Verizon’s now teasing their upcoming Android phone:
While this device is a collaboration between Google, Verizon and Motorola, the ad sure seems to pit Verizon against Apple — not AT&T. This is unique, and seems to further prove Verizon won’t be carrying the iPhone any time soon.
One of our readers recently received an unsolicited package from Apple. That alone is kind of weird, but the contents were even stranger: a mix CD titled “Boom Boom Pow,” complete with smiley faces and stars drawn in Sharpie.
[…]
Who knows how this ended up leaving the Apple distribution center in Memphis. Maybe it was just a little gift for being such a loyal customer over the years.
Awesome.
There are good technical reasons why Microsoft chose this path. However, for average XP users and many businesses, such a difficult upgrade makes Windows 7 a non-starter. Users that are more proficient will make the upgrade at their own peril, just make sure you have application install disks handy.
Yes, you can upgrade from XP to Windows 7, but is it really worth it?
No!
Just buy an inexpensive new Win7 machine instead. Hardware has improved a great deal since many of our XP machines were purchased. Money for a Windows 7 upgrade is better spent on a new computer that comes with it preinstalled. In terms of time, trouble, and a happy user experience, this is the best way to get Windows 7.
Just for reference, my old “Blue and White” G3 can run any version of the Mac OS from 8.5.1 to 10.4.11.
This month, it goes to Dong Ngo of CNET. He benchmarked Snow Leopard against Windows 7. While the results were a mixed bag for OS X, he closed his article with this:
Third, if you can get by with just software designed by Apple and if money is not a big issue, you will be happy with a Mac. Examples of these software choices are iTunes, iLife, QuickTime, Safari, iChat, and so on (and you probably won’t need much more than those for daily entertainment and communication needs). Finally, if money is not an issue–and it definitely is for most of us–you should get a Mac anyway. It’s the only platform, for now, that can run both Windows and OS X.
Note that this article touched the two operating systems only from the performance point of view. (Mac is also really pretty and Windows offers a lot more options and compatibility.)
That’s right, I forgot. No one develops applications for the Mac except for Apple.
Other than that glaring mistake, the phrase “Mac is also really pretty” bothers me. “Mac” is the name of the line of computers; the operating system is “OS X.” Or “10.6.” Or “Snow Leopard.”
It’s like saying I’m going to the Mac Store to get some accessories for my iPhone this weekend. At least he didn’t capitalize each letter in “Mac,” as in “MAC is also really pretty.”
Sigh.
With Mac OS X 10.6 Server, Apple has made significant improvements to their server OS. Major new features like Address Book Server and Mobile Access Server complement the solid improvements in existing services. The addition of Push services for e-mail and calendaring finally allow Apple to more properly support its own iPhone product.
Ironically, Apple is so far ahead of most everyone else in supporting things like CalDAV and CardDAV that trying to use non-Apple clients with iCal and Address Book server is a mess of unfriendly clients, or random third party plugins to Outlook et al, and unfortunately, Apple isn’t much help for Mac OS X 10.6 Server administrators trying to deal with this problem. Hopefully that will improve over time, but for anyone supporting non-Mac clients, keep in mind that you may have some interesting times ahead of you with Mac OS X 10.6 Server.
From what I’ve played with, it’s a solid upgrade.
Apple is already distributing a third beta seed of Mac OS X 10.6.2 to developers, sources say. Called 10C527f, the build adds fixes for 13 different components of the OS. Of special emphasis are corrections for video errors, including several GraphicsDrivers problems which can cause screen flickering, crashes in OpenCL or stuttering while playing 1080p movies in QuickTime X. QuickTime itself has been fixed to allow some movies to play properly.
Eliminated iMovie problems include some with color shift, and a crash caused by looping previews of titles in the skimming palette. The build separately makes fixes to iChat, and reliability improvements for iLife, iWork, Final Cut Studio, MobileMe, iDisk and Safari plug-ins. Developers can download the seed as a 483.5MB package.
iSpazz is:
…a plugin for iTunes on OS X, controlling the MacBook Pro/PowerBook backlight keyboard and optionally the display backlight.
Here’s a video of it in action.
Apple, in a mass-email to iPhone developers this afternoon:
In App Purchase is being rapidly adopted by developers in their paid apps. Now you can use In App Purchase in your free apps to sell content, subscriptions, and digital services.
You can also simplify your development by creating a single version of your app that uses In App Purchase to unlock additional functionality, eliminating the need to create Lite versions of your app. Using In App Purchase in your app can also help combat some of the problems of software piracy by allowing you to verify In App Purchases.
Visit the App Store Resource Center for more details about how you can add In App Purchases to your free apps.
This means you could — in theory — download the free version of Twitterrific then decide later to purchase the “premium” version’s functionality. This is great news, and a step in the right direction for the App Store.
You might be tempted to argue, Well, of course Phil Schiller would say that, he’s Phil Schiller. That’s true, insofar as that even if Schiller believed that Windows 7 is going to adversely affect Mac sales, it’s not like he’d admit so in an interview. But the gist of his remarks isn’t that he expects the Mac to hold its own, but rather that he expects the Mac to continue to thrive. Why set such an expectation if he didn’t believe it?
This gets to the heart of the weird, orthogonal, indirect competition between Windows and Mac OS X. Yes, they compete. Yes, it is both fair and inevitable that Windows 7 will be compared against Snow Leopard in every review. But Microsoft is selling licenses to an OS, the majority of them for low-end PC hardware. Apple is selling computer hardware, none of which is in the low-end market.
So it’s entirely possible that Windows 7 will be good for both Microsoft and Apple. The Mac can continue to gain a few percentage points per year in the higher-profit premium range of the market, while at the same time Windows 7 could grab a majority share of the overall market, mainly at the low-cost high-unit-sale end of the market.
Bingo.
Ever want to know the chance of a white male between 18 and 24 getting killed by a bus crach? You can go look it up here, on the Book of Odds website. Be warned — I spent a long time playing on it last night.
Schiller says the success of Apple’s operating system is indicative of the changing fortunes in the tech industry. While less than 20% of Windows users have moved to the three-year-old Vista, more than 70% of Mac users have upgraded to the Apple operating system introduced at about the same time. He has similar hopes for Apple’s four-month-old Snow Leopard OS. Says Schiller: “I expect Snow Leopard will have an amazing upgrade rate, and Windows 7 won’t.”
That’s Apple—calm, cool, and confident that the tech world is marching in its direction. “We’ve been through these transitions before, and no matter how you look at it—it’s still Windows,” says Schiller. “When all is said and done, the Mac picks up share a bit at a time.”
The American Journalism Review, on the gap between newspapers’ bills and income created from online ads:
Charging readers for access won’t really solve this problem, and in some respects it may make matters worse. Pay walls invariably reduce traffic. Whatever revenue a news-paper might gain by charging readers will likely come at the cost of ad revenue […] You think online ad rates are low now? Just wait until advertisers discover that the newspaper is delivering a much smaller audience after it starts charging for access.
[…]
Pay-per-article plans (micropayments) are no more promising. Asking readers to pay a few cents for a story they haven’t read sounds like a massive info-gambling scheme; why would anyone spend even a few cents on something that might turn out to be disappointing, infuriating or just plain unsatisfying? And what nightmares lurk for journalism in any scheme predicated on persuading people to hand over money on the basis of just a headline or story synopsis?