Apple's purchase of PA Semi may yield not just API tweaks but real products.
Reportedly reliable sightings of Apple MacOS X-running tablet computers combines with production rumors suggesting a February 2010 launch window of a device powered by PA Semi processors to emphasize that Apple's cross-platform Cocoa frameworks offer Apple flexibility other vendors lack.
Apple's work during the Intel transition to move developers from processor-dependent coding and onto platform-independent frameworks places Apple in the enjoyable position of being able to nimbly migrate hardware across architectures without necessitating a revolution in software development. Software is the key to platform success. The ability to shift hardware architectures without disturbing the kind or quality of available software is so badass as a competitive advantage that it's hard to imagine trying to compete with Apple in hardware. Apple can sell the cheapest, best-performing hardware and customers won't know the difference except by the price and the performance.
For Dell (or HP, or Acer, or ...) to shift architectures, it first needs to replace its operating system with one that will support its new target platform – something in which it may get little help from its principal operating system vendor. Even were Dell to move to Linux – The Jaded Consumer assumes Linux will eventually reach a point that its UI will allow the majority of users to accept it as a principal operating system – the inability of applications written for Linux to readily move between platforms (it's possible, but requires careful platform-independent coding practices that might not be natural to x86 developers) prevents Dell from shipping any hardware it pleases. Moreover, Linux has no mechanism for delivering applications that sense at launch time what platform they're running on and behaving properly in response; one would apparently need platform-specific versions of applications.
Apple makes it look so easy ....
Assuming Apple delivers a slick notepad powered with low-energy PA Semi hardware, and offers kick-butt battery life at a reasonable price, Apple may make notepads a real market.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
ACAS Profits From Sale of Unidentified Portfolio Company
ACAS' recent press release was sparse on details, but described (a) realization of $16m gain and (b) receipt of $37m in proceeds when (c) it exited a portfolio company at 4% ($1.5m) above last quarter's FAS-157-compliant and SEC-reported fair value.
As a shareholder who became interested in ACAS when NAV was north of $30, it's not particularly heartening to hear about sales within 4% of a fair value that places NAV at less then $8. On the other hand, the fact is that ACAS needs cash to retire debt and to enter high-value distressed situation deals that will pay off in the long run. We need more of that 30% return on equity and less of the more modest returns.
So, what was the mystery portfolio company exited? The last quarterly report is some help. It's not Avalon Laboratories Holding Corp. (last valued at $34.8m); that one was carried far enough below cost ($64.4m) that its exit would not result in a realized gain. (Since the footnotes show its debt to be pledged as collateral, and not in default or non-income-producing, the nearly $40m face value of 11% and 18% notes are good to keep holding – $1,484,750 per quarter good, in fact.) Edline LLC (basis $20.8m, last valued at $35m; investment consisted of debt and membership warrants) is close, but after a first glance does not quite fit. We're looking for something with a last-quarter value of $35.5 so that after a $1.5m markup we see $37m gross sales price. We're looking for a basis of $21m (to produce $16m gain on a $37m exit). We're looking for a company for which ACAS held debt to be repaid, and warrants to sell.
ACAS had a $21.0m basis in the convertible preferred stock of FAMS Acquisition, but this wasn't the whole investment (ACAS earns $980,500 per quarter on $26.5m face falue of FAMS debt, so this isn't bad not to lose). ACAS held $21.0m face value of Zencon Holdings Corp. debt, but its basis was $20.8m and the whole investment wasn't quite the right size. Still, continuing to hold Zencon is worth just over $1.08m/quarter when you add in the senior debt (senior and sub are both pledged as collateral, but neither are listed as nonperforming or non-income-producing). Close to the $35.5m fair value mark is ACAS' subordinated debt holdings of Core Financial Holdings LLC (13.7% on $39.9m face, valued at $36.5m), but the whole Core Financial investment had a value over $60m and a basis that would lead to a realized loss in a sale at "fair value" (though with $1,366,575 per quarter in interest, I'd think holding until "fair value" is more attractive is worthwhile). The fact is that a $35.5m fair value doesn't appear in ACAS' roster of holdings on June 30, 2009. Neither does a $21.0m whole-investment basis.
I can't spot the mystery company right off, but it's got to be there somewhere. I'm inclined to think the real answer is Edline LLC, with the wiggle room coming from things like accumulated interest and fees. If anyone has another idea, please post it :-)
The Bottom Line:
ACAS can raise money exiting investments. Despite multiples contraction, ACAS can even make exits at a profit.
Not-yet-exited investments include some attractively-performing, regularly-paying debt holdings. Patiently waiting for the market to turn around isn't too hard to imagine when the paying debt is considered, assuming non-accruals don't bloom past their current 20%-of-face-value position. Yes, 20% of face makes me shiver, too. Presumably ACAS is taking a terrible fee from non-performing debtors – PIK notes with nasty terms, or the like. One hopes.
The prospect that ACAS might use cash to retire debt below face value is attractive, but ACAS may want to keep large investors happy with ACAS so that on expiration they become buyers of future rounds of debt. Not sure what ACAS' strategy is in this regard. Definitely good to see ACAS able to accomplish exits, though.
Based on ACAS' dividend-paying requirements, ACAS would not need to pay another dividend for over a year, and even then only if in 2009 it had a taxable net income. I'm wondering whether ACAS will deliberately enter some net-loss transactions in order to be able to stave off cash dividend payments while shares are so far below NAV.
As a shareholder who became interested in ACAS when NAV was north of $30, it's not particularly heartening to hear about sales within 4% of a fair value that places NAV at less then $8. On the other hand, the fact is that ACAS needs cash to retire debt and to enter high-value distressed situation deals that will pay off in the long run. We need more of that 30% return on equity and less of the more modest returns.
So, what was the mystery portfolio company exited? The last quarterly report is some help. It's not Avalon Laboratories Holding Corp. (last valued at $34.8m); that one was carried far enough below cost ($64.4m) that its exit would not result in a realized gain. (Since the footnotes show its debt to be pledged as collateral, and not in default or non-income-producing, the nearly $40m face value of 11% and 18% notes are good to keep holding – $1,484,750 per quarter good, in fact.) Edline LLC (basis $20.8m, last valued at $35m; investment consisted of debt and membership warrants) is close, but after a first glance does not quite fit. We're looking for something with a last-quarter value of $35.5 so that after a $1.5m markup we see $37m gross sales price. We're looking for a basis of $21m (to produce $16m gain on a $37m exit). We're looking for a company for which ACAS held debt to be repaid, and warrants to sell.
ACAS had a $21.0m basis in the convertible preferred stock of FAMS Acquisition, but this wasn't the whole investment (ACAS earns $980,500 per quarter on $26.5m face falue of FAMS debt, so this isn't bad not to lose). ACAS held $21.0m face value of Zencon Holdings Corp. debt, but its basis was $20.8m and the whole investment wasn't quite the right size. Still, continuing to hold Zencon is worth just over $1.08m/quarter when you add in the senior debt (senior and sub are both pledged as collateral, but neither are listed as nonperforming or non-income-producing). Close to the $35.5m fair value mark is ACAS' subordinated debt holdings of Core Financial Holdings LLC (13.7% on $39.9m face, valued at $36.5m), but the whole Core Financial investment had a value over $60m and a basis that would lead to a realized loss in a sale at "fair value" (though with $1,366,575 per quarter in interest, I'd think holding until "fair value" is more attractive is worthwhile). The fact is that a $35.5m fair value doesn't appear in ACAS' roster of holdings on June 30, 2009. Neither does a $21.0m whole-investment basis.
I can't spot the mystery company right off, but it's got to be there somewhere. I'm inclined to think the real answer is Edline LLC, with the wiggle room coming from things like accumulated interest and fees. If anyone has another idea, please post it :-)
The Bottom Line:
ACAS can raise money exiting investments. Despite multiples contraction, ACAS can even make exits at a profit.
Not-yet-exited investments include some attractively-performing, regularly-paying debt holdings. Patiently waiting for the market to turn around isn't too hard to imagine when the paying debt is considered, assuming non-accruals don't bloom past their current 20%-of-face-value position. Yes, 20% of face makes me shiver, too. Presumably ACAS is taking a terrible fee from non-performing debtors – PIK notes with nasty terms, or the like. One hopes.
The prospect that ACAS might use cash to retire debt below face value is attractive, but ACAS may want to keep large investors happy with ACAS so that on expiration they become buyers of future rounds of debt. Not sure what ACAS' strategy is in this regard. Definitely good to see ACAS able to accomplish exits, though.
Based on ACAS' dividend-paying requirements, ACAS would not need to pay another dividend for over a year, and even then only if in 2009 it had a taxable net income. I'm wondering whether ACAS will deliberately enter some net-loss transactions in order to be able to stave off cash dividend payments while shares are so far below NAV.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Apple Open-Sources Key New API
Apple's new operating system Snow Leopard contains several new technologies for allowing programmers to better utilize modern hardware. Remember the bad old days, when you thought about maybe buying a multiple-processor system or a system with more than one core, and you were told that whether you derived any benefit from the extra processors would depend significantly on acrobatics taken by developers to be aware of what you have and to use the resources properly? Them days are numbered. The assault has begun in earnest. Apple attacks the problem with two tools it's opened to the world.
OpenCL: OpenGL for Non-Graphics Applications (delivers cross-platform hardware acceleration)
One, OpenCL, was opened to the public when it was submitted as an open standard, and has the backing of graphics card vendors whose hardware would become more valuable if developers were to find more demand for their products. OpenCL is a generic language for allowing applications that aren't strictly-speaking graphics applications to take advantage of the extremely powerful GPU hardware commonly found in quality computers, offloading from the CPU computations that are well-suited to GPUs. OpenCL allows programmers to access computational hardware resources in parallel without having to understand what hardware will be available at runtime, which vendor will supply GPU hardware, how many processors will be available, and so on; it promises to be like OpenGL for non-graphics applications, allowing hardware acceleration of computations without foreknowledge of hardware specifications. To the extent high-end GPU hardware were frequently leveraged by non-graphics applications and would speed ordinary programming logic, they could become non-optional equipment in a broader class of machine. A graphics OEM win. Also, because OpenCL applications make better use of available high-end Apple hardware, a win for Apple.
Grand Central Dispatch: All The Benefit of Multithreading Without The Bother Of Unnecessarily Numerous Threads
Apple's other major technology for allowing computers to better utilize available hardware, Grand Central Dispatch, has just been open-sourced. This means two things: first, Apple wants to make projects commonly ported to MacOS from other environments (*cough*penguins*cough*) capable of enjoying Apple's new CPU-saturation technology. If technology is broadly accepted to allow CPU saturation without advance knowledge of system load or system capacity, and permits programmers to use fewer system resources because work can be divided among work units without the overhead of a thread for each of the work units, porting applications to MacOS without performance degradation will become better. Moreover, use of MacOS as a development platform will become more attractive because the tools for making widely-used Unix tools (*cough*Apache or Perl or Python or Ruby or your favorite Go program*cough*) perform better on Macs will be broadly available on all Unix platforms. (In the case of Apache, it will become trivial to performance-tune the job thread count under GCD, as GCD will make decisions about thread counts in well-written GCD-enabled applications; parallelizing Go calculations or the like will be a snap.) As Macs become a development platform of choice (which from anecdotal evidence isn't entirely crazy), applications for Macs get better and better. Second, Apple is making LLVM – which already offers smaller executables and better execution speed than is sometimes available in the open-source gcc compiler – even more attractive to developers. Apple has had to maintain its own fork of GCC because the compiler project's maintainers (which include some folks hostile to proprietary software vendors like Apple) have different goals than Apple. Migrating to LLVM frees Apple from the maintenance overhead of synchronizing a fork with an actively-developed main branch (as OpenBSD experienced after incorporating ProPolice into the compiler for security, causing it to be "stuck" with a GCC fork based on more primitive versions than those in use on other platforms; as of September 2009, OpenBSD ships patched versions of Gcc 2.95.3 and 3.3.5, whereas the GCC project offers updates through version 4.3.4; OpenBSD also ships a version of Apache 1.3 rather than one of the Apache Project's own successor versions).
By helping make LLVM the wave of the future – that is, by enabling LLVM developers to leverage things like Grand Central Dispatch on all target platforms – Apple decreases its maintenance overhead by joining forces with a compiler project that isn't actively hostile to Apple's development plans. Apple also increases the potential code base that easily ports to Apple's platform with built-in resource-saturation adaptations. Further, Apple simultaneously increases the potential quality of compilers available to its developers. (As the OpenBSD team commented, the GCC tool chain has some shortcomings and can profitably use competition.)
By opening the source of Grand Central Dispatch in an LLVM release, Apple advances a programming model that serves to improve the quality of code that will be available to run on Apple's machines, while promoting a software development tool chain with a potentially interesting future not only on Apple's platform but on other Unix and Unix-like platforms (*cough*penguins*cough*). Promoting Unix-like systems increases both the demand for such systems and the availability of those who would support them, which is of course a win for Apple (as a leading vendor of such systems). Performance improvements that can be derived by developers of Mac products simply by recompiling on the new tool sets will enable a generation of performance updates that benefit both consumers and their software vendors.
Open-sourcing GCD is a win for Apple and the C-coding Unix world.
UPDATE: HardMac reports an example of real-world performance improvements experienced by an application developer adding OpenCL and GCD to an application. Offloading decoding work to the GPU with OpenCL decreased CPU use in decoding, and improving processor saturation of encoding with GCD drove multiprocessor encoding from 100% (saturating a CPU) to 130% (effectively balancing load at least some of the time). Frame-rate performance increased 44% on the same hardware. Universally multiprocessor hardware (especially considering the proliferation of coprocessors like GPUs, DSPs, and network interface hardware accelerators) enables GCD and OpenCL to differentiate applications from competitors on platforms that don't offer similarly elegant means to access diverse hardware that is unknown until runtime.
OpenCL: OpenGL for Non-Graphics Applications (delivers cross-platform hardware acceleration)
One, OpenCL, was opened to the public when it was submitted as an open standard, and has the backing of graphics card vendors whose hardware would become more valuable if developers were to find more demand for their products. OpenCL is a generic language for allowing applications that aren't strictly-speaking graphics applications to take advantage of the extremely powerful GPU hardware commonly found in quality computers, offloading from the CPU computations that are well-suited to GPUs. OpenCL allows programmers to access computational hardware resources in parallel without having to understand what hardware will be available at runtime, which vendor will supply GPU hardware, how many processors will be available, and so on; it promises to be like OpenGL for non-graphics applications, allowing hardware acceleration of computations without foreknowledge of hardware specifications. To the extent high-end GPU hardware were frequently leveraged by non-graphics applications and would speed ordinary programming logic, they could become non-optional equipment in a broader class of machine. A graphics OEM win. Also, because OpenCL applications make better use of available high-end Apple hardware, a win for Apple.
Grand Central Dispatch: All The Benefit of Multithreading Without The Bother Of Unnecessarily Numerous Threads
Apple's other major technology for allowing computers to better utilize available hardware, Grand Central Dispatch, has just been open-sourced. This means two things: first, Apple wants to make projects commonly ported to MacOS from other environments (*cough*penguins*cough*) capable of enjoying Apple's new CPU-saturation technology. If technology is broadly accepted to allow CPU saturation without advance knowledge of system load or system capacity, and permits programmers to use fewer system resources because work can be divided among work units without the overhead of a thread for each of the work units, porting applications to MacOS without performance degradation will become better. Moreover, use of MacOS as a development platform will become more attractive because the tools for making widely-used Unix tools (*cough*Apache or Perl or Python or Ruby or your favorite Go program*cough*) perform better on Macs will be broadly available on all Unix platforms. (In the case of Apache, it will become trivial to performance-tune the job thread count under GCD, as GCD will make decisions about thread counts in well-written GCD-enabled applications; parallelizing Go calculations or the like will be a snap.) As Macs become a development platform of choice (which from anecdotal evidence isn't entirely crazy), applications for Macs get better and better. Second, Apple is making LLVM – which already offers smaller executables and better execution speed than is sometimes available in the open-source gcc compiler – even more attractive to developers. Apple has had to maintain its own fork of GCC because the compiler project's maintainers (which include some folks hostile to proprietary software vendors like Apple) have different goals than Apple. Migrating to LLVM frees Apple from the maintenance overhead of synchronizing a fork with an actively-developed main branch (as OpenBSD experienced after incorporating ProPolice into the compiler for security, causing it to be "stuck" with a GCC fork based on more primitive versions than those in use on other platforms; as of September 2009, OpenBSD ships patched versions of Gcc 2.95.3 and 3.3.5, whereas the GCC project offers updates through version 4.3.4; OpenBSD also ships a version of Apache 1.3 rather than one of the Apache Project's own successor versions).
By helping make LLVM the wave of the future – that is, by enabling LLVM developers to leverage things like Grand Central Dispatch on all target platforms – Apple decreases its maintenance overhead by joining forces with a compiler project that isn't actively hostile to Apple's development plans. Apple also increases the potential code base that easily ports to Apple's platform with built-in resource-saturation adaptations. Further, Apple simultaneously increases the potential quality of compilers available to its developers. (As the OpenBSD team commented, the GCC tool chain has some shortcomings and can profitably use competition.)
By opening the source of Grand Central Dispatch in an LLVM release, Apple advances a programming model that serves to improve the quality of code that will be available to run on Apple's machines, while promoting a software development tool chain with a potentially interesting future not only on Apple's platform but on other Unix and Unix-like platforms (*cough*penguins*cough*). Promoting Unix-like systems increases both the demand for such systems and the availability of those who would support them, which is of course a win for Apple (as a leading vendor of such systems). Performance improvements that can be derived by developers of Mac products simply by recompiling on the new tool sets will enable a generation of performance updates that benefit both consumers and their software vendors.
Open-sourcing GCD is a win for Apple and the C-coding Unix world.
UPDATE: HardMac reports an example of real-world performance improvements experienced by an application developer adding OpenCL and GCD to an application. Offloading decoding work to the GPU with OpenCL decreased CPU use in decoding, and improving processor saturation of encoding with GCD drove multiprocessor encoding from 100% (saturating a CPU) to 130% (effectively balancing load at least some of the time). Frame-rate performance increased 44% on the same hardware. Universally multiprocessor hardware (especially considering the proliferation of coprocessors like GPUs, DSPs, and network interface hardware accelerators) enables GCD and OpenCL to differentiate applications from competitors on platforms that don't offer similarly elegant means to access diverse hardware that is unknown until runtime.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
On The Purpose of Snow Leopard
Piper Jaffray's Gene Munster reportedly believes Apple's new operating system release is a reaction to MSFT's impending Windows 7 release, and represents only a "minor upgrade". Jaffray's evidence on the latter point seems to be the release's low price tag and the fact the release is "without many significant new features."
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Snow Leopard is a developer-targeted release. Snow Leopard is a major new release: it introduces kernel changes that break kernel extensions that don't rely on officially-supported kernel interfaces, in the process freeing Apple to refactor ancient code Apple dared not change lest it break some third-party developer's code. Apple offers improvements (facilitating among other things load balancing and use of coprocessors) to its programming environment, including support for technologies that make it easier to leverage (by which I mean deliver practical access to) the power in Apple's existing and future hardware. The fact that there is little eye-candy to differentiate the interface from Leopard was certainly capitalized upon by Apple when Bert Serland introduced the release to developers last year (advertising "0 New Features"), the truth is that Apple is full of newness. 64-bit code not as a supported extra but throughout the system, and with this code comes improved access to registers and security enhancements. (Yes, Apple has taken steps to ensure that it doesn't continue blithely to ignore security going forward. The new MacOS security chief ensures the task is given someone's full attention, and some excitement.) Among the benefits of Apple's iPhone work is serious concern about resource management: Snow Leopard is smaller and faster than its predecessor.
If Snow Leopard is all that, why is Snow Leopard priced at a measly $29? The answer is simple. Snow Leopard is a developer-targeted release. For developers to gain the benefit of Snow Leopard (and for Apple to shed the burden of the problems raised by older systems), the customer base of older operating systems needs to take on a trajectory of decline so stark as to make it uninteresting as a development target. If Apple had half its users on old operating systems, advice to upgrade or buy a new machine would sound callous. With only fringe nuts avoiding upgrade (and G5 owners; Snow Leopard is Intel-only), and only obsolete hardware standing as an obstacle to upgrade (Apple has been in Intel vendor for several years now), Apple and its developers would be forgiven for saying "sorry, Snow Leopard only beyond this point."
The benefit to Apple is as great as to developers. Apple gets to showcase machines that seem fast. Applications written without awareness of Apple's new technologies will not take optimal advantage of the hardware Apple ships, and users can face interface delays while things are calculated in the foreground application. Not cool. Anyone who's suffered interface glitches on the iPhone realize how jarring it is to burst the illusion of swiping text and pictures around with one's fingers. Slick new machines that ignore your input are a disappointment. Apple wants people to be impressed, and use of the new tools promises to provide a better experience -- and make Apple's products so much nicer to use.
From the developer's standpoint, getting an API that figures out how to handle your multithreading on the fly based on what things can be done independently of each other (because the code uses blocks) with awareness of the state of the entire system and all its resources and currently running tasks ... just too cool. Think of the time saved not trying to work out application-specific multithreading behavior, and testing it on plausibly available customer system configurations. Getting more performance out of an application is just too cool an opportunity to miss -- especially in performance-demanding applications like high-frame-rate action games. And Apple is definitely selling its platform to developers as a gaming target. Considering the fraction of all notebook sales that are Macs, and the fraction of all high-end desktops that are Macs, it's not unrealistic to think Apple might have a chance at serious traction there.
AppleTV as a game console, down the road?
Shocking.
Snow Leopard may not make a big splash in this quarter's bottom line -- several cents, but not several dimes -- but it is a strategic play for Apple's future. Snow Leopard places Apple on track to obsolete technologies Apple wishes to stop maintaining, modernize software long frozen by compatibility concerns, show developers how to more easily leverage the diverse array of coprocessors and extra processing cores typically found on Apple hardware, and avoid the embarrassment of security issues fostered by things like old hard-to-maintain code designed before security was a concern and hardware that didn't support execute-disablement. Snow Leopard is too important for Apple to allow not to be installed as broadly as possible.
Apple's next operating system may have some interesting things -- a modern filesystem, full resolution independence, support from novel network services, support for users who want to carry their home folders with them from computer to computer -- but this operating system delivers what Apple needs to get into users' hands now to make sure developers aren't lulled into thinking the future isn't coming quickly.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Snow Leopard is a developer-targeted release. Snow Leopard is a major new release: it introduces kernel changes that break kernel extensions that don't rely on officially-supported kernel interfaces, in the process freeing Apple to refactor ancient code Apple dared not change lest it break some third-party developer's code. Apple offers improvements (facilitating among other things load balancing and use of coprocessors) to its programming environment, including support for technologies that make it easier to leverage (by which I mean deliver practical access to) the power in Apple's existing and future hardware. The fact that there is little eye-candy to differentiate the interface from Leopard was certainly capitalized upon by Apple when Bert Serland introduced the release to developers last year (advertising "0 New Features"), the truth is that Apple is full of newness. 64-bit code not as a supported extra but throughout the system, and with this code comes improved access to registers and security enhancements. (Yes, Apple has taken steps to ensure that it doesn't continue blithely to ignore security going forward. The new MacOS security chief ensures the task is given someone's full attention, and some excitement.) Among the benefits of Apple's iPhone work is serious concern about resource management: Snow Leopard is smaller and faster than its predecessor.
If Snow Leopard is all that, why is Snow Leopard priced at a measly $29? The answer is simple. Snow Leopard is a developer-targeted release. For developers to gain the benefit of Snow Leopard (and for Apple to shed the burden of the problems raised by older systems), the customer base of older operating systems needs to take on a trajectory of decline so stark as to make it uninteresting as a development target. If Apple had half its users on old operating systems, advice to upgrade or buy a new machine would sound callous. With only fringe nuts avoiding upgrade (and G5 owners; Snow Leopard is Intel-only), and only obsolete hardware standing as an obstacle to upgrade (Apple has been in Intel vendor for several years now), Apple and its developers would be forgiven for saying "sorry, Snow Leopard only beyond this point."
The benefit to Apple is as great as to developers. Apple gets to showcase machines that seem fast. Applications written without awareness of Apple's new technologies will not take optimal advantage of the hardware Apple ships, and users can face interface delays while things are calculated in the foreground application. Not cool. Anyone who's suffered interface glitches on the iPhone realize how jarring it is to burst the illusion of swiping text and pictures around with one's fingers. Slick new machines that ignore your input are a disappointment. Apple wants people to be impressed, and use of the new tools promises to provide a better experience -- and make Apple's products so much nicer to use.
From the developer's standpoint, getting an API that figures out how to handle your multithreading on the fly based on what things can be done independently of each other (because the code uses blocks) with awareness of the state of the entire system and all its resources and currently running tasks ... just too cool. Think of the time saved not trying to work out application-specific multithreading behavior, and testing it on plausibly available customer system configurations. Getting more performance out of an application is just too cool an opportunity to miss -- especially in performance-demanding applications like high-frame-rate action games. And Apple is definitely selling its platform to developers as a gaming target. Considering the fraction of all notebook sales that are Macs, and the fraction of all high-end desktops that are Macs, it's not unrealistic to think Apple might have a chance at serious traction there.
AppleTV as a game console, down the road?
Shocking.
Snow Leopard may not make a big splash in this quarter's bottom line -- several cents, but not several dimes -- but it is a strategic play for Apple's future. Snow Leopard places Apple on track to obsolete technologies Apple wishes to stop maintaining, modernize software long frozen by compatibility concerns, show developers how to more easily leverage the diverse array of coprocessors and extra processing cores typically found on Apple hardware, and avoid the embarrassment of security issues fostered by things like old hard-to-maintain code designed before security was a concern and hardware that didn't support execute-disablement. Snow Leopard is too important for Apple to allow not to be installed as broadly as possible.
Apple's next operating system may have some interesting things -- a modern filesystem, full resolution independence, support from novel network services, support for users who want to carry their home folders with them from computer to computer -- but this operating system delivers what Apple needs to get into users' hands now to make sure developers aren't lulled into thinking the future isn't coming quickly.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Student Bus Hijacking Resolved Bloodlessly
Disarmed by a fit football player, a fourteen-year-old girl was taken into custody without apparent injury to anyone after she drew a .380 semi-automatic to threaten bus-riding students whom she accused of teasing and bullying her. Video is available.
Bullying and teasing are both cruel, and also often overlooked or discounted. Some observe it's ironic that its victims are more likely to be caught retaliating than initial aggressors are for their instigating behavior (about which, The Onion has a take). Obviously, wielding firearms on a school bus is neither ideal nor likely to achieve effective bullying reduction: for would-be vigilantes there is worse bullying in incarcerated populations, and for those facing "justice" the message is surely lost behind the medium. However, it's possible that sober adults should exercise a bit of responsibility rather than abdicate solutions to the imaginations of outraged teens whose self-worth lays in ruins due to years of steady abuse.
Bullying and its sequelae are not a uniquely American problem. It likely derives from fundamental dynamics of social organizations, as it has analogs in other species that live in social groups, such as baboons. Fighting bullying is likely akin to creating an ideal government: it works against the instincts of many who would be subject to the rules but prefer to avoid their application. It's a problem that requires real study and not simply armchair quarterbacking by self-proclaimed experts. Imagine the improvement in the quality of life -- and worldview -- of future generations if we get a handle on bullying among youth.
Bullying and teasing are both cruel, and also often overlooked or discounted. Some observe it's ironic that its victims are more likely to be caught retaliating than initial aggressors are for their instigating behavior (about which, The Onion has a take). Obviously, wielding firearms on a school bus is neither ideal nor likely to achieve effective bullying reduction: for would-be vigilantes there is worse bullying in incarcerated populations, and for those facing "justice" the message is surely lost behind the medium. However, it's possible that sober adults should exercise a bit of responsibility rather than abdicate solutions to the imaginations of outraged teens whose self-worth lays in ruins due to years of steady abuse.
Bullying and its sequelae are not a uniquely American problem. It likely derives from fundamental dynamics of social organizations, as it has analogs in other species that live in social groups, such as baboons. Fighting bullying is likely akin to creating an ideal government: it works against the instincts of many who would be subject to the rules but prefer to avoid their application. It's a problem that requires real study and not simply armchair quarterbacking by self-proclaimed experts. Imagine the improvement in the quality of life -- and worldview -- of future generations if we get a handle on bullying among youth.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
ACAS Paying More Interest, Not Getting Squashed
Despite the headline, ACAS doesn't suddenly owe hundreds of millions to "defaulted" unsecured creditors. In exchange for an agreement to pay default interest rates, retroactive to March 30, 2009, ACAS gets agreement not to institute involuntary bankruptcy proceedings or other unhappy consequences.
ACAS has things to do with its recently-acquired cash. Curiously, some of the notes involved in the non-acceleration deal were due to mature in two days -- but presumably will entitle holders to the bonus interest.
So, how is confidence in ACAS' management on the street? For what it's worth, Zacks just ranked AGNC as a "#1" or "strong buy". With jobless claims falling and the economy ostensibly in recovery, might things be looking up for ACAS' diverse portfolio of businesses?
Let's see the operating income.
ACAS has things to do with its recently-acquired cash. Curiously, some of the notes involved in the non-acceleration deal were due to mature in two days -- but presumably will entitle holders to the bonus interest.
So, how is confidence in ACAS' management on the street? For what it's worth, Zacks just ranked AGNC as a "#1" or "strong buy". With jobless claims falling and the economy ostensibly in recovery, might things be looking up for ACAS' diverse portfolio of businesses?
Let's see the operating income.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Paid Transplants A Reality in America
If reports that 1500-2000 paid-for kidney "donations" occur in the U.S. annually, payment for organs is an undeniable reality in America.
Given the history in America of the effect of banning commerce in things for which definite demand exists, one wonders whether lawmakers will have the courage to develop policy based on the balance of interests rather than the political expedience of pushing puritanical proclamations on the public -- claiming that moral reasons exist to tell people they do not own their own bodies and cannot choose as they like what to do with them that does not harm third parties.
Given the history in America of the effect of banning commerce in things for which definite demand exists, one wonders whether lawmakers will have the courage to develop policy based on the balance of interests rather than the political expedience of pushing puritanical proclamations on the public -- claiming that moral reasons exist to tell people they do not own their own bodies and cannot choose as they like what to do with them that does not harm third parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)