You know what miffs me? We work so hard writing papers for school, the papers are only read by one or perhaps two teachers, and we're dissuaded from posting them to the net, because of plagiarism issues. It seems like such a waste to write so much just to prove we can write and so we can learn. What about sharing?

Comments?

Twelve years ago, Egghead Discount Software awarded me a $10,000 scholarship for an essay I wrote. While my parents paid my tuition at Berkeley, I used the $2,500 a year to buy hardware, which probably had as much or more of an impact on my future than the first years at Berkeley.

Yesterday Egghead announced that they're giving up and selling their assets to Fry's (which, incidentally, explains why Fry's dropped their bid to buy Outpost.com). A couple years ago Egghead closed up their brick-and-mortar shops and became an online-only vendor, and it looks like it didn't pan out.

Anyhow, I just want to say thanks, Egghead. You did some good, and you changed some lives.

Comments?

At least five times in the past 10 years engineers at Apple have worked on initiatives to bring a full-sized tablet-based computer to market. Though the previous four attempts never saw the light of day, Apple has saved the best for last.

This July: Meet iPad.

The Apple iPad:

• Tablet: 11.5" x 9" x 0.7"
• 12" 1024x768 LCD touch- and stylus-sensitive screen
• No keyboard or mouse (optional attachment via USB)
• USB port
• Dual speakers and headphone jack
• Internal HD
• 5-hour battery life and charging cradle
• Airport wireless connectivity
• 2-3 lbs
• $999

The following is a work of speculation. It does not consist of any leaked information, nor does it purport to be a rumor. Instead it is a predictive analysis based on past Apple research, Apple's current market strategies, and recent product and technology positioning. This is an inferential assessment a likely direction for the Macintosh platform. After writing this article, I checked around on the web to collect rumor references and artist's conceptions. If the legality of any of the referenced information is questioned by Apple, it should be made clear that this article is not a derivative work from that information, and is not affected by any restrictions on that information.

I. Introduction

Since Steve Jobs retook the helm at Apple, the products, technologies, and media campaigns that have emerged have presented a much more holistic marketing front. Like a general coordinating the actions of several fronts for maximum effect, Jobs has taken care to position new products and initiatives to pave the way for the next. In short, Jobs thinks several steps ahead, and executes accordingly. Events, both over the last year, and going back as far as 1987, are coming to a head, which will likely result in the release of the iPad at Macworld Expo New York this July.

II. The 'original' Newton

In 1987 Apple (specifically, Bill Atkinson and John Sculley) made a speculative video about the 'knowledge navigator,' a portable device with full motion color video, voice recognition, and wireless data connectivity. Though the technology was not available to realize this vision, Atkinson instead wrote HyperCard, realizing several of the software goals he envisioned for the navigator. Four years later Michael Tchao, an Apple marketing specialist, approached then CEO John Scully and pitched what would eventually become the Newton MessagePad. At the time, Apple was already investigating the prospect of pen-based interfaces; in fact the "Newton" as originally envisioned and being worked on at the time by an advance technologies group led by Larry Tesler, was for a wireless pad with handwriting recognition -- that would cost a projected $8000. (From "Defying Graviity (sic)", 1993)

III. The 'public' Newton

Fast-forward two years to the Newton MessagePad's release in the summer of 1993. Apple launched a marketing campaign bigger than any in its history to that point. The Newton was going to revolutionize the way people worked. Scully claimed that 'personal digital assistants,' or PDAs, terms coined by the Newton marketing team, would eventually have a $3.5 trillion market. In the end, the Newton was a technological marvel and a media disaster.

The core problem was marketing and sales. In 1993 there were three ways to inform the public about your product: Point-of-purchase information, advertising, and media attention. Moreover, you had to be good at at least two of them for your product to be successful. Apple poured money into advertising and point-of-purchase kiosks. They seeded Netwons to journalists, artists, and other celebrities, thinking that anyone who touched one would love it. (This worked very well with the original Mac 128K.) Unfortunately the expectations of engineers and devotees differed greatly from those of the average user, and the MessagePad's lackluster ParaGraph handwriting recognition became the focus of media attention.

A revised and greatly improved recognizer, dubbed 'Rosetta,' came too late to save the Messagepad. The Dante Newton OS 2.0 release was a huge leap forward, but it came at a time when Apple wasn't certain whether to market the device as a vertical or horizontal solution, and wasn't as committed to making a PR disaster work as it was two years earlier. Despite long-time rumblings from within Newton and in the developer community about the creation of a Newton Slate, it was never to be. Two months after being spun off as its own company by Gil Amelio, Newton was brought back into the fold and killed by Jobs shortly after assuming the i-CEO role.

IV. Hancock: The Mac tablet that never was.

An even greater victim of the media's response to Apple's handwriting recognition engine was Hancock. For several years prior to the Messagepad's release, Apple engineers were working on a MacOS (System 7) based tablet computer. Using the PowerBooks Duo's architecture as a base, Hancock was to be a 3-4 lb tablet computer with handwriting recognition incorporated into the operating system (MacWEEK, circa December 1993). In early 1994 the project had gone far enough that Apple was soliciting developers to be development hardware seed sites, but the project was scrapped shortly thereafter because the negative media attention surrounding the Newton made the acceptance of a tablet-based Mac seem unlikely.

Fast-forwarding several years, several market and conditions have changed drastically. Wireless connectivity is now a standard option on the entire Apple line. Later-generation PDAs have acclimated people to either tolerating handwriting recognition, using specialized entry methods such as graffiti, or typing on on-screen soft-keyboards. Most importantly, fabrication techniques have driven costs and sizes much lower. The time is right for the iPad.

V. The Road to iPad

From a marketing strategy standpoint, Apple's actions of the past 18 months seem to be paving the way for the iPad. Prior to the 2000 MWNY, the public expressed a lack of options with the four-product grid (iMac, iBook, Power Mac, PowerBook), and so the Cube was unveiled, widening the grid to 5 (or, as many say, 6 with a midrange portable member in absentia). This led to a rash of 'CubeBook' rumors circling in the months and weeks before MWSF in January 2001. The idea was that Apple was going to release a subnotebook, smaller and lighter than the existing G3 PowerBook, to fill the broad gulf between the iBook and the G3 PowerBook (Pismo). Instead Apple delivered the G4 Titanium PowerBook to replace Pismo on the high end, and we would have to wait another four months before getting the iBook dual-usb, a machine that, despite the iBook moniker, resembled the CubeBook rumors (down to the clear-on-pearl finish) more than it did the iBook that it displaced.

For those who live and die by Apple's product grid for predicting hardware moves, this led to confusion, as there was no room between the new iBook and the PBTi for another machine. Indeed, it seems that Apple intentionally closed the gap between the two. Unlike the original iBook, its replacement wouldn't seem out of place in the office or the briefcase. Effectively, aside from the name and targeting the educational market, Apple moved the iBook over one spot, from the low- to mid-range portable product spot, like a tile puzzle with one tile missing, only that void was now in the low-end mobile square.

Unlike the Newton's rollout in 1993, Apple has over the last four years honed its marketing machine to the point where it has a much greater control over transmission of the message. The web is now a primary information source for potential buyers, and Apple has spared no expense in spreading its message clearly and effectively, both through the Apple site and QuickTime streaming of Apple events and keynote speeches. Just as important, Apple has made huge expenditures to control the point-of-sale as well. After failed attempts to control the sale environment at department stores like Sears and Best Buy, Apple took it a step further with the CompUSA store-within-a-store initiative, the Apple Online Store, and most recently with the Apple Retail Stores. Apple's goal is to ensure that anyone who wants to find out more about Apple products can do so in an informed environment, without relying on salespeople who may be ignorant of the product line, concerned with commissions, or who hold windows-centric views. It's not unreasonable to speculate that if Apple had these marketing vehicles in place when the Newton was first released, it could hold the spot as the front-running PDA (though there were other problems involving Apple's lack of willingness to scale the Newton down to smaller sizes, that really fall outside this article).

VI. The Marketing Rationale

This leaves the biggest question: Who would buy an iPad? The iPad's target market would be different than any of its failed predecessors. It would be targeted as the perfect addition to an already computer-enabled home, office, or school. With Airport connectivity it would be ready to network with other modern Mac (or even PC) environments with 802.11 networks. Existing Mac users without Airport would only need to buy a $99 card for their existing Mac, or a base module for their home or office. The iPad would be your computer away from your computer. While most computers require you to work around them, sitting at a desk or table, typing and mousing with both hands, the iPad is the thing you could have on your lap when you're watching TV and responding to email, carrying on an instant-message conversation, or making dinner with recipes from the web. The more we use computers for information acquisition, the less we type, and the more appropriate pen- and touch-based systems are.

Unlike the Audrey, the iPaq terminal, or other forays into inexpensive information appliances, the iPad wouldn't be dumbed down. It will not be positioned as the computer for people who don't think they're ready for a computer, but instead as the appliance for people who are looking for a second computer.

This is an important distinction: Since Apple has been touting both the PowerBook and iBook as all-in-one solutions, there is less and less incentive to purchase both a desktop and a mobile Macintosh. Palm computing recently announced that their quarterly sales would fall 50% below previous estimates, and this is largely because existing Palm owners don't feel that there is enough incentive to buy a new one. $300-$450 is a lot to spend to get a better screen, a thinner palm, or an expansion slot. Similarly, computer sales are slowing industry-wide because the cost of replacement isn't justified by the added functionality. The iPad would be a boost to Apple's sales because an iPad sale wouldn't come at the expense of the sale of another Apple CPU.

VII: Meet the iPad

So what would go into this technological marvel? First off, it will run Mac OS X. Rather than forcing the user to learn something new (we mock what we do not understand, hence the demise of MagicLink, Audrey, AT&T's EO, et cetera) or use a platform which still standardizes on smaller screen sizes (Palm, WinCE), it will be a Mac through and through. To save on size, and to firm its position as a secondary device, it won't have a CD-ROM drive bay, relying on a networked computer or external USB device for software installation. This isn't the first time Apple's done this (Duo, Comet, PowerBook 100), so it's not wading into uncharted territory. It is likely that the device would have facility for a net-boot option, to recover if something happened to the internal boot volume. Though downplayed, USB devices could still be used to make this a regular computer. Plug in the USB keyboard and mouse, place the iPad on its charging stand, and you would have a respectable desktop machine. Unplug USB and lift it out of the charging cradle and you have a tablet Mac.

Firewire is doubtful, not just to cut down on expense, but to increase the difference between an iPad and iBook or iMac. USB can satisfy most of the iPad needs. An internal modem would be probable, though on-board Ethernet is unlikely. The general motif here would be to include minimal functionality for networking, dialup, peripherals, etc, but without the higher-end or redundant functionality reserved for higher-end machines. The PC-card slot could go either way. The iBook doesn't have one, causing problems for Ricochet or CDPD-based wireless users. It's certainly possible that the iPad would have a PC-card slot, but I would doubt it, again citing Apple's desire to not cannibalize other Mac sales.

While you would use your PowerBook to write a paper in the library, you would use your iPad to sketch notes in class. Where you could print out reference material like recipes and maps from a desktop Mac, you could bring the iPad with you to the kitchen or the car (with a passenger doing the navigating, hopefully). As portable as the iBook and other notebooks are, there are so many times when it's too much trouble to open it, balance and type at anything but a table. With an iPad you'd leave the computer desk behind completely.

VIII: The Time is Now

As for the timing, Apple finally has its ducks in a row. Apple again has positive momentum as an innovator in the press. The market is ready for the device, and Microsoft has recently announced a team working on producing exactly such a device, anticipated in mid-2002, with a price tag of between $2-3000, legitimizing the market, especially at a $1000 price-point (interesting side note: Microsoft made a similar announcement last year, but anticipated that the device would run WinCE, not XP). Where Apple's industrial engineering was, for many years, better at exterior design than interior efficiency, the current PowerBooks and the Cube prove that Apple is technically capable of building a device with the dimensions stated above. Without a keyboard, trackpad, or extra layer of exterior skin needed for a hinged PowerBook, the Titanium would be a third of an inch thinner. Without these items, a CD-ROM drive, a hinged architecture, external video, hardwired ethernet, second USB port, or firewire port, an iPad could sell for $300 less than an iBook, dropping to $800 within 12 months.

There is one more reason why the iPad will be launched in July: It will be Apple's killer OS X app. One OS X feature that has gone relatively unheralded in recent weeks is the ability to run OS X as either a terminal server or a thin client. Practically, this means that any OS X computer could act as a thin client for any other OS X computer on the web, merely acting as a screen and input device. Used in this fashion, an iPad would be a 'portable monitor and touchpad' for a dominant Mac. An iPad user wouldn't have to worry about mounting Appleshare volumes, syncing files, or installing software in multiple locations. This functionality, though possible before using tools such as Timbuktu or PCanywhere, is streamlined in OS X's Unix environment. It blurs the line between a computer and an appliance, and it shows the power of OS X at a very attractive price point. By introducing a new line of hardware that takes such unique advantage of OS X's new capabilities, Apple is proving the value of the new platform, while at the same time requiring users to upgrade their existiing dominant machine to OS X to take advantage of it, fulfilling Apple's essential goal of moving the platform to the new OS which, as any WWDC attendee can tell you, is imperative to convince Mac developers to release OS X native applications as soon as possible.

This is an evolving story, and as such this is a living document. In coming weeks more data will undoutably come out. When it does, check http://fury.com/ipad for the latest news and rumors. If you have more info, email me at hello@fury.com

Comments?

I'm writing an article for Kuro5hin about the iPad. I'm proofing it now, but I'll probably put it up later tonight. The thing's long (about 2400 words) and now I'm verbally spent.

I'll post a link (and probably mirror it here) when it's up. If you're really keen on seeing it now, and want to proofread, drop me a line.

Comments?

Thank you Chris. I'm so glad I'm not the only Metacookie blogger who does this.

We should probably come up with a name for that. Metagoof?

Okay, okay, so that this isn't a completely frivolous post, let me say that I'm so happy that I finally finished my last paper of my undergraduate career! Now I just have to take three finals (tomorrow, Tuesday, and next Friday) and I'm all done and get to bask in whatever for a week before starting at the j - o - b.

Oh, and someone asked me if I'd be posting my American Beauty paper. Hmm, well, maybe. And maybe I'll post this one on 19th century textbooks, but if I do, I ask you to keep in mind that both papers were written for pass/notpass courses under stressful circumstances, not like the gumflapping stream of consciousness tomes that sometimes fall onto these pages. Oh wait, is that worse? I guess we'll see.

Comments?

My friend David recently got in an accident and lost his car, arguably one of the most minor things you can lose in a car accident (license, arm, life, loved one, etc. suddenly a car seems pretty minor).

Hearing him talk about Pergamina (for that was the car's name), I was reminded of a class assignment from 10th grade (wow, 12 years ago...) where we were asked to write a eulogy for anyone or anything, and I chose my sister's car:
 

The Tank (1979-1989)

May, 1979. My mom was very late from work and I was home alone for hours. I began to panic and was near tears when she drove up in a brand new '79 Volvo 244. I hastily dismissed my fear and went out to look at the car. My mom showed it off like her new baby, no diapers needed. I loved it, it was big, it was new, but it was green. "What would possess you to buy a car in a hue that hadn't been seen since T.V. sit-coms of the '60s," I didn't say; not old enough to chide the one person in the world I thought couldn't make any mistakes. The car became an extension of our lives, mine, my mother's, and my sister's. I always felt safe there, knowing that no matter what kind of accident we got into I would hate to see what happened the other car because ours was invincible.

As I grew older the car grew with me, and in 1987 it grew past the point of most cars and used that sixth digit in the odometer. It had graduated from the university of the sub-decimillion mile and now it was equipped for the ultimate test. The car was handed down to my sister on her 16'th birthday.

The Car, (as we always called it), protected my sister from the hell of the Los Angeles automotive perils for a year before it was tested. My sister was returning from the beach with friends when The Car met the only possible foe a car of his stature could have, a Ford Galaxy. After this run in The Car used his powers to make sure that we didn't get the bad end of the deal; in fact, when the mail came, we were surprised to find not one, but two insurance checks in the load, each for the amount of the claim. I'd imagine that The Car wasn't surprised though.

Later in its life, The Car outgrew his name and was dubbed The Tank. The Tank's next test occurred in the Valley College parking lot, where some kids unwittingly attempted to steal The Tank's radio. They tried to break the window with scant success, then they tried to open the door using a crowbar. The Tank laughed. Then when The Tank thought he had them beat, they struck the window again full force. They managed to strike a lucky blow and made off with the radio.

After a small family dispute it was settled that I would inherit The Tank upon my sixteenth birthday, but, as fate would have it, exactly one month away from that holy day The Tank breathed his last.

The Tank died as he lived, full of life, happiness, and helpfulness. It was while attempting the treacherous Grapevine, carrying 5 happy friends to Lake Tahoe that he lost grip of a cylinder and died. The only comfort I can find in this is the knowledge that he died without pain, that he was happy until the end, that he never knew sorrow. Yet it is with a heavy heart that my sister and I set forth in our tasks to find two cars to replace him, one for me, and one for my sister. I have heard that the best thing in a time of loss is to find other amusements; I suppose that I will find out whether or not this theory holds.

Comments?

Does anyone else find it incredible that top US and Chinese officials are, at this moment, negotiating a letter of agreement on what happened in the mid-air collision of a US spy plane and a Chinese fighter?

Negotiating the release of the US crew I understand. Negotiating whether and how regrets, apologies, and/or remunerations (in either direction) should be handled, I understand. That's politics.

It's simply astounding to me that the certified factual account of what happened in the skies near China is being decided rather than determined.

When a plane crash happens in the US, the NTSB and in many cases the FBI spend between three months and three years gathering and examining the evidence, getting accounts from eyewitnesses, mechanics, crew, examining communications, flight recorders, and computer simulations in order to find the truth.

In this case the truth doesn't seem to matter. China puts a widow and a surviving pilot on the air and a country demands an apology. The US, on the other hand, only just today got to talk to the crew without Chinese present, they haven't been permitted anywhere near the plane, and the two words black box haven't been mentioned in any of the near hundred news reports I've seen and heard.

On one hand I'd like to see a little posturing, a little "we can't give an apology if we can't get the facts, and you won't let us get those facts, so how much weight would such an empty apology have?" On the other hand, I don't trust Bush's capabilities as a diplomat, and so I'm relieved that he's playing the safest road possible.

Maybe it's just media training, but I keep checking news sites for breaking information. If it were a terrorist attack or a commercial jet accident (think Flight 800 or the Concorde crash) there would be new information, new evidence, not just new political maneuverings.

The big thing though is how much this resembles Orwell's '1984'. There are three countries, and as one of them 'we' are either aligned with one or the other. Whenever that alliance changes, all the old newspapers are updated to make it seem like it was always so. Fact and Truth become tools of the politicos, and they change to match what's Prudent. Isn't that what's happening here?

I'm a big believer in peace, but is it worth it, when taken to the extreme, to have an international peace if it's brokered at the expense of truth by the whim of propaganda?

In short: aren't we caving to those governmental policies we find so reprehensible in the Chinese when we agree to broker truth based on need and not fact, no matter what 'brokered truth' emerges? At that point it doesn't matter whether the document says the Us was at fault or the Chinese, because the document's very existence determines that both are at fault of a crime far more grave than the collision of two aircraft.

Comments?

(note: CLUI: command-line user interface, GUI: graphical user interface)

AA asks via email:

When using your url CLUI, are you letting the browser _guess_ at what url you want and fill in the rest of it? Is this still a CLUI? Are there smart CLUI's and dumb CLUI's? Is the real threat to the GUI, a really smart CLUI?

Very good questions. Right now I usually use Netscape Navigator 4.6 on Linux (I know, I know...), which has no URL guessing, and IE 5 on a Mac, which has too much (the popdown of recent URLs that match, prefilling the closest match (the one that needs the least to complete). While I like URL guessing, I've never implemented in the way that I would call 'right'.

URL matching should work the same way as file matching in bash (and a handful of other shells), with a few tweaks (that bash should have too): When you're typing in a URL, you should never have autocompletion done for you, forcing you to backspace if you don't want it (unfortunately, IE does this). If I've been to http:/fury.com/aoliza/, but I want to go to http://fury.com this particular time, it should work as follows:

While typing the URL, the system should look for possible completions, but only autocomplete if I hit [tab] (like in bash). If there are multiple possible completions, one of two things should happen. If all the possible completions share part of the path (say I've typed in http://fury and the possible places are http://fury.com/, http://fury.com/cameo/, and http://fury.com/aoliza/, the system should prefill up to http://fury.com/, because it knows at least that part is right. If there are multiple paths that immediately fork (have no commonality beyond what has already been typed) for example, the state after I originally hit [tab], it should show a list of the possibilities. The user should either be able to pick from the list or type more until it's unique and hit [tab] again. For example, having typed in http://fury.com/ and hitting [tab] I should get a menu with http://fury.com/cameo/ and http://fury.com/aoliza/ in it. Typing in 'a' and hitting tab again should autocomplete http://fury.com/aoliza/.

This is pretty much the way bourne shells (bash) work, except this allows you to click or elaborate when there's a choice, instead of forcing you to elaborate. I think both shells and browser guessing could be improved though. If the path, or part of the path, is unambiguous (that is, if by the above rules, it would autocomplete some or all of the url), that portion should be displayed in a ghosted form in the command line (something like this: http://fury|.com/ ) to let you know the consequences of hitting [tab].

Basically, so much effort has been put into designing consistant GUIs that GUI devices and mechanisms (menus, scrollbars, pointers, windows, icons) have drifted across all major operating systems. The same is much slower going in the case of new CLUIs, and I believe it's mostly because people adding some CLUI functionality to their software think of it as new functionality with no rules or conventions, a romping ground whee any little bit of functionality is a bonus, when in actuality they're reinventing wheels in their own images, to the confusion of the user.

Anyhow, to get back to the questions, I think there are definitely smart CLUIs, but that it takes a smart designer to make a CLUI that doesn't try to be 'too' smart. Taken to the extreme, the assistant in Microsoft Office is in some ways a 'too smart' CLUI. Type "Dear John," into a new Word document, and it will ask you if you're trying to write a letter, and do you want help. In my opinion this gets in the way, but this is a matter of preference. Certainly there can be smarter CLUIs than we have today. A CLUI is traditionally thought of in a pure text environment, like a shell window or dumb terminal. Rich visual information can be expressed in CLUI enviroments though, it just dictates that the command itself is given in typed text. I could see something as simple as a bash shell having robust contextual help. for example, if I type in 'egrep", as I'm typing, a window could pop up on the side showing me all the switches egrep uses, and possibly a list of special characters used in regular expressions. For the most part, I think making CLUIs smart is enabling them to better interpret what we mean (instead of what we say), learning from past experience, and providing nonintrusive data on the actions we're performing.

Will CLUIs ever replace GUIs? I don't think so, unless you see voice commands as being a CLUI environment, which they well might be. I think we'll continue to see a mix. There's always been crossover. Emacs, vi, and pico all have GUI attributes as well as command lines, and more and more often GUIs resort to dialog boxes that are really just prettified front ends for quick CLUI interaction within a GUI environment.

then of course, there are blurred distinctions: Is a WAP phone a CLUI or a GUI environment? It's a little of each. I think as time goes on we'll see more and more GUI for displaying information, and CLUI for inputting information. This, incidentally, is how half of the web works now. Go to askJeeves or amazon and focus on search, and you're using a CLUI for inputting information, then getting back rich visual data. Type in a URL and it's the same. Of course, there are always places where one wins hands down. Automated file processing (grep pipes and such) will always be the domain of the CLUI, and graphic arts will always be better served by GUIs. The most important thing is the understanding that each is better in specific environments, and that those environments are different from person to person.

Comments?

As I'm writing a philosophy paper (my 'Proxy response' to Searle's Chinese Room argument), I'm often referencing the web, via google, or merriam webster or the like. I use bookmarks now and then, but mor often than not I jus type in the url (m-w.com, goolge.com, etc). It seems that this is the heart of a CLUI taking over from within a GUI...

Comments?

A lot of people have been bitching about the $30 charge for Apple's OS X public beta. Many are saying that Apple's just being money-grubbing, and is setting itself up for bad PR, and some say the charge is because OS X has to be installed from a CD, and the charge covers short-run manufacturing costs.

I disagree. While I'd agree Apple is adept at shooting itself in the PR foot, I think I see Jobs's marketing sense behind the move, and it may be for the best.

When Steve is at the helm, image is always more important than short-term money grabs. Taking a closer look at what's in store for the next year, it's unlikely that full-page ads, slick quicktime-streamed demos and free posters are going to turn OS X into the linux-killer (wow. Did I just use the phrase 'linux-killer'? Linux has come a long way...). As any Microsoft project manager will tell you, public betas are half about finding bugs, half about generating free buzz, and half about measuring reaction to new functionality directions (anyone nitpicking Microsoft math skills should really be questioning what place functionality asessment has in the beta stage at all).

Anyhow, back to the point: A free Mac OS X beta would be downloaded by Mac die-hards, bored IS techies with a spare G3 box, and a host of relatively unexperienced Mac owners. Exposure is great, but by creating a few modest barriers to entry (such as announcing the release of the Beta overseas in an unstreamed event, not making it available for download, charging $30, and restricting the beta to G3 hardware (and not even all G3 hardware) (although some people have been able to work around that limitation (sometimes in terrifying ways (this is almost certainly a hoax (ahh, parenthetical bliss...)))), Apple is attempting to ensure that those who use OS X Beta are people who want to believe.

What it comes down to is that a for-nominal-charge beta could result in 25,000 advocates of OS X and 2,500 naysayers. An entirely open beta with no barrier to entry except a large FTP download could result in 60,000 advocates and 20,000 dire-hard Unix and NT devotees who will slam the product. Following the principles that bad news travels faster and wider than good, Apple does (and should) prefer a more limited release to a more target demographic.

Along the same lines, Apple's decision to offer OS X as a factory-installed option on new Macs is another sign that they want the OS out there (even as a primary environment) but to a highly mac-positive demographic.

Another interesting note is the recent story on Slashdot asking the readership for its opinion of OS X. One of the largest communities of Unix geeks on the planet, the posts in the forum made it clear that OS X has achieved a remarkable feat already. It's succeeded in breaking the Unix ranks into those people who love Unix because it's better and those who love Unix because it makes them feel superior.

Just imagine a world where a Mac user can feel superior to an NT user because they actually run a better OS, as well as one that's easier to use.

Comments?

I wrote a two-page log entry just now on John Searle, Turing Tests, and the Chinese Room problem, before Netscape quit and ate it. Hopefully I'll feel like rewriting it tomorrow afternoon. Sorry about that.

Comments?

It's funny how phrases are used as the seeds of new concepts. If someone says "The quarterback is toast" everyone knows he means toast as a metaphor for death, which is in turn a metaphor for done or defeated.

This metaphor chain goes so far that if someone says "that bread is toast" most people get the implication that the bread has somhow become unfit, not that it, surprisingly, is actually toasted bread.

Okay, interesting, but a couple days ago a friend of mine used "big brother" as an adjective, as in "the whole sitch is so Big Brother, only I was the red room!"

A month ago, to call something 'Big Brother' would have referenced the invisible, omnicient hand of society's leaders in Orwell's 1984. Before that was published, it just meant the benevolent, if heavy-handed and overprotective, actions of a metaphorical or literal older brother.

Everything's gone meta. My friend's English teacher used to say, "The greatness of the English language is thatany noun can be verbed." Nowadays it seems that any metaphor can be coined anew, and served as the basis for a new one. Talk about language recycling.

Another quick example: Did you realize that the word 'realize' didn't mean to notice or comprehend, but more to literally picture something? Language moved on, and 'actualize' was brought in to fill the gap left by the migration of 'realize.'

Random note: I hate it when people say "I literally blah-blah-blah" like "I literally died right there." or "I literally blew my top." don't people know what the word means? It's almost as bad as "Ironic". but that's a whole other story I might do a project on next semester. That would be ironic.

Or would it?

Comments?