It looks like I will finally have enough motivation to finally switch to Ubuntu. I just don't know if I can handle not having full control over my machine.
If that happens (and it almost definitely won't, at least for a long time), then switch. Making a decision based on pure speculation is a terrible idea. There are plenty of good reasons to switch to Ubuntu, but "I have a feeling Apple has a secret plan to turn OS X into iOS" isn't one of them.
Yes it is. They make much more money off of iOS than they do Mac OS. Therefore, Mac OS will become iOS because Apple isn't your friend they are trying to make money just like any business.
Ford makes more money selling trucks than they do selling anything else, but no one would argue that therefore all their cars will become trucks because Ford isn't our friend.
They are two products serving two populations, and it seems unlikely that their timelines will converge anytime soon. However, "not converging" doesn't translate to not sharing. There are obviously some things iOS that would be at the least nice to have in Mac OS (the app store being the one of discussion now), just as there are things in Mac OS that would be (or already have been scooped and are already) nice to have in iOS.
@jpdbaugh, it's not an either-or proposition, it's a both-and proposition. Creating an app store will make the Mac both better for "average" consumers AND creative developers who want to monetize. Additionally I think increased usability from increased touch gestures and advanced expose functionality will help everyone. It's very difficult to argue that OS X advancements have been tailored to strictly one the consumer or the other creative professional: Time Machine, Spaces, Expose...these have been a win for everybody.
I think if there's something to learn from Apple it is trying to take seemingly divergent markets or divergent goals and finding creative ways to reconcile them: form and function (look at the battery compartments in their wireless keyboard, for example), cost and sustainability, business and consumer markets, young and old.
Despite the fact that unifying two codebases makes much more sense than selling a truck to a family I must say that I disagree.
The problem for me is not convergence per see, I would not mind having features from an portable OS in the OS that I use in my laptop or workstation, the problem is the impression that since iOS devices came to exist OS X is becoming more irrelevant, I think this tweet summarizes the situation: http://twitter.com/iTod/status/27297928138#
If the iOS model of a locked down consumption oriented operating proves to be more profitable that is what Apple will focus on. Its not evil or wrong it will just be what makes the most money. Its really that simple. Apple isn't out to make the core group of users happer but rather the casual user.
Buying Lion with the proposed changes is voting with your dollar that you want more of those changes in future iterations. Not buying it and switching to something else says that you don't like the product. I use Snow Leopard right now but I think brand loyalty is stupid. I don't owe anything to Apple to keep using their product if I don't like the direction it is going in.
No, buying Lion (or any other product for that matter) means you find THAT product of value. Not buying it based on conspiracy theories about future directions doesn't tell the company what the delta was that actually made you mad and provided no/less value.
Those proposed changes being changes that give users and developers more features and options?
Sure: don't buy it because of loyalty, that'd be stupid — but not buying it because of some worry about changes that the next version might have (and that Apple has said nothing about and that would be fraught with a number of technical and political difficulties anyway) is cutting off your nose to spite your face. And to use your phrase, it's voting with your dollars against something that's not harmful - if anything, it's sending a message to Apple that a certain group isn't going to buy their freedomful product anyway, so they might as well let those people use Linux/etc and turn the Mac into what you're afraid of.
Come on, this is a simple software purchase, $100 or so. It's not a moral choice of any significance whatsoever, and laying the moral dimension onto it is not productive or helpful.
You are making a mistake in not realizing that is Apples end game to make Mac OS much more like iOS. Don't you think they realize how much money they are making off of iOS developers? They want the same thing for desktops. Not to mention the huge amount they would save in customer support from not allowing users to do anything beyond Apples control on their machines.
The truth is for Apple this might as well be a great business decision. It is probably in their best interests, because their goal at the end of the day is to make as much money as possible. There is nothing wrong with that I just won't be buying it.
Apple makes money selling hardware. The money they make from iOS developers is a drop in the ocean — the App Store is merely a means to an end; to provide users with lots of great apps, so more people buy Apple hardware.
Sorry, but that's not true at all. iTunes alone makes Apple over $1 billion in revenue per quarter. That's a lot of money and alone could almost vie for a Fortune 500 listing.
Revenue is irrelevant. The question is how much profit iTunes draws in. I don't believe that Apple has ever released exact figures, but I've always heard that iTunes is a fairly low-margin business for them, so it's contributions to Apple's total profits are probably much lower than the contributions from the Mac business. Granted, the App Store may draw in much higher margins, but talking about revenue is still missing the point.
Yeah, I exaggerated. But out of $20.34 billion in revenue this quarter, that revenue is still a sliver. That sliver isn't going to lit Steve's eyes up and get him to go all crazy. You don't get Apple levels of success by acting shortsighted or stupid.
I think it will inspire a bunch of people to try who will never in a million years succeed. It will also make it crazy easy for coders to pick up girls at the bars.
I've found it's more about being in the hole than getting back out. It's only when you're really, truly screwed - in the sense that you're out of your comfort zone and have no clear path forward - that real learning happens / your character comes out.
There's very few people who are decent and / or successful who haven't had some seriously hard knocks involved in shaping who they are.
Edit for anecdote: I was a mid 20's guy with an average job and bad investments that put me close to 3/4 million in debt just before the crash. A lot of pain, panic and off the cuff decisions to save my own ass, but hell, was one of the best things to ever happen to me in hindsight.
I don't think the two are related quite so closely.
The idea isn't to do everything alone. The idea behind the walkabout is indeed to find yourself -- and when you return, you are accepted into society as a member. It's a coming of age ritual, and finding yourself is one of those things that only you can do.
My sensei once told me that he could show me the road, but I had to walk it myself. I didn't get as far down the road of enlightenment (google Okinawa Kodokan if you want context) as I did without help, but I did walk the road myself.
Both the articles statement were vague I guess, however I was referring to getting lost in thoughts and the trap of trying to figure everything out before making your move. I really am starting to find that is not have conscious thought about everything you want to do with your life and instead just do it. I really think over thinking or "getting lost" second guessing everything holds a lot of people back, including myself.
It's too bad OpenID isn't cool. The Social Network movie is just going to exacerbate people's infatuation with Facebook and social networking in my opinion. This will lead to the common person being even more accepting of Facebook becoming ubiquitous across the internet. The side benefit of the movie though is that I am finding girls are much more into me talking about working as programmer at the bar...
I just finished up working on a project for an entrepreneurship class I am taking. The basis of the project was to promote various deals from local college town restaurantes that were being offered through a online menu service called Lionmenus. A lot of the groups tried to use Facebook, Twitter, and Google advertising techniques and they worked to some extent. However, my group won the contest by a landslide by simply making as many cheap coupons as possible and putting them under doors and even more revolutionary, handing them out directly to people.
I believe this worked because we were selling something people want, i.e. free food. I think that if what you are offering has a value proposition, or in other words people would want it, then nothing fancy needs to be done. You just need to force the what you are selling and peoples faces and they will eat it up.
I often find demos to be misleading of what the final product will be like. Games are expensive, at least for me, and demoing the final product is the only way I will know for sure that I am not going to waste $60 if I decide to buy something.
The 90s shareware approach was almost ideal for me from that perspective. I could play 1/3 of Doom and then decide if I wanted to buy the remaining 2/3 or not.
It's the same thinking that leads to antipiracy misfeatures. They don't want to give away any more for free than they have to, even if it winds up hurting the game itself.
Shop for a fraternity wisely. How well you respect and enjoy being around the guys is far more important than the fraternity's social status on campus! I think that is the most important thing to remember.
