And Richard Hamming's follow up in 1980: http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/Hamming.unreasonable.html

I didn't know about this, thanks!

While we are at it, there is also the 2009 paper: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data by Peter Norvig.

Apple seems to be targetting a whole different sector with this technology. See Cringley's take on this (http://www.cringely.com/2011/02/attack-of-the-minis/) about how this technology could go into data centers. Interesting move by Apple.

Oh, that's just Crazy Bob talking. If that had really been Apple's strategy, they wouldn't have alienated so many customers in the way they killed the xServe line last year. If they had really wanted to keep their toe-hold in that market, they wouldn't have said, "Let them eat mini Macs." I think it's simply the case that Apple's signature advantages in the consumer space don't translate into a 1U world, and they recognized that.

But on the other hand, it does work as a move by Intel...

A lot of people keep parroting Google's famous "fail quickly" model of encouraging innovation. But they seem to forget another well known fact: Apart from their core search product, Google has not produced another successful product. I think the two issues are related and a blind acceptance of Google's philosophy might be more harmful than good. Especially if your company does not have the kind of cash reserves that Google has.

You can't use Google to prove anything. You are not privy to their evaluation of success and failure. But don't feel bad, very few are.

What about GMail?

For that matter, what about Android?

Android was an acquisition

it wasn't that successful before the acquisition

So success defines innovation?

Paul Buchheit was an acquisition in a sense

Never thought that the word 'subaltern' would ever turn up in tech discussion. Good one. :)