Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Smart move to cut loose with Mac OS X (Score 1) 333

by WaltFrench (#28911343) Attached to: ARM Hopes To Lure Microsoft Away From Intel

Microsoft could ... gain momentum on ARM which Apple cannot afford to follow (yet) because of another big CPU switch.

Arguably, nobody would be better off than Apple from a massive shift to ARM architectures (except, of course, ARM itself).

ALMOST ALL apps for both Mac OSX and iPhone and iPod/Touch are written in the exact identical developer environment, and share a huge fraction (not 100%) of frameworks. I.e., the internal tools to support multiple code bases are in great shape for such a change. Go ahead, ask a developer who writes for both Mac OSX and iPhone: the ones I've seen quoted say that writing for iPhone actually helps them re-code better for Mac OSX, not that they had to relearn everything as FUD would suggest.

The crossover functionality is so great that I, for example, expect that a LOT of Snow Leopard functionality shows up in iPhones within less than 12 months, as the CPUs go multi-core, graphics switch between CPU and GPU, and Apple goes berserk about surmounting Pre's edge in multi-tasking. Why not? Or rather, why is this not inevitable? Apple doesn't talk a lot about its roadmaps, but these are connect-the-dot obvious, no?

This is not like trying to get Java to work acceptably on 16 different architectures. There are some major apps not written using Apple's current frameworks, but the whole beauty of netbooks is that you aren't expecting (yet, anyhow) to run massive CS4, Office or other huge apps barely able to carry around their own weight. So MacOSX/Arm has thousands of everyday iPhone and Mac OSX apps ready to burnish for ARM books, with a streamlined app store for mass consumer distribution.

Finally, Microsoft makes its money off (a) Corporate Desktop Windows and (b) Corporate Desktop Office, plus those of us unlucky enough to need to take work home. Neither of these share any resemblance to the burgeoning netbook ethos, which is small, flexible, almost throwaway. The last thing MS wants to do is undercut its only source of profitability by declaring their current game over, and starting another where they have no monopoly power. (Nota bene: Zune, XBox, Bing, ... they're all money-losers.)

If I were Apple, I'd be drooling if I thought the original premise were much more than a wet dream.

Comment: Re:Take back the seconds (Score 1) 383

by WaltFrench (#28898051) Attached to: David Pogue Wants to Take Back the Beep

"Please listen carefully as our options have changed blah blah blah..."

Our in-house tech support is plagued by this... the latest issue du jour of some tiny division gets the front of the menu, with apparently no regard for ideas such as blasting an email to the affected 2% with a link to a special FAQ or custom number. So it takes about a minute to get to the menu item for the most frequent issue everybody in my division has, "problem with desktop software or hardware" (and then you get into the hold queue; oh goody).

Curiously, however, we do NOT outsource this support, so the dollars for each individual's lost productivity and the penny for 800-number traffic is borne by the very corporation that mindlessly causes it. Likely, nobody in IT support has ever heard of Claude Shannon, or thought to apply probabilistic analysis (a là Huffman encoding) to the menus to minimize the cost of support.

(Also possible in the centralized control mentality of our Big Brother organization, the wasted time is to remind us how we are lowly toads. But these fears must not be given voice.)

In any case, it weakens Pogue's case: this imbecility is clearly economically disadvantageous AND aggravating, and yet it's rife within Corporate America.

Comment: Re:Apple doesn't trust other batteries (Score 1) 200

by WaltFrench (#28430631) Attached to: Lies, Damn Lies, and Battery-Life Statistics
For a laptop that cost them $1500, you think they'd just stroll into the back and bring you a new one? Right you are. Shortly after the battery replacement, and down to about 30 days before my 17" MBP went out of 3-year AppleCare, the Genius examined every little ding and warned me that abuse wasn't covered in the warranty. Still, not so bad. I had it back with a new screen 3 business days later. I didn't have to huff and puff or anything, just observed that the screen was occasionally flaking out when I flexed the top half of the laptop and that it was getting worse. I don't need them to be pushovers, just to be reasonable about backing implicit and explicit warranties. They seem to get it.

Comment: Re:Apple doesn't trust other batteries (Score 2, Interesting) 200

by WaltFrench (#28408031) Attached to: Lies, Damn Lies, and Battery-Life Statistics
When I showed the Genius my swelled battery, he didn't even want to know the purchase date, etc. He just headed back to the store room for a replacement. Some companies pretty much *have to* do The Right Thing, as another post implies. Culture or Holier than thou advertising, I don't care.

Comment: Re:VCs don't pose any systemic risk (Score 1) 445

by WaltFrench (#27630843) Attached to: Why Republicans Won't Retake Silicon Valley
There's no plausible reason I've heard or can think of to regulate VCs more closely.

(aside) This is the problem with on-topic comments: they attempt to deal with the article as given, instead of spewing how insidious it is that Berkeley students have tuition paid by Mom & Dad. (/aside)

The original quote, "...neither Geithner nor Ruffini understand deeply what venture capital is all about," appears to be based only on the argument by "Republican consultant" Ruffini. You expected a "Republican consultant" to say his party sucks for the Valley? Even on Ruffini's website, commenters call bullshit on the premise that (a) Obama / Geithner are trying to regulate VCs in a way that'd kill it, and (b) the premise that Republicans actually provide a better business climate for new ventures.

This is an ideal way to have a debate: set up a total straw man claim, that can't actually be falsified. ("Geithner wants to...". Note: not "will," "would" or "can.") Put it before a politically naïve (vociferous, but mostly, naïve) group with few people who care to address the claims, and snag a few of the less affiliated to support your argument, never having seen a single fact. Pump up your supporters; call the opponents girly or sissy.

I'm surprised I didn't see much in the above about the premise of how good the GOP actually is for venture business. Sarbanes Oxley was signed into law by a GOP president, after being passed through a GOP-controlled Congress. So if that's the problem with freedom of business, the Dems don't deserve a whole lot of blame. Second, VC totally dried up at the end of 2008 not because Mr. Obama had been elected to office, but rather as part of a disastrous collapse of our financial and business systems, overseen by a President & Fed who thought lack of regulation worked always and everywhere.

Total scaremongering. Can't say it doesn't seem to have worked, though.

You are in the hall of the mountain king.

Working...