>>> I believe Apple put iTunes in the way, so the user will find it >>> too easy to buy from the Apple store. Jobs is the ultimate sales guy. >> Exactly. The success of microsoft and apple come not from the quality >> of their software, but from the wit of their salesmen. -------------- > People who need a justification for the failure of their software love this > argument (it is only second to the "failure of the market" excuse). I'll bite! [[First web excursion of my new 5101 HP Mini - definitely going to be a nice toy - but I'm going to have to point out to HP some mistakes that they made. More on that anon ]]. I'm closer to agreeing with SW than with V here. The 600 pound gorillas do execrable things that little players would never get away with. Apple and Sony are fine examples. They wrap things up in =E7otton wool'', in part to =EFmprove"the user experience but more (IMHO as ever ) to facilitate feathering their own nests. They also not only pander to the whims of the crowd, but also GENERATE the whims for their own commercial gain. There is absolutely no technical reason at all that an IPhone cannot play MP3s directly. A small manufacturer producing an innovative product MAY add extra new features but would also be compelled to allow sensible existing practices and formats to coexist. And yes, I'm aware of the backwards compatability versus superior-clean-sweep-start-over-again argument. Only arguable here if you are a 600 pound gorilla. Sony make the sensors in the finest 35mm full frame DSLR the world has ever known to date. But in their own offerings (so far) they instead provide a madding-crowd & marketing driven product line that serves up megapixel madness and sensor noise in the place of the performance they could offer as well if they wished. A very few years ago people were waxing lyrical over the Canon EOS1 Mkxxx with its 3 / 6 / 12 megapixel sensors. Each one redefined the face of serious photography (or so everyone said at the time). But Sony can afford to gazzump the market with a noisy 24 MP class leader and all others must scramble to follow. Serious photography is being skewed by Sony marketing. I walk through the computer syores and note the room per display item given over to Macs compared to PC products. I note the super slim Mac Air whatevers. Heft one (as I do with all small notebooks) and you find another story. HEAVY!. Amazingly so. Small is only half the story for portability. But Apple doesn't seem to have a problem charing a really premium price for large but thin and HEAVY pieces of art. Why would I care if a product was thin if it's footprint was as large of a 'normal' laptop and its weight as high - apart from the fact that it looks good? Sure, volume decrease is good, but footprint is a major issue. But Apple can get away with it and have people pay for the privelege. Whatever. HP 5101: End of first message . Keyboard is useable but definitely not as good as a "normal" $US10 keyboard to use. Some very strange decisions have been made re certain key assignments. Small (10.1") screen is fine for my must-wear-$2-spectaces-to-read-any-screen eyes. As in other HP laptops they have subverted the Help function for their own ends making it hard to find what should be there (System restore points in this case). Slow processor speed does appear noticeable on some functions. More on that anon. Going to be a nice machine for its purpose overall. Photo display speed is OK.Screen is as good as can be reasonably hoped for at the size. Beats the average or most any photo frame to a pulp. Win XP Pro is a nice touch. GMail spilling chucker broken - don't know why yet. Russell 2009/8/18 Vitaliy > solarwind wrote: > > I believe Apple put iTunes in the way, so the user will find it > > too easy to buy from the Apple store. Jobs is the ultimate sales guy. > > Exactly. The success of microsoft and apple come not from the quality > of their software, but from the wit of their salesmen. > -------------- > > People who need a justification for the failure of their software love th= is > argument (it is only second to the "failure of the market" excuse). > > >From my experience -- if you have a good product, it tends to sell itsel= f. > If you have a product that people don't want (no matter how technological= ly > sophisticated it is), you can spend boatloads of money on marketing and > still not even recoup the development costs. > > The trick is finding a good balance between how much of your resources you > spend on engineering, versus how much you spend on marketing. > > Vitaliy > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- = http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist