kustardking
Mar 22, 10:32 PM
That was the point of my initial posts, hindsight is 20:20, and learning off others experience/failures can be a good thing.
Considering it was one of the largest web advertising companies in the Southern Hemisphere, hardly a player you'd expect to take a fall and be out of business within 6months of contracting there.... It had massive backing, a large list of clients, and employed well over 750 staff in Australia alone.
Then the only thing to learn from this story, like I wrote, is be ready to explain yourself.
Though I understand where you're coming from, you also have to credit the fact there's an expectation of newbies to take every single job coming just because it pays rather than taking a strategic look instead of the day-to-day tactical vision.
Yes, that expectation is correct, and this is because early on one can't be anything BUT tactical. Your AUS story verifies that you should take a portion of payment up front, regardless, and stand tall for decisions you make. Period.
The kind of learning you are suggesting the OP acquire through reading and osmosis is, in fact, only attainable through direct experience. Rather, "newbies" should, instead of prematurely declining jobs on principle, take real steps to reduce the negative impact of numerous INEVITABLE failures through a few basic must-dos when taking on a job. 1) Get up front money, especially from an ostensibly capable client, 2) pay your own bills, 3) do two things at the same time if you're truly worried about "holes" in your CV, 4) don't worry about holes in your CV (see #3), because you need to learn how to EXPLAIN your failures, 5) do some real design.
Considering it was one of the largest web advertising companies in the Southern Hemisphere, hardly a player you'd expect to take a fall and be out of business within 6months of contracting there.... It had massive backing, a large list of clients, and employed well over 750 staff in Australia alone.
Then the only thing to learn from this story, like I wrote, is be ready to explain yourself.
Though I understand where you're coming from, you also have to credit the fact there's an expectation of newbies to take every single job coming just because it pays rather than taking a strategic look instead of the day-to-day tactical vision.
Yes, that expectation is correct, and this is because early on one can't be anything BUT tactical. Your AUS story verifies that you should take a portion of payment up front, regardless, and stand tall for decisions you make. Period.
The kind of learning you are suggesting the OP acquire through reading and osmosis is, in fact, only attainable through direct experience. Rather, "newbies" should, instead of prematurely declining jobs on principle, take real steps to reduce the negative impact of numerous INEVITABLE failures through a few basic must-dos when taking on a job. 1) Get up front money, especially from an ostensibly capable client, 2) pay your own bills, 3) do two things at the same time if you're truly worried about "holes" in your CV, 4) don't worry about holes in your CV (see #3), because you need to learn how to EXPLAIN your failures, 5) do some real design.
ozontheroad
Oct 31, 11:59 AM
Yeah...this shuffle will be my 7th iPod:eek:
number 3 for me :rolleyes:
number 3 for me :rolleyes:
MacFan26
Aug 24, 07:34 PM
I don't think this has been posted yet, sorry if I just didn't see it! Apparently Real has had some success selling songs:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=77&e=2&u=/mc/20040824/tc_mc/realcitessuccessofsongsalesignsuniversitydeals
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=77&e=2&u=/mc/20040824/tc_mc/realcitessuccessofsongsalesignsuniversitydeals
Winni
Dec 21, 08:06 AM
Macs would be an excellent choice for any business to use ...
Yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for Windows run ah-so smoothly on Macs...
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using Macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (There is a world beyond the Microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's OLD Java, and many Java apps require a very specific Oracle JVM to run. There's .NET. There's Sharepoint. There's an IBM mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no OS X drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with Windows.)
Enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a Mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, Time Machine is NOT an enterprise solution.
TCO? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out Fail. (Try getting support for OS X Leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for Tiger or Panther TODAY. Then compare it to Windows XP, an OS from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on Cupertino toys.)
It's MUCH easier to integrate Linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put Mac OS X boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like Oracle and IBM actually use, sell and support Linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the Mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large IT department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a CTO to bet the company's IT future on Nintendo Wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the World Health Organization of the United Nations, and it turned out to be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate Macs into their IT environment. I had the only Mac (a 20" Core Duo) in a world wide network because I was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then I quickly had to give up on OS X and instead run Windows on it in order to get my job as an IT admin done and be able to use the IT resources of the other WHO centers. OS X Tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but Windows Vista and XP got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a Mac that only runs Windows. That's what you get for being an Apple fanboy, which I admittedly was at that time.
Where I work now, two other people bought Macs, and one of them has ordered Windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out OS X from his hard disk and replace it with Windows. He's an engineer and not productive with OS X, rather the opposite: OS X slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in Apple land, I will now also move away from OS X. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the Apple hardware and their iTunes store. If the web browser and iTunes and maybe Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio or the Adobe Creative Suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then OS X probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When Apple brag about how cool it is to run Windows in "Boot Camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the Mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run Windows in VirtualBox on Linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support TWO operating systems to get ONE job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the Mac still is not a full computing platform without Microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case AGAINST migrating to Mac OS X.
Yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for Windows run ah-so smoothly on Macs...
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using Macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (There is a world beyond the Microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's OLD Java, and many Java apps require a very specific Oracle JVM to run. There's .NET. There's Sharepoint. There's an IBM mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no OS X drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with Windows.)
Enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a Mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, Time Machine is NOT an enterprise solution.
TCO? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out Fail. (Try getting support for OS X Leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for Tiger or Panther TODAY. Then compare it to Windows XP, an OS from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on Cupertino toys.)
It's MUCH easier to integrate Linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put Mac OS X boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like Oracle and IBM actually use, sell and support Linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the Mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large IT department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a CTO to bet the company's IT future on Nintendo Wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the World Health Organization of the United Nations, and it turned out to be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate Macs into their IT environment. I had the only Mac (a 20" Core Duo) in a world wide network because I was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then I quickly had to give up on OS X and instead run Windows on it in order to get my job as an IT admin done and be able to use the IT resources of the other WHO centers. OS X Tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but Windows Vista and XP got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a Mac that only runs Windows. That's what you get for being an Apple fanboy, which I admittedly was at that time.
Where I work now, two other people bought Macs, and one of them has ordered Windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out OS X from his hard disk and replace it with Windows. He's an engineer and not productive with OS X, rather the opposite: OS X slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in Apple land, I will now also move away from OS X. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the Apple hardware and their iTunes store. If the web browser and iTunes and maybe Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio or the Adobe Creative Suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then OS X probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When Apple brag about how cool it is to run Windows in "Boot Camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the Mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run Windows in VirtualBox on Linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support TWO operating systems to get ONE job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the Mac still is not a full computing platform without Microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case AGAINST migrating to Mac OS X.
more...
solvs
Jan 26, 09:10 PM
I'm pretty sure this counts as SPAM. Where's e when you need him?
THX1139
Nov 13, 04:26 PM
Yeah I know Apple's policy on low pricing to sell hardware and I think it's brilliant. I don't know why they drop the software after a while though, discontinuing Shake didn't make any sense.
I'm going to speculate about what happened. When Jobs brought Pixar to Disney and joined their board of directors, he was thinking that would be a good fit for the Macpro line of computers and software. It probably bothered him that Pixar (and Disney) were not using Apple computers and software to crunch all of those pixels. I'm pretty sure he saw that as an opportunity to get Apple further into that market.
Then along comes the success of iPhone and consumer level products that began to consume most of Apple resources. It was a fairly fresh market with much potential for massive profits. Shortly after that, Apple Computer changed it's name to just "Apple" and then diverted most of it's attention towards the market that we see today. Apple sold off any professional applications that they deemed to niche or required extensive resources to develop. I'm sure they hung onto FCS simply because there was some profit, and to feed Steve's ego. However, they haven't been that motivated to keep it on the forefront because they didn't have the resources, nor the motivation.
I'm pretty sure that if you were to ask most of the people on the board of directors at Apple if they should keep the professional line, I'm sure that most of them would say no. The money is not in that sector compared to consumer devices and content delivery. As each day goes by, the Mac professional line of computers and software are becoming more and more a niche product and I think that Apple will eventually discontinue them and become solely a consumer product company. They will make devices for the everyday consumer and sell/rent/commission content to deliver to those devices. It's a multi-billion dollar industry that is only going to get bigger. The professional line is not close to being as profitable and it takes a lot of resources to stay current. My guess is that it will be phased out over the next 5 years. How? By slowing down the updates until the pros migrate to other systems. Eventually, Apple will declare the market dead and stop production. By then, no one will care. But don't worry, you'll have a really cool iPhone and still be able to buy an iMac. :rolleyes:
I'm going to speculate about what happened. When Jobs brought Pixar to Disney and joined their board of directors, he was thinking that would be a good fit for the Macpro line of computers and software. It probably bothered him that Pixar (and Disney) were not using Apple computers and software to crunch all of those pixels. I'm pretty sure he saw that as an opportunity to get Apple further into that market.
Then along comes the success of iPhone and consumer level products that began to consume most of Apple resources. It was a fairly fresh market with much potential for massive profits. Shortly after that, Apple Computer changed it's name to just "Apple" and then diverted most of it's attention towards the market that we see today. Apple sold off any professional applications that they deemed to niche or required extensive resources to develop. I'm sure they hung onto FCS simply because there was some profit, and to feed Steve's ego. However, they haven't been that motivated to keep it on the forefront because they didn't have the resources, nor the motivation.
I'm pretty sure that if you were to ask most of the people on the board of directors at Apple if they should keep the professional line, I'm sure that most of them would say no. The money is not in that sector compared to consumer devices and content delivery. As each day goes by, the Mac professional line of computers and software are becoming more and more a niche product and I think that Apple will eventually discontinue them and become solely a consumer product company. They will make devices for the everyday consumer and sell/rent/commission content to deliver to those devices. It's a multi-billion dollar industry that is only going to get bigger. The professional line is not close to being as profitable and it takes a lot of resources to stay current. My guess is that it will be phased out over the next 5 years. How? By slowing down the updates until the pros migrate to other systems. Eventually, Apple will declare the market dead and stop production. By then, no one will care. But don't worry, you'll have a really cool iPhone and still be able to buy an iMac. :rolleyes:
more...
xeex
Apr 2, 04:54 AM
http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/5724/screen20shot20201104012.png
Not the most exciting!
link ?
Not the most exciting!
link ?
intellca
Apr 27, 06:54 PM
educating people as an industry? Who does jobs think he is? Most of the population may be below average to his economical standards... but what the f was that? People know more than he thinks... It is simple for Apple to track anyone on a cellular network and using an iPhone... but it isn't worth the legal risk is it, if the person's' being tracked isn't worth it... but if Apple or anyone really wanted to... there is nothing to stop it with the infrastructure of iOS and cellular networks today...
more...
psychometry
Oct 5, 06:12 PM
On the contrary, resizeable textareas are part of the CSS3 standard; Safari 3.0 will simply be the first mainstream browser to implement it. Once you try it, I promise you will not want to go back. It's really a non-issue, and I'm surprised anybody's complaining about it to the point they would disable this end-user feature using JavaScript. I'll just disable JavaScript on your site, then, buddy.
The CSS3 resizer property is fine and good because you can set resizer:none to a form element if you want to. As a side note, resizer applies to all elements, including html, meaning a site could prevent you from resizing the browser window. That has the potential to be very annoying if abused, as I'm sure it will be. Right now, I don't think any of the main 5 or 6 browsers support this propery for any element.
What worries me is if Safari is implementing this feature using built-in DOM functions instead of just supporting the CSS3 property. This is a possibility to me. They've got quite a ways to go in terms of the standard right now.
The CSS3 resizer property is fine and good because you can set resizer:none to a form element if you want to. As a side note, resizer applies to all elements, including html, meaning a site could prevent you from resizing the browser window. That has the potential to be very annoying if abused, as I'm sure it will be. Right now, I don't think any of the main 5 or 6 browsers support this propery for any element.
What worries me is if Safari is implementing this feature using built-in DOM functions instead of just supporting the CSS3 property. This is a possibility to me. They've got quite a ways to go in terms of the standard right now.
wesrk
Feb 19, 05:41 PM
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9653/desksx.jpg
Beauty.
Do it like that, it's better for the readers.
Beauty.
Do it like that, it's better for the readers.
more...
supermac96
Dec 9, 04:42 PM
i know cydia and app store develepors read this website so what apps would you like to see on app store or cydia? If you think you could develop one of these apps that someone suggests than say so!
louis Fashion
Mar 27, 01:05 PM
iPod Touch 5G with GPS and maps for europe, asia and north/south-america please!
;)
Ja, and a world phone.
;)
Ja, and a world phone.
more...
Bwright
Apr 27, 10:05 AM
There is no extra charge it works over the internet so if you have wifi setup in your home your good to go only thing that would have a charge is if you sign up for the expanded fax service
Riemann Zeta
Apr 3, 11:36 AM
I thought Lion was supposed to have real full OpenGL 3.x support. However, OpenGL Extensions Viewer (GLView from Realtech) still reports that GLSL 1.3 is not supported, meaning that OpenGL 3.0 is 95% implemented, which is the same as Snow Leopard. Perhaps Apple hasn't yet added full OGL support to the betas? Does anyone have a Lion system with full OpenGL 3.0 implemented?
This is on a 2010 MBP with an NVIDIA 330M, by the way.
This is on a 2010 MBP with an NVIDIA 330M, by the way.
more...
fr4c
Dec 25, 05:50 PM
Are those Sprinkles (http://www.sprinkles.com/) cupcakes?!
If I'm not mistaken, those are Georgetown Cupcakes!
Red Velvet... yumm
If I'm not mistaken, those are Georgetown Cupcakes!
Red Velvet... yumm
R94N
Oct 16, 06:09 AM
Nice!
more...
ghostlyorb
Apr 29, 07:34 AM
once people get to upgrade their phones... iPhone will be #1 on verizon.
Grade
Apr 3, 05:04 PM
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9607/screenshot20110402at354.png
Can you please share the link?
Can you please share the link?
FX4568
Apr 4, 09:27 PM
I dont even know why people are complaining about the AT&T mobile merge.
Seriously, VZ stocks actually had a higher yield because of the merging than ATT.
The deal will pass, you know why? It actually somehow benefits more Verizon rather than ATT. Also, ATT is a private company, they have all the right to acquire another company.
Now if ATT acquired VZ (hahah which might be never) that would cause a monopoly but seriously monopolies arent that bad.
Everyone that lives in the "free world" is so entrenched in the idea that monopolies have the right to blow prices out of the water but they cant... and it is a fact.
Anyways, ATT will spend more money trying to merge differences between staff and other stuff, deciding how to merge the different cultures (since ones a German the other is American), and spending up to 8 billion dollars just in switching to the Tmobile towers. (good luck with that)
Verizon could equal the size of AT Tmobile if 1/8 people switched out from the merge. Which probably 1/16 will. I mean, why wouldnt they?
Only reason why ATT has managed to live for the past 3 years is because of the iphone.
In conclusion: ATT sucked, sucks, and will suck.
Seriously, VZ stocks actually had a higher yield because of the merging than ATT.
The deal will pass, you know why? It actually somehow benefits more Verizon rather than ATT. Also, ATT is a private company, they have all the right to acquire another company.
Now if ATT acquired VZ (hahah which might be never) that would cause a monopoly but seriously monopolies arent that bad.
Everyone that lives in the "free world" is so entrenched in the idea that monopolies have the right to blow prices out of the water but they cant... and it is a fact.
Anyways, ATT will spend more money trying to merge differences between staff and other stuff, deciding how to merge the different cultures (since ones a German the other is American), and spending up to 8 billion dollars just in switching to the Tmobile towers. (good luck with that)
Verizon could equal the size of AT Tmobile if 1/8 people switched out from the merge. Which probably 1/16 will. I mean, why wouldnt they?
Only reason why ATT has managed to live for the past 3 years is because of the iphone.
In conclusion: ATT sucked, sucks, and will suck.
wingnut8
Oct 9, 03:06 PM
I was a Tweetie user before I tried Twittelator Pro. Not sure if I want to switch back or not.
jsw
Feb 12, 02:29 PM
All four new moderators have proven to be excellent forum members, providing help to other members, sharing their experience, and being of service to the MacRumors community.
Oh, sure, like we could disagree with that statement and get away with it now. ;)
Welcome (to your new positions), all new mods! With great power comes great... er, ability to help us all. I look forward to many years of Pax Moderatora.
PS Forgot: All hail our new Moderator overlords!
** bows **
Oh, sure, like we could disagree with that statement and get away with it now. ;)
Welcome (to your new positions), all new mods! With great power comes great... er, ability to help us all. I look forward to many years of Pax Moderatora.
PS Forgot: All hail our new Moderator overlords!
** bows **
Multimedia
Jul 26, 11:28 PM
That would work--when I get a MBP (D2C). My current 'book has S video and 1/8" audio out, which was fine three years ago. I currently run component from my HD sat receiver to the plasma, optical to my HT system and HDMI from the HT to the plasma. I like Multimedia's idea of using an EyeTV DVR and a Mac Mini I have sitting in the play room. I've got DVR on my standard sets upstairs and it's quite addicting.
Multimedia--thanks for reminding me about the ElGato systems. My wife and I were just talking about upgrading the HD receiver to a DVR but for the same price I can own the EyeTV DVR and use my Mac Mini with it.Well I guess you should check your luck with a Terk TV5 off air antennae direct connect to your Digital TV tuner to confirm you can receive decent HDTV Broadcast signals before buying the EyeTV 500.
Multimedia--thanks for reminding me about the ElGato systems. My wife and I were just talking about upgrading the HD receiver to a DVR but for the same price I can own the EyeTV DVR and use my Mac Mini with it.Well I guess you should check your luck with a Terk TV5 off air antennae direct connect to your Digital TV tuner to confirm you can receive decent HDTV Broadcast signals before buying the EyeTV 500.
Truffy
Nov 12, 02:12 AM
...solutions like Badaboom...
I though you were taking the piss out of Steve "Boom!" Jobs for a moment there, until Google showed it to be far more prosaic. :o
I though you were taking the piss out of Steve "Boom!" Jobs for a moment there, until Google showed it to be far more prosaic. :o
MattZani
Apr 7, 05:50 PM
Since I'm 17 next month, I'll be going for a black 5 door corsa sxi!
http://pictures2.autotrader.co.uk/imgser-uk/servlet/media?id=1596984759
http://pictures2.autotrader.co.uk/imgser-uk/servlet/media?id=1596984628
I love the new corsas so much!
You'll be getting one?!?
Firstly, thats ridiculous
Secondly, the Fiesta looks way better ;)
http://pictures2.autotrader.co.uk/imgser-uk/servlet/media?id=1596984759
http://pictures2.autotrader.co.uk/imgser-uk/servlet/media?id=1596984628
I love the new corsas so much!
You'll be getting one?!?
Firstly, thats ridiculous
Secondly, the Fiesta looks way better ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment