Pulse has two big problems. First when you use your google account, you then have to pick which ones to have pulse read. So it's a two step process instead of simply being synced. The second problem is pulse can't handle a lot of feeds. All the graphics and pretty things max it out at about 20. I bought it without realizing this limitation and my 60 or so feeds from google reader that news rack handles just fine made pulse choke. Unfortunately no way to get my money back (thanks app store) so it's just a waste of money for me.
Is it also not possible that Dell is cheaper because they're being subsidized by software companies paying to put add-on software (trial versions) on the desktop? It's probably not much (certainly not $200 per unit, there's no way a company would cover that at the 1 in 300 conversation rate of people buying a full version of an add-on), but it's probably something.
Also, despite the fact that all computer parts are commodities at this point, there does appear to be some quality difference between Dell and Mac hardware that has to be accounted for somewhere (higher QC, more rigorous testing on the line, versus Dell shipping every unit and letting the customers discover the lemons).
I remember watching a football game which must have been on August 24th or 25th, 1995 (and probably pre-season that early)... they pointed the cameras into the stands at some random happy screaming football fan and the color commentator said "and there's someone who's happy because they finally got Windows 95 installed"
It surprised me because I think it was the first time I heard a sports figure reference something in the computer industry like that. When the Win95 hype was so huge it was fodder for NFL commentary, that tells you how ridiculous it was (and how prevalent problems where that someone would be screaming because the "finally" got it installed!)
This is going to sound like I work for an ad agency (and I don't), but as much as we complain about advertisements, we (as a capitalist society) actually want and need ads.
What we don't want, as others have pointed out in this board, is ads that are irrelevant to us (although certain kinds of ads... say, for a windshield repair service... are run so that on the day we suddenly get a cracked windsheild, we'll remember that shop's name). But generally people want to see ads that are relative to them. If you suddenly banished all ads, what would happen to your marketplace awareness? Anything new developed (electronics, autos, food, whatever) would be off your radar. And while you may purposely seek out ads and information for major purposes like a car, most people wouldn't seek out new food products or whatever. Would most people know about a new restaurant that opened in their town if they never ran an ad?
The other major issue with eliminating commercials in trade for product placements (or other options) is that the argument generally focuses on national brands. It's easy to find a placement for Coke. What is your local taco restaurant supposed to do when they're not a national chain? What happens to their ads and their customers when the ad model only really serves national clients? Half of commercials in any given program are served from the local station. If the local economy suffers because there's no longer a place to advertise, what are all your home town entrepreneurs supposed to do?
Turn the situation around. Let's say you open a shop that serves a good size area. You need to get customers as quickly as possible, and TV ads have been a way to do that. No one's looking for you because you haven't existed before. If all your poential clients are blocking your advertisement attempts, what are you supposed to do?
I'm sure that new content will be available much quicker in digital format than old content. Take books (remember those?)... Despite the vast array of information available online, it's barely a dent in all the printed material available in the world. Scanning that content, as well as older music, older movies and TV programs... that back catalog of "stuff" will take decades to get online (mostly because there's little money in it and therefore no incentive for big business to do it.) Also, the older the material, the more work to get it into a digital form (especially if it has to be cleaned up during the digitization process), so the slower that process will go.
I agree that men like tinkering more than women -- but men like tinkering with things that genuinely interest them and I would say that only a subset of men treat PCs as a "hobby". In comparison, cars are not a hobby for me, just utility. I don't enjoy tinkering with a car and if I had to get under the hood and adjust things just to keep the car running, it wouldn't be too long before I'd just get another car. There are guys who love working on their cars, but not the majority. I think that most guys, your workers and managers who are stressed out and want to get home to their families (or the bar) aren't much interested in tinkering with their computers. They just want the damn things to work so they can get their job done and go home! There are certainly IT departments staffed across the country with people whose PCs are as much a hobby as their job. Those are the ones who love fixing them (and God knows they get lots of practice). But most people in the company are not in IT.
Actually, Davidwb, we're probably coming to the end of the "blockbuster era" (after about a 30 year run). Blockbusters have been mostly failures in recent years. Check out this editorial:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/maney/2006-01-03-on-demand_x.htm?csp=N009#
One reason: watching video while commuting or flying.
Those 3 hour flights to the West coast are much more tolerable watching TV episodes or movies or whatever I've put on mine. People are quick to point out that you can watch them on your laptop, but unless you're working on your laptop for another reason, the iPod is just easier to deal with in crowded seats. Would you rather hold an iPod that's the width of a deck of cards comfortably, or get your laptop out when you're squeezed in between two people? I love my iBook, but dealing with video on the iPod is just so much easier when you're in a crowd.
Can an iBook be booked into Target mode and used as an exteral drive via USB2 just like Firewire? As a film student (two huge markets for Apple combined into one), this was a way to move footage around from lab computers to home, plus having it to work with on the laptop... Target mode was a big deal.
Also, can someone explain why USB2 is so much inferior to Firewire? (I'm not asking this as a troll question, I'm asking this looking for a technical response.) If they both provide the same power, and USB2 is 480kbps vs Firewire's 400, where do the issues come in? Could not a very simple adapter to convert USB2 to FW400 be made (similar to Microsoft's USB1 to PS/2 adapter that ships with their mice) for backwards compatability if the power and speed are so comparable?
Apple needs to make a Mac OS X version of Visioneer's Paperport. A great management system for PDFs and other documents is what's sorely missing on the Mac. DevonThink is close but misses the boat on several things.
We can manage music, movies and photos... but we have nothing to get us closer to a manageable paperless office.
Pulse: An Effective RSS Reader for the iPad
Pulse: An Effective RSS Reader for the iPad
Why you didn't see an $800 MacBook: The Dell Comparison
August 23, 1995: Windows 95 Goes on Sale at Midnight
Who Will Pay for TV in the Future?
How much longer before everything is digital?
Men are from PCs, women are from Macs
When was the last time you went to the movies?
Thinking about a 5G iPod
The Soon To Be Most Hyped Up Non-Stories of 2006
Is Apple Taking The Pepsi Challenge?
Long time Users Facing yet Another Dope Slap From Apple?
Long time Users Facing yet Another Dope Slap From Apple?
One More Thing Dissected
What's Next In The iLife Suite?