. Again and again, my original point is that Airs and iPads
converge in their usage.

Post by Lewis

Post by AV3

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
And of course I long thought I would never see "Intel Inside".

Of course, that has nothing to do with the iPad. At one time, I never
thought that Apple would use a CPU based on IBM technology, but that
happened as well.

I meant that as a reply to your citing Apple sources that the two OS's
will never completely merge.

When did Apple sources ever say "Never Intel"?
Everyone who knew anything knew that Intel Macs were possible. OS X is
based largely on NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP, and OPENSTEP ran on Intel.
Certainly Intel Macs were a possibility. Admittedly, I didn't think it
would ever happen, but then I didn't think Motorola would fuck up the G5
line as badly as it did, nor that Intel would ever come out with a
decent low-power chip like they did.

Hindsight is 20/20. At least we agree about not seeing it coming.
Additionally, I thought the proprietary Mac OS was on its way into a
dead end of increasing extension conflicts, and I thought Steve Jobs had
towering grudges against Intel and Unix. But I was dead wrong about his
inability to divorce his personal feelings from the good of the
corporation, if that was the case.

[Michelle Steiner]

But thank you for snarkily confirming my original point that internal
CD/DVD drives and multiple connection ports are on their way out on
laptops and never present on iPads.

Neither of them have seat belts or mirrors.

Post by Lewis
Old printers? Perhaps. Most new printers don't need USB at all.

Again thanks for confirming my point that Air laptops and iPads presume
no need for a constant USB connection.

He didn't confirm that point at all; he confirmed that most new *printers*
don't need (not "don't have") USB. Furthermore, every MacBook Air has had
at least one USB port, and every iPad has USB connectivity built into the
Dock Connector or Lightning Connector (depending on the model).

Again and again, my original point is that Airs and iPads converge in
their usage.

You have yet to substantiate that point.

I thought the proprietary Mac OS was on its way into a dead end of
increasing extension conflicts, and I thought Steve Jobs had towering
grudges against Intel and Unix.

I have no idea where you got the idea that Jobs had grudges against them.
NeXT always ran unix, and after they stopped making hardware and
concentrated the OS, it ran on Unix.

[AV3]

Post by Michelle Steiner

But thank you for snarkily confirming my original point that internal
CD/DVD drives and multiple connection ports are on their way out on
laptops and never present on iPads.

Neither of them have seat belts or mirrors.

Post by Lewis
Old printers? Perhaps. Most new printers don't need USB at all.

Again thanks for confirming my point that Air laptops and iPads presume
no need for a constant USB connection.

He didn't confirm that point at all; he confirmed that most new *printers*
don't need (not "don't have") USB. Furthermore, every MacBook Air has had
at least one USB port, and every iPad has USB connectivity built into the
Dock Connector or Lightning Connector (depending on the model).

The point he confirmed is that Air and iPad cater to printers that don't
need USB connection. The problem with having a single USB port is that
it either serves for connection to an electric power source, or you have
to run any device connected to it off the depleting iPad battery.

Post by Michelle Steiner

Again and again, my original point is that Airs and iPads converge in
their usage.

You have yet to substantiate that point.

Unlike traditional computers and laptops, Airs and iPads in common have
fewer ports, cater to wirelessly connected peripherals, run on
solid-state hard drives of considerably smaller capacity than most
laptops, and don't have internal CD/DVD drives. Their buyers don't care
about those lost features and functions. I thought I already mentioned
that at least in passing.

Post by Michelle Steiner

I thought the proprietary Mac OS was on its way into a dead end of
increasing extension conflicts, and I thought Steve Jobs had towering
grudges against Intel and Unix.

I have no idea where you got the idea that Jobs had grudges against them.
NeXT always ran unix, and after they stopped making hardware and
concentrated the OS, it ran on Unix.

I already admitted I was very wrong to believe that rumor, and I
cheerfully apologize again. After leaving Apple, he was making projects
for prospective clients in the almost exclusively non-Mac world, so it
is hardly surprising that his products conformed to those usage norms. I
would guess that, having immersed himself in the security and simplicity
aspects of Unix, this influenced his thinking after returning to Apple.

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by AV3
The point he confirmed is that Air and iPad cater to printers that don't
need USB connection.

They don't "cater" to printers at all. If any catering is done, it's the
printers that cater to the computers and tablets.

Post by AV3
The problem with having a single USB port is that it either serves for
connection to an electric power source, or you have to run any device
connected to it off the depleting iPad battery.

Huh? If that's a problem, it's a problem no matter how many USB ports you
have. BTW, the Air has had two USB ports since October 2010.

Post by AV3
Unlike traditional computers and laptops, Airs and iPads

The Air is a traditional laptop. And laptops are computer; why do you make
that artificial distinction between them?

Post by AV3
in common have fewer ports, cater to wirelessly connected peripherals,
run on solid-state hard drives of considerably smaller capacity than
most laptops, and don't have internal CD/DVD drives. Their buyers don't
care about those lost features and functions. I thought I already
mentioned that at least in passing.

All that has nothing to do with "converging in usage".

Please keep believing what you will; the majority of the rest of us will
stick to reality.

[AV3]

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
The point he confirmed is that Air and iPad cater to printers that don't
need USB connection.

They don't "cater" to printers at all. If any catering is done, it's the
printers that cater to the computers and tablets.

What I mean by "cater" is that they make it necessary to use wirelessly
connected devices, due to reduction in the number of ports, saving the
ports for simultaneously using devices without wireless connectivity.

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
The problem with having a single USB port is that it either serves for
connection to an electric power source, or you have to run any device
connected to it off the depleting iPad battery.

Huh? If that's a problem, it's a problem no matter how many USB ports you
have. BTW, the Air has had two USB ports since October 2010.

It's just an iPad problem. I have always kept all my devices fully
charged at all times, and that served me well during the multi-day power
blackout.


I meant that on an iPad you can charge your battery or connect to a USB
peripheral but not simultaneously, and I would want to recharge as soon
as possible after using a peripheral. I use mine almost exclusively away
from home or in bed where there is no nearby power source. I live in a
century-old New York apartment.

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
Unlike traditional computers and laptops, Airs and iPads

The Air is a traditional laptop.

It is the only one with a solid state hard drive and reduced number of
ports. Until recently it was the only one without an internal CD/DVD
drive. It is lighter in weight than most. In those respects it is more
like an iPad.

Post by Michelle Steiner
...

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by AV3

Post by Michelle Steiner
They don't "cater" to printers at all. If any catering is done, it's
the printers that cater to the computers and tablets.

What I mean by "cater" is that they make it necessary to use wirelessly
connected devices, due to reduction in the number of ports, saving the
ports for simultaneously using devices without wireless connectivity.

Oh, you're Humpty Dumpty.

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it
means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'"

"'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many
different things.'"

"'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's
all.'"

Post by AV3

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
Unlike traditional computers and laptops, Airs and iPads

The Air is a traditional laptop.

It is the only one with a solid state hard drive and reduced number of
ports.

Other than the Mac Book Pro with Retina Display you mean?

But those are mere bagatelles; they do not define what a traditional
computer is.

Post by AV3
Until recently it was the only one without an internal CD/DVD drive. It
is lighter in weight than most. In those respects it is more like an
iPad.

In those respects, it is like a note pad and pencil.

Please try some meaningful similarities and differences; like, for
instance, do they both have touch screens, or do they both require a
physical keyboard?

[David Empson]

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
Unlike traditional computers and laptops, Airs and iPads

The Air is a traditional laptop.

It is the only one with a solid state hard drive and reduced number of
ports.

Other than the Mac Book Pro with Retina Display you mean?

Or any of the "UltraBook" PC notebook models (made by companies other
than Apple), which are similar in concept and design to the MacBook Air:
thin bodies, no optical drive, solid state drive, reduced ports.

[Jolly Roger]

Post by AV3
Hindsight is 20/20. At least we agree about not seeing it coming.
Additionally, I thought the proprietary Mac OS was on its way into a
dead end of increasing extension conflicts, and I thought Steve Jobs had
towering grudges against Intel and Unix. But I was dead wrong about his
inability to divorce his personal feelings from the good of the
corporation, if that was the case.

We learn, we grow; people change - whether they want to or realize it or
not. It's part of being human.

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by AV3

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
I am expressing opinion with no technical expertise to back it up. But
from casual observation, I notice that the MacBook Air has lots fewer
functions than my MacBook Pro, but it seems to have found a place in the
market. Isn't it an evolutionary step towards an iPad?

Fewer functions, or fewer I/O ports? Regardless, that has nothing to do
with the iPad.

Fewer I/O ports and no internal CD/DVD drive, depriving one of a source
for importing files into iTunes.

I can't remember the last time I put a CD or DVD into the drive of my
former iMac. Fewer and fewer people are buying CDs and DVDs when they can
get the material (usually for less money) on line. The drive is almost
archaic. And for those who need a drive, externals are available.

Post by AV3
Also, some peripherals, like printers, won't function remotely from an
external USB hub. I am speaking of the first generation of Airs,

Because it had only one USB port? And you mean some printers, not all
printers, right? Anyway, most printers these days have ethernet and/or
WiFi in addition to USB.

Post by AV3
as I haven't even looked at one since.

Current Airs have two USB 3 ports.

Post by AV3

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
And of course I long thought I would never see "Intel Inside".

Of course, that has nothing to do with the iPad. At one time, I never
thought that Apple would use a CPU based on IBM technology, but that
happened as well.

I meant that as a reply to your citing Apple sources that the two OS's
will never completely merge.

I fail to see how your reply relates to my cite.

[Bread]

Post by Michelle Steiner
I can't remember the last time I put a CD or DVD into the drive of my
former iMac. Fewer and fewer people are buying CDs and DVDs when they can
get the material (usually for less money) on line. The drive is almost
archaic. And for those who need a drive, externals are available.

I use the one on my iMac very regularly. It was a factor in my
preferring the 2011 model over the newly released one. It wasn't the
only factor (since, as you said, an external is easy enough to add).
In fact, it was probably the least important of the factors I
considered. But it was a factor.

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
Also, some peripherals, like printers, won't function remotely from an
external USB hub. I am speaking of the first generation of Airs,

Because it had only one USB port? And you mean some printers, not all
printers, right? Anyway, most printers these days have ethernet and/or
WiFi in addition to USB.

In my experience, most problems with devices plugged into a hub rather
than directly into the computer related to the devices requiring power.
Using a powered hub solved it. There may be other situations of which
I'm unaware (ie. something other than power being the issue).

That said, I do prefer to use proper networking for my printers.
However, the Canon MX870 we have, well, its networking is flaky at
best, whether wifi or wired. Plugged directly into USB, it's
rock-solid. In fact, for a long time, I ran a very long USB from it to
the iMac and let the iMac share it with the rest of the network and
that was by far the most reliable way to use that thing.

I can see them pulling ports off of the Airs, but was disappointed to
see how few ports they are putting onto the retina machines
(understandable because they are going for such a slim device, but
still disappointing, amongst other design issues related to them I
didn't like much - some of the same issues I have with the 2012 iMac
regarding them being designed never to be opened and making
upgrades/changes more difficult than I think they should be. I accept
that the average user is unlikely to do the kinds of repairs/changes
that I have done, but it does affect my priorities when I choose a
device).

[AV3]

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
I am expressing opinion with no technical expertise to back it up. But
from casual observation, I notice that the MacBook Air has lots fewer
functions than my MacBook Pro, but it seems to have found a place in the
market. Isn't it an evolutionary step towards an iPad?

Fewer functions, or fewer I/O ports? Regardless, that has nothing to do
with the iPad.

Fewer I/O ports and no internal CD/DVD drive, depriving one of a source
for importing files into iTunes.

I can't remember the last time I put a CD or DVD into the drive of my
former iMac. Fewer and fewer people are buying CDs and DVDs when they can
get the material (usually for less money) on line. The drive is almost
archaic. And for those who need a drive, externals are available.

I shouldn't have made that comment about my peculiar need for a CD
drive, because I agree that eliminating the internal CD/DVD drive and
multiple I/O ports is what Apple seems to regard as the wave of the
future, first in the Air, and then similarly in the iPad.

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
Also, some peripherals, like printers, won't function remotely from an
external USB hub. I am speaking of the first generation of Airs,

Because it had only one USB port? And you mean some printers, not all
printers, right? Anyway, most printers these days have ethernet and/or
WiFi in addition to USB.

Again, the wave of the future.

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
as I haven't even looked at one since.

Current Airs have two USB 3 ports.

Does that mean that multiple USB ports are still desirable?

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
And of course I long thought I would never see "Intel Inside".

Of course, that has nothing to do with the iPad. At one time, I never
thought that Apple would use a CPU based on IBM technology, but that
happened as well.

I meant that as a reply to your citing Apple sources that the two OS's
will never completely merge.

I fail to see how your reply relates to my cite.

The intended humor has now evaporated, but I just wanted to say that the
unexpected may happen. I wasn't attributing to any Apple employee
statements the feeling that Intel products were never going to be used
in Apple devices, but it was a general feeling among all Apple users I
knew then until the unexpected announcement. I do take the current Apple
statement that the OS's will not merge as a revisable prediction, not as
an ironclad promise forever.

[Wes Groleau]

Post by Michelle Steiner
I can't remember the last time I put a CD or DVD into the drive of my
former iMac. Fewer and fewer people are buying CDs and DVDs when they can
get the material (usually for less money) on line. The drive is almost
archaic. And for those who need a drive, externals are available.

There are still people whose bandwidth makes CDs online impractical and
DVDs impossible. It's an unfortunate fact of the market that when the
number of those people gets below some threshold, the attitude of most
manufacturers (Apple included) will become "Screw them; they don't matter."

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by Wes Groleau
There are still people whose bandwidth makes CDs online impractical and
DVDs impossible. It's an unfortunate fact of the market that when the
number of those people gets below some threshold, the attitude of most
manufacturers (Apple included) will become "Screw them; they don't matter."

If Apple had that attitude, there wouldn't be an Apple branded USB
SuperDrive.

[Erilar]

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by Wes Groleau
There are still people whose bandwidth makes CDs online impractical and
DVDs impossible. It's an unfortunate fact of the market that when the
number of those people gets below some threshold, the attitude of most
manufacturers (Apple included) will become "Screw them; they don't matter."

If Apple had that attitude, there wouldn't be an Apple branded USB
SuperDrive.

What's that?

[David Empson]

Post by Erilar

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by Wes Groleau
There are still people whose bandwidth makes CDs online impractical and
DVDs impossible. It's an unfortunate fact of the market that when the
number of those people gets below some threshold, the attitude of most
manufacturers (Apple included) will become "Screw them; they don't matter."

If Apple had that attitude, there wouldn't be an Apple branded USB
SuperDrive.

What's that?

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD564ZM/A

An external optical drive which can be used with all Mac models that
don't have a built-in optical drive (or others in the same generation
where some models have no built-in optical drive): MacBook Air, MacBook
Pro with Retina display, late 2012 iMac, and Mac Mini from late 2009.

For some bizarre reason, Apple decided to prevent it working on models
where every model in that generation do have a built-in optical drive,
but a software hack can get around that.

Because of that restriction, I've never bought one, but got a third
party external optical drive instead, so I have the flexibility of being
able to use it on any Mac without mucking around.

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by Erilar

Post by Michelle Steiner
If Apple had that attitude, there wouldn't be an Apple branded USB
SuperDrive.

What's that?

<http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD564ZM/A/apple-usb-superdrive>

[Doc O'Leary]

Post by Wes Groleau
There are still people whose bandwidth makes CDs online impractical and
DVDs impossible. It's an unfortunate fact of the market that when the
number of those people gets below some threshold, the attitude of most
manufacturers (Apple included) will become "Screw them; they don't matter."

It's just a matter of economies of scale. All those people need to do
is be willing to pay 2x, 10x, or more to keep using a technology with a
smaller market. It's wrong to blame the manufacturers for constantly
improving their technology or introducing better alternatives.

[Erilar]

Post by Doc O'Leary

Post by Wes Groleau
There are still people whose bandwidth makes CDs online impractical and
DVDs impossible. It's an unfortunate fact of the market that when the
number of those people gets below some threshold, the attitude of most
manufacturers (Apple included) will become "Screw them; they don't matter."

It's just a matter of economies of scale. All those people need to do
is be willing to pay 2x, 10x, or more to keep using a technology with a
smaller market. It's wrong to blame the manufacturers for constantly
improving their technology or introducing better alternatives.

Improving downhill. Better is a matter of opibion. Word processors I've had
to adopt because of other alleged improvements--usually an attempt to
foolproof something at the cost of personal control-- have gotten wotse
each time since ClarisWorks4 for my uses.

[Doc O'Leary]

Post by Erilar
Improving downhill. Better is a matter of opibion. Word processors I've had
to adopt because of other alleged improvements--usually an attempt to
foolproof something at the cost of personal control-- have gotten wotse
each time since ClarisWorks4 for my uses.

Software is a similar arms race to hardware. When it comes to word
processors, though, there still exists a wide range of choices all the
way from basic text to page layout. All my "word processing" formatting
needs have been covered by TextEdit and/or HTML for pretty much the last
decade. I don't know what your needs are, but I'm still not going to
fault the software developers for creating bloat if bloat is what sells.
Maybe if you instead bought something that is *less* than what you need,
*that* developer might be able to improve it.

[Erilar]

Post by Doc O'Leary

Post by Erilar
Improving downhill. Better is a matter of opibion. Word processors I've had
to adopt because of other alleged improvements--usually an attempt to
foolproof something at the cost of personal control-- have gotten wotse
each time since ClarisWorks4 for my uses.

Software is a similar arms race to hardware. When it comes to word
processors, though, there still exists a wide range of choices all the
way from basic text to page layout. All my "word processing" formatting
needs have been covered by TextEdit and/or HTML for pretty much the last
decade. I don't know what your needs are, but I'm still not going to
fault the software developers for creating bloat if bloat is what sells.
Maybe if you instead bought something that is *less* than what you need,
*that* developer might be able to improve it.

My choice is limited by the need to use it on more than one device and
further limited by the OS I had to upgrade to to communicate between iPad
and laptop as well as still access old documents now and then. Pages is,
in my opinion, full of useless bloat and no longer has half the useful
abilities of AppleWorks, which was bloated and in turn less useful than
ClarisWorks.

[D.F. Manno]

Post by AV3
I think of the Air as a proto-iPad, because it discovered a class of Mac
laptop users who didn't care about losing the eliminated functions. The
iPad expanded that clientele to PC tablet users as well, who found iOS
and a touchscreen intuitively easy and attractive to use.

Try as I might, I'm having trouble seeing that as a _bad_ thing for
Apple or its customers.

[AV3]

Post by D.F. Manno

Post by AV3
I think of the Air as a proto-iPad, because it discovered a class of Mac
laptop users who didn't care about losing the eliminated functions. The
iPad expanded that clientele to PC tablet users as well, who found iOS
and a touchscreen intuitively easy and attractive to use.

Try as I might, I'm having trouble seeing that as a _bad_ thing for
Apple or its customers.

I don't say it's bad or good, just a trend worth taking note of. As far
as internal CD/DVD drives are concerned, be prepared to consider a
peripheral instead. From the response, this is a problem to some of us
and negligible to others. That is also true for making sure new
peripherals have wireless connectivity. I am unhappy about having to
replace perfectly well functioning Firewire devices, but I am equally
unhappy at the thought of maintaining a museum of antiques while the
world passes me by.

[Wes Groleau]

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
And I understand that new Macs will no longer have internal CD/DVD
drives.

Some models. It's no big thing as fewer and fewer people actually use
those drives any more. And for those who do, there are USB drives
available.

Fine--as long as "some models" includes portables. The day I have to
carry separate peripherals to use my computer on my front porch is the
day I give up on Apple.

[Erilar]

Post by Wes Groleau

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
And I understand that new Macs will no longer have internal CD/DVD
drives.

Some models. It's no big thing as fewer and fewer people actually use
those drives any more. And for those who do, there are USB drives
available.

Fine--as long as "some models" includes portables. The day I have to
carry separate peripherals to use my computer on my front porch is the
day I give up on Apple.

Same here. A USB -connected external device for which I would naturally
have to pay extra just to access a CD or DVD?
I'll just have to pray that my current laptop lasts at least as long as my
G 4, which is stiil going strong.

[Davoud]

Post by AV3

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
I don't expect OS X to disappear but to merge with iOS eventually.

I don't expect either of those. People at Apple have repeatedly said that
the two OSes will remain distinct from each other, although they will share
commonalities. Nor do I expect your expectations (in subsequent parts of
your message) to happen either.

I am expressing opinion with no technical expertise to back it up. But
from casual observation, I notice that the MacBook Air has lots fewer
functions than my MacBook Pro, but it seems to have found a place in the
market. Isn't it an evolutionary step towards an iPad?

I don't see it that way. There have long been entry-level computers
with fewer functions and/or less computing power than high-end, or
professional computers. Barring a breakthrough in quantum computing,
there will be PC's much as we know them today for a long time. The
publishing, digital photography, digital music, and video industries
will ensure that. Regardless of how much raw computing power they
manage to put into an iThingie, the tasks that I mentioned require
large displays or several large displays of /some/ sort. Anybody want
to carry an iPad Mini and three 27-inch displays for video editing?

Post by AV3
And I understand
that new Macs will no longer have internal CD/DVD drives. Isn't that
more iPad-like?

It may be coincidentally more iPad-like, but to be iPad-like is not the
reason Macs no longer have optical drives. The reason is that optical
media have been made obsolete by broadband Internet, cheap mass storage
at the local level, and the "cloud." To those who disagree I say "The
optical drive is disappearing from Macs. Q.E.D."

Post by AV3
And of course I long thought I would never see "Intel
Inside".

I can't claim to have had prior knowledge or to have predicted the
move, but I was relying heavily on PowerBooks at the time, and when I
learned that the G4 was the end of the line for Mac laptops because the
G5 ran too hot to put into a laptop, I knew that Apple had to do
something. I was heating my office with my Dual G5 machine--winter and
summer. So when Apple announced the switch to Intel I was not in the
least surprised because laptops were becoming more and more important
and they had to switch to Intel or go out of the computer business.

Post by AV3
It seems to me that Apple really likes thinking differently. This is my
guess about the next surprise. And it is my answer to the question of
how importantly their market share indicates that the lagging computer
and OS X operations at Apple will inevitably be radically reviewed. It
seems to me just like Apple to leapfrog Microsoft, nursing along its
eighty per cent OS clientele, with a new kind of "computer" that appeals
to a younger and more adventurous crowd.

I think it's great if Apple wants to cater to toddlers and tweens and
teens--the big tent paradigm--but if they want to stay in the computer
business they will continue to cater to the creative professional who
needs lots of horsepower and lots of display real estate.

[AV3]

Post by Davoud

Post by AV3

Post by Michelle Steiner

Post by AV3
I don't expect OS X to disappear but to merge with iOS eventually.

I don't expect either of those. People at Apple have repeatedly said that
the two OSes will remain distinct from each other, although they will share
commonalities. Nor do I expect your expectations (in subsequent parts of
your message) to happen either.

I am expressing opinion with no technical expertise to back it up. But
from casual observation, I notice that the MacBook Air has lots fewer
functions than my MacBook Pro, but it seems to have found a place in the
market. Isn't it an evolutionary step towards an iPad?

I don't see it that way. There have long been entry-level computers
with fewer functions and/or less computing power than high-end, or
professional computers. Barring a breakthrough in quantum computing,
there will be PC's much as we know them today for a long time. The
publishing, digital photography, digital music, and video industries
will ensure that. Regardless of how much raw computing power they
manage to put into an iThingie, the tasks that I mentioned require
large displays or several large displays of /some/ sort. Anybody want
to carry an iPad Mini and three 27-inch displays for video editing?

I am only an amateur editor, but I have read that professionals have
edited commercial films on recent laptops. Considering that they used to
do that on a desk top so big it double-functioned as a room heater, I
expect a near-future iPad with a larger screen, a multiple-capacity hard
disc, and enhanced connectivity to peripherals.


I respect you are still editing according to your needs, but I suppose
you see the expanded capacity of laptops for many of those functions,
and I just extrapolate for an eventual super-iPad.

Post by Davoud

Post by AV3
And I understand
that new Macs will no longer have internal CD/DVD drives. Isn't that
more iPad-like?

It may be coincidentally more iPad-like, but to be iPad-like is not the
reason Macs no longer have optical drives. The reason is that optical
media have been made obsolete by broadband Internet, cheap mass storage
at the local level, and the "cloud." To those who disagree I say "The
optical drive is disappearing from Macs. Q.E.D."

I still buy and acquire CD's that I want to load into iTunes for my
iPod. I suppose the same is true for DVD owners and their iPads.

Post by Davoud

Post by AV3
And of course I long thought I would never see "Intel
Inside".

I can't claim to have had prior knowledge or to have predicted the
move, but I was relying heavily on PowerBooks at the time, and when I
learned that the G4 was the end of the line for Mac laptops because the
G5 ran too hot to put into a laptop, I knew that Apple had to do
something. I was heating my office with my Dual G5 machine--winter and
summer. So when Apple announced the switch to Intel I was not in the
least surprised because laptops were becoming more and more important
and they had to switch to Intel or go out of the computer business.

I imagine we all similarly reconciled ourselves to the once unthinkable.
I am saying that merging OS X and iOS is in the same category. Maybe.
Maybe not.

Post by Davoud

Post by AV3
It seems to me that Apple really likes thinking differently. This is my
guess about the next surprise. And it is my answer to the question of
how importantly their market share indicates that the lagging computer
and OS X operations at Apple will inevitably be radically reviewed. It
seems to me just like Apple to leapfrog Microsoft, nursing along its
eighty per cent OS clientele, with a new kind of "computer" that appeals
to a younger and more adventurous crowd.

I think it's great if Apple wants to cater to toddlers and tweens and
teens--the big tent paradigm--but if they want to stay in the computer
business they will continue to cater to the creative professional who
needs lots of horsepower and lots of display real estate.

Let's not be ungrateful to those dancing iPod-buying tikes who started
Apple once more down the road to spectacular success. Horsepower keeps
getting compressed. Display real estate will have to stay in your
editing studio, but I don't doubt a future iPad will be able to connect
to it somehow.

[Davoud]

Post by AV3

Post by Davoud
I don't see it that way. There have long been entry-level computers
with fewer functions and/or less computing power than high-end, or
professional computers. Barring a breakthrough in quantum computing,
there will be PC's much as we know them today for a long time. The
publishing, digital photography, digital music, and video industries
will ensure that. Regardless of how much raw computing power they
manage to put into an iThingie, the tasks that I mentioned require
large displays or several large displays of /some/ sort. Anybody want
to carry an iPad Mini and three 27-inch displays for video editing?

I am only an amateur editor, but I have read that professionals have
edited commercial films on recent laptops. Considering that they used to
do that on a desk top so big it double-functioned as a room heater, I
expect a near-future iPad with a larger screen, a multiple-capacity hard
disc, and enhanced connectivity to peripherals.

Yes, it's true that some pro-level editing is done on laptops. But the
final product generally comes out of a studio, and if there's a lot of
CGI, a Linux rendering farm.

Post by AV3
I respect you are still editing according to your needs, but I suppose
you see the expanded capacity of laptops for many of those functions,
and I just extrapolate for an eventual super-iPad.

Not saying it couldn't be so, but I think that what you are describing
would no longer be an iPad, but something else. And I think that that
something else already exists in the form of the laptop. An iPad with a
large display, a hard drive, and numerous peripheral ports would not,
by definition, be an iPad, which is a highly portable device, running
for many hours on one battery charge. I note that when Apple decided to
add a second model to boost sales of the iPad line they did not opt for
the iPad maxi, but for the iPad mini. I think that Apple must, and
will, maintain a sharp line between MacBooks, especially MacBook Pro's,
and tablets. The iPad will become more and more powerful in every
application, including still and video image editing, but it won't
replace a device with a hard drive and display real estate.

Post by AV3

Post by Davoud

Post by AV3
And I understand
that new Macs will no longer have internal CD/DVD drives. Isn't that
more iPad-like?

It may be coincidentally more iPad-like, but to be iPad-like is not the
reason Macs no longer have optical drives. The reason is that optical
media have been made obsolete by broadband Internet, cheap mass storage
at the local level, and the "cloud." To those who disagree I say "The
optical drive is disappearing from Macs. Q.E.D."

I still buy and acquire CD's that I want to load into iTunes for my
iPod. I suppose the same is true for DVD owners and their iPads.

Post by Davoud

Post by AV3
And of course I long thought I would never see "Intel
Inside".

I can't claim to have had prior knowledge or to have predicted the
move, but I was relying heavily on PowerBooks at the time, and when I
learned that the G4 was the end of the line for Mac laptops because the
G5 ran too hot to put into a laptop, I knew that Apple had to do
something. I was heating my office with my Dual G5 machine--winter and
summer. So when Apple announced the switch to Intel I was not in the
least surprised because laptops were becoming more and more important
and they had to switch to Intel or go out of the computer business.

I imagine we all similarly reconciled ourselves to the once unthinkable.
I am saying that merging OS X and iOS is in the same category. Maybe.
Maybe not.

Post by Davoud

Post by AV3
It seems to me that Apple really likes thinking differently. This is my
guess about the next surprise. And it is my answer to the question of
how importantly their market share indicates that the lagging computer
and OS X operations at Apple will inevitably be radically reviewed. It
seems to me just like Apple to leapfrog Microsoft, nursing along its
eighty per cent OS clientele, with a new kind of "computer" that appeals
to a younger and more adventurous crowd.

I think it's great if Apple wants to cater to toddlers and tweens and
teens--the big tent paradigm--but if they want to stay in the computer
business they will continue to cater to the creative professional who
needs lots of horsepower and lots of display real estate.

Let's not be ungrateful to those dancing iPod-buying tikes who started
Apple once more down the road to spectacular success. Horsepower keeps
getting compressed. Display real estate will have to stay in your
editing studio, but I don't doubt a future iPad will be able to connect
to it somehow.

[JF Mezei]

Post by Davoud
Yes, it's true that some pro-level editing is done on laptops.

I don't think Avatar was edited on a laptop. It is quite possible that
Cameron used a laptop to try different cuts and demo them while on the
road, but final editing would have been done on a real fully decked out
workstation.

[Paul Sture]

Post by Davoud

Post by AV3
And I understand
that new Macs will no longer have internal CD/DVD drives. Isn't that
more iPad-like?

It may be coincidentally more iPad-like, but to be iPad-like is not the
reason Macs no longer have optical drives. The reason is that optical
media have been made obsolete by broadband Internet, cheap mass storage
at the local level, and the "cloud." To those who disagree I say "The
optical drive is disappearing from Macs. Q.E.D."

Virtual machines have had an impact for me personally, and to a lesser
extent USB sticks. Whereas at one time I would have burned operating
system installation disks to CD or DVD, I just leave the image on disk
and point the virtual machine software at it.

I still come across bits of software that say "download and burn the
image to CD or DVD", depending on size, and I simply ignore that. I
either use a virtual machine to read the image or Disk Utility on OS X
to grab the contents without the delay associated with burning. This
also eliminates the "Will it? Won't it?" scenario involved when
burning discs and hoping they don't turn out to be coasters.

I haven't bought any blank DVDs in over a year and have a pile of blank
CDs that I bought a couple of months ago for a job which got cancelled,
still unused.

Oh, another leap forward this week. I bought a hand held scanner which
uses a micro SANdisk to store data. 16GB for less than 20 USD, and
it's incredibly small.

[Doc O'Leary]

Post by AV3
I notice that the MacBook Air has lots fewer
functions than my MacBook Pro, but it seems to have found a place in the
market. Isn't it an evolutionary step towards an iPad?

No, it's the sign of a changing market and/or your own changing needs.
For some of us, *no* laptop meets our needs. Because of that, I find
I'm particularly suited for iOS devices, because they don't even try to
pretend they can do everything a desktop machine can.

Post by AV3
And I understand
that new Macs will no longer have internal CD/DVD drives. Isn't that
more iPad-like?

Nope. I blogged about the eventual demise of optical media long before
there was an iPad:

http://www.impossiblystupid.com/node/25

Post by AV3
And of course I long thought I would never see "Intel
Inside".

Anyone who worked with NeXT technology knew that getting a binary for
another platform was no more effort than checking a box. When Apple
bought NeXT, the OS was *already* running on Intel. Understand the
history of the technology you use and you won't waste your time with
dead-end thinking.

You can bet that somewhere inside Apple there is an iPad running Mac OS
X. Does that mean we'll see (non-touch) ARM-based Macs in the future?
Maybe, but even if we did that still wouldn't make the Mac more
iPad-like. It's just a technology choice made possible/necessary by
constant marching progress.

You'd get more traction if you only complained about things that
actually *were* taken from iOS wholesale without any consideration given
to fitting in with the Mac OS X look and feel. I'm talking about things
like Launchpad. Or much of the one-window, full-screen nonsense.

Post by AV3
This is my
guess about the next surprise. And it is my answer to the question of
how importantly their market share indicates that the lagging computer
and OS X operations at Apple will inevitably be radically reviewed.

Again, until the gap is filled that makes desktops necessary, you simply
can't compare them to the mobile market. Sales in mobile may indeed
cannibalize sales in desktop, but that just changes the economies of
scale, not the *need* for both systems to do different things.

The "next surprise" is *not* merging the two; that is Microsoft's
*current* "surprise", and it is not at all surprising, nor is it a
particularly good idea. I say the next surprise is getting 3D right,
and I've been saying it for years:

http://www.impossiblystupid.com/node/68

[Alan Browne]

Post by AV3
I am expressing opinion with no technical expertise to back it up. But
from casual observation, I notice that the MacBook Air has lots fewer
functions than my MacBook Pro, but it seems to have found a place in the
market. Isn't it an evolutionary step towards an iPad? And I understand
that new Macs will no longer have internal CD/DVD drives. Isn't that
more iPad-like? And of course I long thought I would never see "Intel
Inside".

The MBAir satisfies a need by road warriors who don't need lots of i/o.
Just a portable that can do office type apps (word, excel, powerpoint
and so on; web, mail). People still need keyboards to work into the
night in the hotel room or on a flight.

A road warrior equipped with an MBAir is still wise to carry a few
adaptors with him to ensure he can use customer projectors, connect to
hotel networks (not always WiFi even today) and possibly a DVD reader.
These tuck away well in a well organized briefcase. A 12V charger is a
good (but bulky) thing to have along as well.

CD/DVD's (Mac) are disappearing - not used as much by most people. DL's
over the web of a few GB are near trivial now for many people.
(I DL 1 GB files in 5 minutes at home).

The iPad meets many travel needs. But if a lot of doc editing is part
of your road trip, the iPad is not the best widget.

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by Alan Browne
A road warrior equipped with an MBAir is still wise to carry a few
adaptors with him to ensure he can use customer projectors, connect to
hotel networks (not always WiFi even today) and possibly a DVD reader.

I carry an Airport Express just in case there's ethernet, but no WiFi in
the room. And I'll sometimes use the Airport Express even if there's both
Ethernet and WiFi in the room because lots of hotels have flakey WiFi.

[Lewis]

Post by AV3

Post by Doc O'Leary

Post by AV3
It is quite natural in these circumstances to suppose that OSX and
computers will not attract or receive the attention of Apple's most
talented workers, and I can foresee a day when OSX and computers may be
regarded as an expendable vanity legacy.

Then clearly you know nothing of the technology behind Apple's products.
Every competent iOS developer will tell you that Mac OS X is a key part
of the apps they write.

I don't expect OS X to disappear but to merge with iOS eventually. I do
expect the resulting OS to be much more iOS-like than OSX-like.

I know a lot of people believe this, but I think these people are all
stupid (sorry). This is something Microsoft would do… hell, something
Microsoft *has* done. Apple, on the other hand, understands that the use
of a dekstop computer, or a laptop, is different that the use of a
tablet or other touch device. Are there good ideas from iOS that will
migrate and have migrated to OS X? Of course. But 10.7 and 10.8 both
show us that Apple is going to be restrained about what it does, and the
biggest UI changes are around the consumer products to make them more
iOS like (and therefor more familiar to the majority of users).

If a version of OS X comes out without a Terminal.app and without the
ability to install applications from sources not vetted by Apple, then
that will be the first OS I don't install, btu I do not think that will
happen.

What I do expect to see happen is a further hardening of OS X (making it
harder to install other apps and making it harder for those apps to fuck
you), and a simplification of the UI to the point where the default user
is more guided and more constrained and less vulnerable, and where more
experienced users have an environment more like a "Standard" User now.

In fact, I am surprised this has not happened. I really thought that
10.8 would have Apple creating a standard user and an Admin user, and
logging the default user in as Standard. Instead, they went with
expanding the capabilities of the Recovery Partition in 10.7 and making
real fundamental security improvements to the whole OS.

The fact is that right now, if you want, OS X is as secure as anything
out there. Enable a firmware password and File Vault and no one is
getting at your data for a few million years unless your password sucks.
You can't get around it with a eprom reset, a physical disk, or even a
hex dump of the drive itself.

Now, will a touch enabled iMac change this? Sure, to some extent it
could, if that seems like a viable product. I am not at all convinced
that it is.

I know one thing, If I want to type a message this long, I never want
to do it on a touchscreen.

Post by AV3
I expect the desk top computer to go the way of the console radio, and
the laptop to merge with a future super-iPad, which will have the
capacity to edit the most complex files and connect with devices like
today's computers. Apple itself removed the word "computer" from its
corporate name, so I would suppose that it will be called a super-iPad,
not a computer.

desktop computers will go the way of the pickup truck. Not everyone
needs to own a pickup truck, but some people really really need one and
most everyone needs to borrow one at some point. Will most people be
running around with iPads (or whatever) in 5 years instead of laptops
and desktops? Absolutely. All? Absolutely not.

Right now, if I were willing to encode all my years of recorded video
into iTunes compatible format, my entire household could get by with my
computer, our 2 AppleTVs, and our iPads. But my computer is critical
because it is the one with many TB of storage and all the TV and movies
ripped/recorded to it.

I am *not* willing to convert everything, so I need a Mac mini to talk
to the TV, and I like using the old MBP so I don't have to sit at the
computer all the time, and there are times my wife wants a computer and
so there is a second mini for her so her schedule doesn't impact mine.
But in terms of actual needs, one computer, 2 AppleTVs, and our iPads
would cover 99%.

[Michelle Steiner]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Michelle Steiner
That's assuming that Apple doesn't reinvent itself as it did with the iMac,
iPod, iPhone, and iPad.

Apple essentially renamed itself from Apple Computers to Apple Phones.

Apple officially renamed itself from Apple Computer, Inc. to Apple, Inc.
Not that it matters.

Post by JF Mezei
So, what you are saying is that you are hoping that Apple can let go of
the iPhone and move to the iToaster

Nope, I'm not saying that at all. Apple is still making and improving its
Macintosh line; in fact, Apple has been outpacing the market for years in
computer sales.

Post by JF Mezei
So in a way, this makes sense. reap the benefits of pionneering a new
market for a few years as Apple did with iPod and then iPhone and then ,
while continuing those products, no longer rely on them and focus on
something totally new.

Apple is still relying on Macintosh computers. There's no valid reason to
believe that it isn't.

Post by JF Mezei
The problem right now is that the "totally new" appears to be the
Television.

No one outside of Apple, and probably very few within Apple knows what that
totally new product will be.

Post by JF Mezei
And that is a tought market to crack open and re-invent,

That's what they said about the iPod, iPhone, and iPad.

Post by JF Mezei
you need to continue to make the iPhone your big success because it
remains your primary product line by which you are measured.

Gee; that's exactly what Apple is doing. Amazing.

[JF Mezei]

Post by Michelle Steiner
Apple officially renamed itself from Apple Computer, Inc. to Apple, Inc.
Not that it matters.

What matters is what Apple is being measured by. And this has changed
from computers sales to ipods to iphones. The current yardstick is the
iPhone.

So when iPhone sales don't meet analysts's random bets, they punish
Apple. Doesn't metter what other divisions do. Doesn't matter than
iphone has record sales.

Eventually, Apple may have a new leaderhsip product by which it will be
measured. But as long as the iPhone is the product against which Apple
is measured, then its strategy on iPhone remains very important.

Because Apple is no longer measured on iPods, the progressive drop in
iPod sales doesn't affect the Wall Street Casino Analysts. Same with
computers. They only worry about the iPhone.

(the did the same with HP, looking only at their PC sales for quite some
time, despite other divisions generating significant business/profits).

[Jolly Roger]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Michelle Steiner
Apple officially renamed itself from Apple Computer, Inc. to Apple, Inc.
Not that it matters.

What matters is what Apple is being measured by.

Apple is measured by Apple's customers which matters FAR more than the
valuations of Wall Street speculators. So please, shut up already.
You're like a fucking broken record. It's obvious all you care about is
stock prices and market share. If Apple followed your principles, they'd
have gone out of business long ago.

[George Kerby]

On 1/30/13 2:48 PM, in article

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Michelle Steiner
That's assuming that Apple doesn't reinvent itself as it did with the iMac,
iPod, iPhone, and iPad.

Apple essentially renamed itself from Apple Computers to Apple Phones.
I say this because the iPhone is what the Wall Street Casino measures
Apple on.
So, what you are saying is that you are hoping that Apple can let go of
the iPhone and move to the iToaster so that Wall Street Casino will now
measure Apple based on the sucess of the iToaster (or whatever they come
up as a totally new Apple product)

Could it be this?

<http://www.eatliver.com/i.php?n=10110>

[Jolly Roger]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Michelle Steiner
Unfortunately, no. It's an accurate summation of the contradictory
criticisms being leveled at Cook.

In the last days of Digital Equipment Corp, there was much debate on
whether DEC should continue with its high price low volume or switch to
lower price higher volume mantra.
DEC responded with its unwillingness to sacrifice profit margin and
*risk* going to higher volume because it wasn't sure it was able to
truly increase volumes sufficiently to balance out the loss of prfit margin.
DEC is dead.
prior to the iPod, Apple was a niche player. Not mass market. And Wall
Street didn't care about Apple.
All of a sudden, with iPod and then with iPhone, Apple not only became
mass market , but also dominated it. That got Wall Street's attention.
Now, Apple appears to be on a path where it must decide whether to
remain a dominent player or cede the place to Samsung without a fight
and downgrade itself back to niche player.
Apple seems to have made it clear that it will hapily cede its market
dominence because it won't want to jeoperdize profit margin. And for
now, Apple continues to grow even if it is losing market share and
letting Samsung dominate.
This isn't such a simple cut and dry decision.

It's much more simple for Apple than you, apparently. But then you're
not running a company, are you?

[Tom Stiller]

Post by JF Mezei
Apple seems to have made it clear that it will hapily cede its market
dominence because it won't want to jeoperdize profit margin. And for
now, Apple continues to grow even if it is losing market share and
letting Samsung dominate.

What Apple has make clear to me is that they are interested in building
high quality that their customers want. As long as they continue to do
that, they will have me as a customer, regardless of the stock price.

[JF Mezei]

Post by Tom Stiller
What Apple has make clear to me is that they are interested in building
high quality that their customers want. As long as they continue to do
that, they will have me as a customer, regardless of the stock price.

The problem here is that a smart phone alone isn't enough anymore. Even
if Apple gold plates its iPhone and adds fliching lights to attract
teenage girls (remember that fad ?), if it lacks the next "angry brids"
application that is a "must have", then people won't buy the iPhone.

When you have a downward momentum (or appearance thereof) on a platform,
developpers are not too interested in it. *IF*, 5 years down the road,
when the iPhone is about as popular as RIM, will developpers still be
interested ?

[Jolly Roger]

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Tom Stiller
What Apple has make clear to me is that they are interested in building
high quality that their customers want. As long as they continue to do
that, they will have me as a customer, regardless of the stock price.

The problem here is that a smart phone alone isn't enough anymore.

As if Apple only makes smart phones, and as if Apple suddenly has
decided not to create entire fucking ecosystems for no good reason. Sure.

[George Kerby]

On 1/30/13 5:40 PM, in article

Post by Tom Stiller

Post by JF Mezei
Apple seems to have made it clear that it will hapily cede its market
dominence because it won't want to jeoperdize profit margin. And for
now, Apple continues to grow even if it is losing market share and
letting Samsung dominate.

What Apple has make clear to me is that they are interested in building
high quality that their customers want. As long as they continue to do
that, they will have me as a customer, regardless of the stock price.

BMW vs. Chevy. Both get you from a to b, but only one does it in style.

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Post by JF Mezei
In the last days of Digital Equipment Corp, there was much debate on
whether DEC should continue with its high price low volume or switch to
lower price higher volume mantra.
DEC responded with its unwillingness to sacrifice profit margin and
*risk* going to higher volume because it wasn't sure it was able to
truly increase volumes sufficiently to balance out the loss of prfit margin.
DEC is dead.

What killed DEC is that their entire marketing system was based on MIPS
(millions of instructions per second). They competed with the big guns,
IBM and UNIVAC, by claiming that their processors had much higher MIPS
per dollar ratios.

The problem with that is the IBM and UNIVAC computers did much more per
instruction than DEC's computers, but they had educated a generation of
customers to believe that the number not the value was what mattered.

When PC's came out, they produced far more MIPS per dollar than anything
DEC sold (except PC's) and their customers did what they were taught and
bought cheaper MIPS, not better computers.

If this sounds familar it's because it's the same thing as the later RISC-CISC
debate.

Geoff.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Post by JF Mezei
In the last days of Digital Equipment Corp, there was much debate on
whether DEC should continue with its high price low volume or switch to
lower price higher volume mantra.
DEC responded with its unwillingness to sacrifice profit margin and
*risk* going to higher volume because it wasn't sure it was able to
truly increase volumes sufficiently to balance out the loss of prfit margin.
DEC is dead.

What killed DEC is that their entire marketing system was based on MIPS
(millions of instructions per second). They competed with the big guns,
IBM and UNIVAC, by claiming that their processors had much higher MIPS
per dollar ratios.
The problem with that is the IBM and UNIVAC computers did much more per
instruction than DEC's computers, but they had educated a generation of
customers to believe that the number not the value was what mattered.
When PC's came out, they produced far more MIPS per dollar than anything
DEC sold (except PC's) and their customers did what they were taught and
bought cheaper MIPS, not better computers.
If this sounds familar it's because it's the same thing as the later RISC-CISC
debate.

The real difference is that in most offices, most computers are doing
nothing most of the time. You don't need a VAX to do nothing where
dozens of PC's doing nothing accomplishes the same thing for far less
capital and operating cost.

[George Kerby]

On 1/30/13 1:59 PM, in article

Post by JF Mezei

Post by Michelle Steiner
Unfortunately, no. It's an accurate summation of the contradictory
criticisms being leveled at Cook.

In the last days of Digital Equipment Corp, there was much debate on
whether DEC should continue with its high price low volume or switch to
lower price higher volume mantra.
DEC responded with its unwillingness to sacrifice profit margin and
*risk* going to higher volume because it wasn't sure it was able to
truly increase volumes sufficiently to balance out the loss of prfit margin.
DEC is dead.
prior to the iPod, Apple was a niche player. Not mass market. And Wall
Street didn't care about Apple.
All of a sudden, with iPod and then with iPhone, Apple not only became
mass market , but also dominated it. That got Wall Street's attention.
Now, Apple appears to be on a path where it must decide whether to
remain a dominent player or cede the place to Samsung without a fight
and downgrade itself back to niche player.
Apple seems to have made it clear that it will hapily cede its market
dominence because it won't want to jeoperdize profit margin. And for
now, Apple continues to grow even if it is losing market share and
letting Samsung dominate.
This isn't such a simple cut and dry decision. One must also consider
that Apple's ability to truly differentiate itself will diminish as
smart phones mature and they all get pretty much the same features (and
in many places, the iPhone is late to market with features such as NFC).
So the ability to command higher prices may also diminish, especially as
carriers wish to reduce or eliminate subsidies.
The Wall Street Casino is short term machine. That pushes the "don't
sacrifice profit margin" calls. However, if Apple looks at the longer
term, it must ask itself what a niche player will look like 5 years down
the down. Will the iPhone still have sufficent market presence to still
attract developpers/applications ?
What happens if Apple maintans high prices, loses market share, and then
carriers decide to no longer subsidize expensice iPhones ? Apple will
have to lower its profit margin, but by then, will have already lost
much market share. In this scenario, Apple would have been better off
lowering profit margin today in order to fight for market share it can
retain high volumes instead of being forced back to niche player.
The thing is that short term thinking is all in the pink because despite
loss of market share, Apple si sstill growing and still generating
record sales etc.
And remember that with the smartphone market maturing, the ability to
for Apple to differentiate itself will diminish, so it will be harder
for it to command higher prices.
The contradictory stuff from the Wall Street Casino Analysts reflects a
debate betwene short and long term thinking, a debate I am sure is held
within Apple's board.

Interesting comparison...

<http://www.thestreet.com/story/11828124/1/why-tiger-woods-and-apple-are-cur
sed.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO>

[JF Mezei]

Post by George Kerby
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11828124/1/why-tiger-woods-and-apple-are-cur
sed.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO

Interesting that the article mentions that Apple sold 17 million fewer
iPhone5 in 3rd quarter than Samsung SIII.

Yet, based on what I read, Apple sold 47.8 million iPhones in 4th
quarter versus estimate of 40 million SIIIs.

Goes to show how one can generate statistics to say whatever you want.
And this hurts a company's image when so many are intent on portraying
Apple as a loser.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Michelle Steiner
I'd say that this article covers every cockamamie, idiotic, criticism of
Apple and Tim Cook, but I'm sure that our resident applephobes can come up
with more.
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2013/01/28/how-tim-cook-should-real
ly-be-running-apple/>
How Tim Cook Should Really Be Running Apple

Amusing.

[D.F. Manno]

Post by Michelle Steiner
I'd say that this article covers every cockamamie, idiotic, criticism of
Apple and Tim Cook, but I'm sure that our resident applephobes can come up
with more.
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2013/01/28/how-tim-cook-should-real
ly-be-running-apple/>

The comments on that article are for the most part amazingly obtuse.

[Wes Groleau]

Post by D.F. Manno
The comments on that article are for the most part amazingly obtuse.

You were expecting intelligence from online commenters? Have any use
for a bridge?