Commentary: Apple's Switch Hit

By Joe Wilcox, BetaNews

June 27, 2002, 8:20 AM

Apple has been itching to get PC users switching.

In fact the company has big plans, starting with bringing PCs into the 30-plus Apple retail stores for byte-to-byte showdowns with Macs. Hell, reliable sources tell me Apple is seriously considering bringing Dell Computer models into the stores. I got to chuckle. On the way to my local Apple Store on June 16, 2002, some guy with Maryland vanity plates spelling out "Dell" pulled in front of me on Connecticut Ave.

My shopping experience at the Apple Store ended with a bang fit for anyone considering dumping a PC for a Mac. I got flagged for an exit poll about store satisfaction that clearly had potential PC switchers in mind. I practically gave the sweet old lady conducting the survey heart failure when I refused the 10 bucks, because it was a check instead of cash. "But the checks are perfectly good," she defended. Bless her heart for starting to chase me down the corridor outside the store waving the check in her hand. No thanks, dear.

Anyway, in mid June the company set up a Web site for potential PC switchers and launched a clever ad campaign featuring real people that gave their PCs the boot--and we're not talking the computer start-up process here--and moved to Macs. I've had a lot of fun ribbing Apple over the campaign, asking the public relations folks how the company convinced eight of the 10 people who switched to do the commercials.

OK, so they weren't amused.

But the ad campaign focuses a new light on the great PC vs. Mac debate, and that is worth further discussion. You got to ask why anyone would switch to the Mac right now, with some Windows XP PCs selling for about what it takes to buy lunch on Wall Street. Let's face it, most Macs give the majority of PC users sticker shock.

Apparently that's something that surprised Apple, and is one of the lessons learned from the exit polls, my sources tell me. That's why Apple is thinking of bringing PCs into the stores for side-by-side showdowns--to show the value of Macs. The exit polls apparently revealed that most PC buyers think of computers as appliances--like the fridge or toaster--certainly not something you have fun with. Because of this, they also tend to shop more on price. "Yeah, I'll take that Kenmore dryer and PC for 20-percent off, please." Mac enthusiasts apparently see their computers as toys for work and play; Macs are essential tools for them to get the job done right and have some fun in the process. Price isn't as much the issue.

Where's the Value?

I have to admit that demonstrating the value of Macs vs. PCs, regardless of the price gulf between them, is easier than it might initially seem. I picked up a G4 Cube nearly two years ago that runs Mac OS X fine, even though the computer packs only a 400MHz G4 processor and Apple ships systems at 1GHz. My two year-old PC, by contrast, is useless running Windows XP. The point: Macs have longer shelf life than PCs. Part of that comes from Apple's business model, which is less concerned with driving sales through constant upgrades than are the folks over at Intel or Microsoft.

So, sure, that Mac may cost more upfront, but you may be able to use it a helluva lot longer than a Windows PC. (Same applies to Linux, which might wring even more value out of old hardware than Mac OS.) Sure, my Cube doesn't rip CD music to MP3s using iTunes as fast as the 800MHz PowerBook, but for most stuff that ill-fated work-of-art computer is plenty zippy.

Another Mac value is the time saved maintaining the computer. Apple serves up Mac OS updates regularly and easy-to-install firmware updates, too. On the PC side, Microsoft has made things a little easier with Windows XP, which comes with an automatic update feature that also includes hardware drivers. But not all firmware updates are available for hardware and none for the PC's BIOS, which stores the computer's vital hardware settings.

Then there are all the little touches that demonstrate the Apple emphasis on quality. PCs or notebooks packing USB 1.1 ports tend to share the 12mbps (megabits per second) throughput among the devices. Macs typically serve up the full 12mbps per port. All Macs are 802.11b wireless ready, a feat no PC manufacturer has matched on Windows systems. So with a $99 AirPort card and any standard wireless base station--of course, you may want to consider Apple's $299 model--no cables are necessary for connecting to the home network or the Internet.

Macs are way easier to set up than PCs. The flat-panel iMac is a 10-minute set-up job, mostly to stop and awe at the computer. Three chords plug into the computer: Keyboard (mouse attaches to keyboard), speakers and power; a fourth is necessary for networking or modem if you don't use wireless. That flat-panel iMac evokes quality, by the way, right down to the rivets holding on the removable base panel. The 15-inch display on the flat-panel iMac is the best I've seen anywhere. It's digital, too, bright and crisp. Consider that when pricing, say, a cheaper Gateway PC with a less-quality flat-panel monitor. Desktop Macs set up almost as easy, particularly if using one of Apple's flat-panel monitors, which use a proprietary digital video connector that also delivers USB and power to the display. That means one cable, instead of three.

But one thing I really don't like about Macs is the information Apple forces you to fork over. You want to use Mac OS X, plan on giving Apple your name, address, phone number and other personals. That's required before you use the computer the first time, and I have yet to find a good way to disable this feature. Oh, and if you have to wipe the hard drive and start over, you get the pleasure of giving all that personal data again. I suppose it's all useful for gauging whether you're a PC user gone Mac.

Another problem is the cost of Microsoft Office for the Mac. Deals Microsoft cut with PC makers ensure that Office XP Small Business Edition is available on most Windows systems. No such bundling deal exists on Macs, so that's an extra $300 expense for some people. On the other hand, Office v. X for Mac OS X is in many ways superior to the Windows version. Better still, the file formats are interchangeable between the Mac and Windows versions of Office. No, really. It's true.

Microsoft's control over these file formats certainly has helped its Windows business. And it is interesting that Apple's most successful markets--consumers, education, graphic designers, content creators and Hollywood--are those where Office file formats aren't all that important.

Switch Me

OK. So I switched to a Mac--and back to a PC and back to a Mac and so on--about three-and-a-half years ago, right after Apple unveiled the second rev of the all-in-one iMac. I had debated picking up one of those beauties for a long time; a spontaneous holiday CompUSA purchase put one in the car and later on my desk. As a PC user who had persecuted Mac users for years--my wife is a graphic designer by trade--buying an iMac was a bold step.

Mac OS 8.5 charmed me more than did the iMac's clever and cute design. In fact, this surprised me, remembering how my wife and her fellow graphic designers labored under the weight of Mac OS 7.5's or 8.0's constant crashes. Apple's OS clearly wasted away Windows 98 SE and later Windows Me, but couldn't compete with Windows 2000 for robustness or stability. Then again, Windows 2000 couldn't run the majority of my daughter's educational games. Mac OS, on the other hand, offered the fine balance of being great for work and play.

Three months later I picked up a refurbished PowerBook and discovered the best portable on the market. I haven't bought a PC since, but I keep switching back and forth. One reason: The outrageous attitude die-hard Mac users have that all journalists are biased against Apple, or Macs. They make me really mad sometimes. The other: Mistakes Apple made with Mac OS X, such as no CD-RW or DVD support when the OS shipped in March 2001, and a shortage of usable applications.

So I'm Apple's worst nightmare--a switcher who won't stay switched.

It will be interesting to see if the eight people featured in Apple's ads on switching are still using Macs a year from now. Apple has been smart to focus on digital media applications iTunes 2, iDVD 2, iMovie 2 and iPhoto 1.1. Consumers are hot onto plugging cameras, camcorders and music players into their computers, many of which are not OS dependant. Apple has caught that trend and effectively used it against Windows. But for all the Mac's appeal, there are plenty of problems living in a Windows world. My daughter, for example, likes to play games online at Nickelodeon, but many require 3D or other browser plug-ins not available for Mac OS X. Then, there is the terrible streaming media situation. QuickTime is great, but most of the best content is either in Real or Windows Media formats. RealNetworks doesn't make a RealOne player yet for Mac OS X, and Windows Media Player for OS X only works with Internet Explorer 5.1 or 5.2. Sites like Launch, which serve up music videos in Windows Media format, still won't work with Mac IE.

It's no wonder Apple is pushing hard for open standards, like MPEG-4 for streaming audio and video. If no one company controls critical standards, like Microsoft and Office file formats, the competing field levels out more. Then the question might be, "Who wouldn't switch to a Mac?" Because who wouldn't want a Mac then? But in that case, the Mac wouldn't be cool anymore and Apple CEO Steve Jobs, or someone like him, would have to go and start another niche-player, trendsetting computer company.

Joe Wilcox has been covering technology since 1994 and now spends his days writing about Microsoft for CNET News.com. Joe can be found online at joewilcox.com.

Add a Comment (388 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By akamatsu

posted Jul 16, 2002 - 2:00 PM

Apple's New 1U servers: Sorry. Doesn't fit well in a market where the Dell 1550/1650 and
2550 and 2650 exist. Sorry. THEY DON'T PUBLISH SPEC numbers. Apple is a dying breed, I
just recently tried to revive my interest in them only to be disappointed. The Motorola
PPC architecture is embarrassingly slow, and they always are quick to point out the
near-useless Altivec and some obscure filter in Photoshop, but its not true. I have a Mac,
several PCs and a SPARC at *home*, so trust me people, this box is a bore. And OS X and
Open ClosedROM make putting regular memory, disks and CPU upgrades NEAR-IMPOSSIBLE, they
try to block it so you have to buy the same part from them 3x the cost. And the Dell 530
Dual P4-Xeon with SMT buries the fastest Mac by almost a factor of two.
OS X is no great shakes as of yet because even though most of the porting off of Classic
has been done, there are annoying remnants of classic everywhere, including a gamut of
Apple utilities. These are notoriously the worst Administrator-unfriendly boxes in the
industry, and I have used a few boxen in my time. OS X's Darwin kernel will be sorely
eclipsed by Linux 2.6, and 2.4.X is already superior in all the ways I can tell (This isnt
to say BSD it bad, but I dont think this OS demands a PREMIUM). I tried YellowDog, Madrake
and Debian on PPC as well, and they ran (even with aggressive G3 optimizations) rather
poorly - but interestingly far faster than native OS X.
This is a dying gasp of air from a dead Unix vendor, who has had to turn themselves into a
Microsoft VAR (most popular Mac Application: Microsoft Office X).
If you have an insatiable fetish for PPC, DON’T. Wait for Hammer. Remind yourself about
SMT, and 2.8GHz clock speeds before you go pay for obsolete/deprecated silicon. And the
term RISC? Pathetic.
I happily resell our product on a 1650 and 2650. We "configured" a Mac box
because we were genuinely curious. We laughed at the final price and moved on.
This isn’t a troll, or a flame – its reality. What this box does can be done with a 1650,
with redundant power supplies, with SCSI and hardware raid build ON BOARD, dual gigabit
NICs onboard, dual 1400 MHZ/512cache Tualatin (with SPEC numbers to gauge the performance
by) (2650 gets high clock Xeons), two 64bit/66Mhz slots, onboard video, console
redirection, USB, etc. And for half the price. And you can use retail Intel CPUs,(cheap),
retail hard drives (if you don’t want to buy the Dell ones at a modest premium), and
retail Crucial.com memory (the same memory Dell uses for Half the price). All in all, you
get a box, for half the price, with twice the features and performance. And this is coming
from a person who doesn’t even LIKE Dell. (I feel I can always build better more reliable
systems than most of the PC vendors.)
BBBBBBZT. Apple, you lost, you lost, you will always be niche because OS X isn't where it
needs to be – on an X86.

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 19, 2002 - 3:18 AM

Much sound and fury, deflated easily by

http://www.xinet.com/
look for the link "2002 Benchmarked Configurations"
and see how the XServe did against everyone else :-)

Score: 0

By wendor

posted Jul 19, 2002 - 7:18 PM

ROFL. Wrong as always.

Guess you missed the section title "TESTING DETAILS" on page 8 of the PDF version where it detailed that this was an extremely limited test dealing with ONLY ONE server application (FullPress 11.2) and ONLY Macintosh clients on an AppleShare network.

So how does that benchmark disprove ANY of his claims? He gave you real world comparisions in real world usage. The link you provided gave lab comparisions in the extremely narrow field of running AppleShare network software for Mac clients.

You really should read the information you link to before you post. It would haver saved you a lot of embarassment here just like it would have saved you a lot of embarassment when you claimed thqat Apple had made FireWire free. (you got real quiet on that one right about the time you read the licensing fee section of www.i394la.com huh?)

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Jul 10, 2002 - 12:09 AM

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/itoolsdotmac.html

I bet Microsoft will copy Apple again and come up with something like... ".NET"

''"I was shocked, to say the least," said one Mac developer who spoke with Think Secret on the condition of anonymity. "Can we possibly get used to this new, very confusing name?"''

Yes that dot before the name of the computer makes this very confusing.

fewt bring Victor back =)

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 19, 2002 - 3:56 AM

Mr Jobs in fact mentioned .NET as the inspiration for .mac, and then he showed web services that are already in place (as opposed to Corona, Palladium, etc.) or will be released in a few months' time. Citing technology agreements with Sony Ericsson and Cingular to start, Apple are proposing to simplify the task of synchronizing calendars across multiple devices (PalmOS, Bluetooth-enabled phones, iPod, etc.) using a program called iSync, which uses SyncML, an open industry standard (see http://www.syncml.org). For more info, see http://www.apple.com/isync

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jul 10, 2002 - 6:25 AM

LOL! You assume I even know who he is! (I don't)

Score: 0

By BetaLAW

posted Jul 8, 2002 - 3:14 AM

I am a PC person, have been since it's inception. I have learned and used every version of every piece of software that MS has released. As with all things human, there is always some good, and some bad. Unfortunately, the bad is now rather obvious. And that's a shame because their products are probably as good as they have ever been. And since I earn my living fixing MS problems I have had to keep up, or be left behind.

So, in the interst of keeping up I have numerous machines all running various different Operating Systems. All of the alternatives run on a Wintel platform, excpet OS X. I bought a new Mac to do that and it was expensive. But I have no regrets either.

Windows is a rich environment, the juggernaut has amassed an incredible array of software that no other OS can lay claim to. Is any of it "best" of class? I can offer only an opinion that really doesn't matter. Those who are mission crtical perhaps know, or at least have an opinion.

But since OS X is a Unix derivative it also should be able to claim a very diverse software library. If you count all uniux code, yes. If you count all carbonized unix apps, no. But the apps that are there are very adequate.

Apple has done a good job. The OS is very stable and has never crashed for me. Every X application I have runs smoothly. I have not had to read anything to figure out how it all works and all of my devices work as expected.

Interesting considering I must dual-boot my XP machine because my one year old Canon G1 digital camera is not supported in that environment. Canon claims otherwise, but I gave up trying to implement their solution after a day of frustration. On the Mac, I plugged in the USB cable and everything worked with no user intervention required. No drivers, software or fiddling around required.

Have I had any troubles with X, well it was a little awkward getting the MAC to talk to my Windows server, but, as with all things, once the trick is discovered it's easy. What don't I like about it? Well, as I said, it was a little expensive...

Have I switched, NO. That wouldn't be very realistic. Would I switch, NO. I am becoming platform independant and consider both to be worthy systems for pretty much any task.

Bottom line ... is political. I really don't like large corporations that clearly do not have my best interests at heart. I do not like intrusive methods that rely increasingly on legal mumbo-jumbo. Ever tried to comprehend any current MS EULA's? I'll bet that if you undertood it, you are a contract attorney. Do I need to have my attorney review this crap and advise me? Nope. If I can't understand it, I can't have it. These things give me the creeps.

Since I am still newish to Apple, I am prepared to give them the benefit of doubt. Only time will tell if that trust will be misplaced.

I rate OS X to be slightly advanced over XP but neither are great or horrible. Both are still new. Give em a few years. Maybe MS will come to their senses and return to the old ways. If not they are at risk of becoming the runner up.

But Apple has nothing to loose(5%market) so has boldly gone where no one has gone before. A very solid OS with a superb GUI for interface, now we wait to see if it catches on.

If you are in doubt, try it. It's rather nice. If you are not wealthy, stick to Windows, it's cheaper.

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 6, 2002 - 2:39 AM

On Dec. 13, 2001, Tim O'Reilly wrote in his weblog:
(http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/user/view/wlg/956)

"Microsoft patents "Digital Rights Management Operating System"

The patent abstract: "A digital rights management operating system protects rights-managed data, such as downloaded content, from access by untrusted programs while the data is loaded into memory or on a page file as a result of the execution of a trusted application that accesses the memory. To protect the rights-managed data resident in memory, the digital rights management operating system refuses to load an untrusted program into memory while the trusted application is executing or removes the data from memory before loading the untrusted program. If the untrusted program executes at the operating system level, such as a debugger, the digital rights management operating system renounces a trusted identity created for it by the computer processor when the computer was booted. To protect the rights-managed data on the page file, the digital rights management operating system prohibits raw access to the page file, or erases the data from the page file before allowing such access. Alternatively, the digital rights management operating system can encrypt the rights-managed data prior to writing it to the page file. The digital rights management operating system also limits the functions the user can perform on the rights-managed data and the trusted application, and can provide a trusted clock used in place of the standard computer clock." Need I say more?

He also provides a URL to several analyses of Palladium:
http://cryptome.org/ms-drm-os.htm

And from http://www.epic.org/priv...icrosoft/palladium.html

"The known elements of the Microsoft DRM system will control users and limit the abilities of computers. Microsoft has obtained approval for two patents (Digital Rights Management Operating System, No. 6,330,670 and Loading and Identifying a Digital Rights Management Operating System, No. 6,327,652) in December 2001 that contained many of the basic elements of Palladium. These patents provide the blueprints for the Palladium system--a system that establishes trust through control."

CONTROL. Remote. Trustworthy. Microsoft. LOL

Blue pill, or red pill?

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 5, 2002 - 7:04 PM

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 4, 2002 - 4:32 AM

I had insinuated that Microsoft was up to no good with .NET and Palladium, which are sometime in our computing future.

I was WRONG! If you recently downloaded and installed the latest security patch for Windows Media Player, you may have already been "rooted" by none other than Microsoft itself:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25956.html

How does it feel to have THEM poking around your disk? LOL

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 4, 2002 - 5:12 AM

For those who are too lazy to read the article linked to in the above post, here's the most relevant paragraph:

"Microsoft has just assumed the right to attack your computer and surreptitiously install code of its choosing. You will not be warned; you will not be offered an opportunity examine the download or refuse it. MS will simply connect remotely and install what it will, or install it secretly when you contact them."

Move along, nothing to see here... LOL

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 3, 2002 - 5:21 AM

Is Windows a Virus?

McAfee-Question : Is Windows a virus ?

No, Windows is not a virus. Here's what viruses do:

1. They replicate quickly - okay, Windows does that.

2. Viruses use up valuable system resources, slowing down the system as they do so - okay, Windows does that.

3. Viruses will, from time to time, trash your hard disk - okay, Windows does that too.

4. Viruses are usually carried, unknown to the user, along with valuable programs and systems. Sigh... Windows does that, too.

5. Viruses will occasionally make the user suspect their system is too slow (see 2) and the user will buy new hardware. Yup, that's with Windows, too.

Until now it seems Windows is a virus but there are fundamental differences: Viruses are well supported by their authors, are running on most systems, their program code is fast, compact and efficient and they tend to become more sophisticated as they mature.

So Windows is not a virus.

It's a bug.

LOL

Found at http://www.elsop.com/wrc/humor/bill_mic.htm

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Jul 3, 2002 - 10:12 PM

That's almost as funny yet not quite as accurate as:

M)achine
A)lways
C)rashes
I)f
N)ot
T)he
O)perating
S)ystem
H)angs

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 3, 2002 - 10:42 PM

I can tell from your riposte that you have not used MacOS X for any significant length of time. I've used every version of Windows, from 1.0 on an original IBM PC XT to XP Pro on a dual-PIII custom-built workstation, so I have the empirical basis to make comparisons between those platforms. And you?

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Jul 3, 2002 - 12:13 AM

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25966.html

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 3, 2002 - 2:17 AM

The flipside of this that Mr. 'kabuki' does not seem to be willing to share with our readership (perhaps he is ignorant of it) is that, back in the 1980's, Microsoft deliberately began to design its operating systems in such a way that application software from other vendors would NOT function properly, which led to the famous (or infamous) slogan "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run."

This was around 1985! SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO!

See
http://lists.essential.o...icy-notes/msg00020.html for background reading.

Has Microsoft changed its tactics since then?

Nope.

In the earlier phase of the current MS antitrust trial, MS representatives told Apple to "knife the baby" (QuickTime) as reported in this 1998 BBC story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi...ewsid_210000/210650.stm

THIS is the type of company that Mr. 'kabuki' would like to support: a predatory monopolist with 95% of the market, that wishes to foist the odious Palladium on us all by "embracing and extending" TCP/IP itself:

http://www.zdnet.com/anc...0,10738,2873149,00.html

In contrast, Apple (by no means perfect) at least seems to be embracing some open standards (surely not for altruistic reasons, but for survival, since it has such a small share of the market), and is also making some valuable proprietary technology it has developed (FireWire, ZeroConfig -- auto-discovery of TCP/IP services, QuickTime) available across multiple platforms -- FOR FREE.

MS-style tactics? By what STRETCH of the imagination?

You're grasping at straws, Mr. 'kabuki'. Try again.

If I come across as arrogant, it's because I'm passionately committed to the truth -- to discovering it, proclaiming it, and defending it from obfuscation by those who confuse truth with mere "opinions".

Score: 0

By wendor

posted Jul 5, 2002 - 11:42 AM

"...back in the 1980's, Microsoft deliberately began to design its operating systems in such a way that application software from other vendors would NOT function properly..."

Care to back that up with a little proof? or any evidence at all?

Let's look at some of the more propular examples from the headlines:

Real accuses Microsoft of modifying Windows Media Player in such a way as to intentionally break Realplayer. Real files suit in court and trumpets it in the press. Independent sources prove that it is actually a bug in Realplayer. Real drops the suit and fixes the bug. They do not issue any statements of apology or clarification.

Apple accuses Microsoft of engineering XP in such a way as to intentionally break Quicktime. It becomes a staple at Apple press conferences. When the fact is brought to light that Apple failed to make application changes that Microsoft had documented for them 6 months previously, an Apple spokesperson countered "It's anti-competitive that they modified the OS in such a way that applications have to be modified to still run". When a reporter asked how that was any different from the fact that applications from OS 9 have to be rewritten to run on OS X the spokesperson "declined to answer".

"In contrast, Apple (by no means perfect) at least seems to be embracing some open standards..."

Apparently you failed to notice that Microsoft preceded Apple in that department by a LONG way.

"...and is also making some valuable proprietary technology it has developed (FireWire, ZeroConfig -- auto-discovery of TCP/IP services, QuickTime) available across multiple platforms -- FOR FREE."

This part is just a blatant lie. (or total ignorance)

Firewire, for example, is not free on ANY platform. Any hardware manufacturer that wants to use Firewire must pay a licensing fee.
http://news.com.com/2100...220209.html?legacy=cnet
http://www.1394la.com/

So much for having made Firewire available for FREE.

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 5, 2002 - 4:34 PM

I had written
"...back in the 1980's, Microsoft deliberately began to design its operating systems in such a way that application software from other vendors would NOT function properly..."

You challenged:
Care to back that up with a little proof? or any evidence at all?

Try the ff. search terms in Google (use the quotes)
"Caldera vs. Microsoft"

or better yet, this editorial review on the book Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire

http://www.amazon.com/ex...292/104-1616331-0882321

Excerpt:
In the early 80's, Microsoft's Multiplan lost out to Lotus 1-2-3 in the marketplace. According to one Microsoft programmer, a few of the key people working on DOS 2.0 had a saying at the time that "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run." They managed to code a few hidden bugs into DOS 2.0 that caused Lotus 1-2-3 to breakdown when it was loaded. "There were as few as three or four people who knew this was being done," the employee said.

FEELING A LITTLE FOOLISH NOW?

You asserted:
"Firewire, for example, is not free on ANY platform. Any hardware manufacturer that wants to use Firewire must pay a licensing fee.
http://news.com.com/2100...9.html?legacy=cnet";

Your LINK, sir, is dated January 16, 1999. The LINK I gave in support of my statement is DATED MAY 30, 2002, or MORE THAN THREE YEARS NEWER THAN YOUR INFORMATION.

Here it is: http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17997.html

Here is the RELEVANT PARAGRAPH, since you seem not to have noticed it the first time I posted it in this forum:

"In January 1999, to many companies' chagrin, Apple changed the licensing for FireWire to approximately US$1 per port. Companies that were licensing the technology threatened to drop the FireWire name and instead adopt the "1394" naming convention. After a firestorm of controversy, Apple altered its licensing scheme once again, reducing the fee from $1 per port to a far more reasonable 25 cents per device.

Now, the company has eliminated the fee altogether for companies that want to license the FireWire name for use with products that contain FireWire ports."

Not to be content with that, I went to the primary source itself, Apple's CURRENT Firewire license agreement:

http://developer.apple.com/mkt/swl/agreements.html

Here's what it says, VERBATIM:

"The FireWire Logo is an Apple trademark and must be licensed for use by third-parties. There is currently no licensing fee."

THERE! ARE YOU FEELING PRETTY S-T-U-P-I-D RIGHT ABOUT NOW?

Do you like dredging up STALE or OUTDATED information as "proof" of your FALSE statemtents, or do you just like being made to look FOOLISH on the Internet? LOL

"So much for having made Firewire available for FREE."

SO MUCH FOR YOUR PATHETIC RESEARCH ABILITIES. LOL

Score: 0

By wendor

posted Jul 8, 2002 - 12:23 PM

"You challenged:
Care to back that up with a little proof? or any evidence at all?

Try the ff. search terms in Google (use the quotes)
"Caldera vs. Microsoft" "

Let's see, in Caldera -v- Microsoft, Caldera made a LOT of accusations.....absolutlely NONE of which were ever proven or upheld by the court.

"or better yet, this editorial review on the book Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire "

Oh wow, one man's opinion. I could cite a number of books that say that Microsoft did no such thing as well. All you have is the author claiming that a Microsoft employee told him something. He has no evidence or proof of it, and neither do you.

I asked for proof. Not the opinion of one guy who wrote a book. (People have written books claiming the world is flat too)

"FEELING A LITTLE FOOLISH NOW?"

Nope, but you're making youself look pretty foolish if the closest you can come up with for "evidence" is accusations made against Microsoft (but never proven) and the opinion of a single author (who can't even furnish any proof of his claims either).

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jul 8, 2002 - 12:30 PM

"Let's see, in Caldera -v- Microsoft, Caldera made a LOT of accusations.....absolutlely NONE of which were ever proven or upheld by the court. "

Ahh, but you neglect to share the reason why they were never proven in court. Microsoft payed Caldera to go away. What do you think would have happened if they hadn't accepted the offer? MS would have lost the case. They settled because they did not want another black eye during the abuse investigation. Your opinion doesn't count so spare us your sensless drivel.

Score: 0

By wendor

posted Jul 8, 2002 - 1:23 PM

"Your opinion doesn't count so spare us your sensless drivel. "

But that's exactly what you are offering when you say "Ahh, but you neglect to share the reason why they were never proven in court. Microsoft payed Caldera to go away. What do you think would have happened if they hadn't accepted the offer? MS would have lost the case. They settled because they did not want another black eye during the abuse investigation."

No proof of anything, just your opinion that because the case was settled out of court, it must mean that Microsoft was guilty.

Sorry, but I asked victor for PROOF ...... for EVIDENCE.

The Caldera -v- Microsoft case is not evidence of anything or proof of anything. Perhaps Microsoft chose to settle out of court, not because they were guilty, but just because it was cheaper to settle out of court than to pay the legal fees to fight it. No one but Microsoft, Caldera, and the judge know the answer because the settlement was private.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jul 8, 2002 - 1:27 PM

Why would Microsoft demand that the case be sealed if there was nothing to hide? Oh I know because they did nothing wrong! ROTFLMFAO!

Score: 0

By wendor

posted Jul 8, 2002 - 2:09 PM

Again, pure fewt opinion.

Come back when you have facts.

Remember, you're the one who just said "Your opinion doesn't count so spare us your sensless drivel."

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jul 8, 2002 - 7:43 PM

Here you go again, if they had nothing to hide they would not have had the case sealed. Fact in this case, not opinion.

Score: 0

By wendor

posted Jul 9, 2002 - 4:28 PM

Wow, if you think that requesting the records be sealed is legally equivalent to proof of guilt....you have a LOT to learn about the law.

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 19, 2002 - 4:03 AM

Wow, and if you think Sony paying Apple US$7,500 for the 1394 patents isn't practically equivalent to getting them for free, then you have a lot to learn about math. LOL

Score: 0

By wendor

posted Jul 19, 2002 - 7:23 PM

"Wow, and if you think Sony paying Apple US$7,500 for the 1394 patents isn't practically equivalent to getting them for free, then you have a lot to learn about math. LOL"

Ah, but you didn't say "practically equivalent to getting them for free". You said that Apple had made FireWire available for free.

Most people in here know enough math to know that
$7500 $0.

It doesn't matter how little they charged. If they charge at all, then it isn't free.

Try to worm out of it all you like. Bottom line is that your statement that Apple had made FireWire free was not true.

Score: 0

By wendor

posted Jul 19, 2002 - 7:27 PM

Looks like the HTML stripping tore up that sentence because of the symbols.

It should read "Most people in here know enough math to know that $7500 IS NOT EQUAL TO $0."

Bottom line is that you have now admitted that Apple still gets a fee for every new FireWire port on every device that uses one. That is *NOT* Free as you claimed.

Score: 0

By wendor

posted Jul 8, 2002 - 12:17 PM

Wow, the lawyers at http://www.1394la.com/ will be *SO* interested to know that Firewire is now free.

They seem to think that the patents are still valid and that they are still collecting the licensing fees.

"The FireWire Logo is an Apple trademark and must be licensed for use by third-parties. There is currently no licensing fee."

Please notice that your quote only dealt with the "Firewire name". Apple made the name free, they did *NOT* make the technology free.

"Here is the RELEVANT PARAGRAPH, since you seem not to have noticed it the first time I posted it in this forum:"

Yes, I noticed it....and it is completely irrelevant. It deals with Apple dropping th elicensing fee for the NAME. They still get a licensing fee for the TECHNOLOGY. You can build hardware that has a Firewire/1394 port (no matter which name you use) without paying a licensing fee.

There is no fee for the LOGO. The technology, however, does still have a licensing fee. (which gets collected by 1394la and paid pack to Apple)

So in answer, no I don't feel foolish at all. But you sure did make yourself look foolish.

Firewire/1394 is *NOT* free and Apple still gets licensing fees from it (www.1394la.com)

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 19, 2002 - 3:44 AM

You split hairs:
"There is no fee for the LOGO. The technology, however, does still have a licensing fee. (which gets collected by 1394la and paid pack to Apple)

Then you smugly declared:
"So in answer, no I don't feel foolish at all. But you sure did make yourself look foolish."

NOPE.

You blathered:
"Firewire/1394 is *NOT* free and Apple still gets licensing fees from it (www.1394la.com)";

Not so fast, smarty-pants.

Yes, there IS a license fee for the technology, and use of the trade name is free -- guess what, that's like Coca-Cola letting Pepsi using its trade names but not its secret formula (and what are trade names worth, right?).

So, how much is collected under the 1394 license today?

US$0.25 PER DEVICE. (from http://www.1394la.com/)

How much was paid to Apple by the original 1394 licensors?
"Sun and Texas Instruments were among the first licensees for 1394-along with Fuji Film, Molex, Philips and Sony-who paid a flat $7,500 royalty fee for Apple's 1394 patents.
(from http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG19990122S0013)

Is US$7,500 a burden for Sony et al? No, it's NOT free, but in relative terms, it might as well be -- that sum was used to buy lunch for the lawyers who signed the papers. ;-)

There is no such thing as a FREE lunch, after all.

You still want to argue about "free," smart boy? LOL

Score: 0

By wendor

posted Jul 19, 2002 - 7:39 PM

I love this one which is also a quote of yours from this forum:

"Oh, excuse me, you mean I'm SUPPOSED to ASSUME that you meant SOMETHING ELSE by what you WROTE?"

Funny, that seems to be exactly what you're saying now when you originally claimed that Apple has made Firewire available "... - FOR FREE" (you even capitalized it) and now you';re saying that it isn't free, but it's so cheap that it's practically free, almost free, just as good as free.

If you meant that Apple had made Firewire available to the industry inexpensively, then you should have said so. But you didn't. You said that they had made it available FOR FREE. You argued that there were "NO FEES" and that it was completely "FREE".

Now you suddenly switch to "almost free" and expect no one eher to see that you were wrong?

You said "Free"
I said "Not Free"

You now admit "almost free". Guess what...."almost free" is "not free" (just like I said)

Score: 0

By wendor

posted Jul 19, 2002 - 7:20 PM

"You still want to argue about "free," smart boy? LOL"

Yes. You said it was FREE. It is not. Plain and simple.

If it costs money (no matter how little) then it is *NOT* free.

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Jul 3, 2002 - 10:03 PM

"If I come across as arrogant"... It's because you are.

Did I ever say that Microsoft have never done anything of the sort? What the hell did you think "Apple adopting MS-style tactics" meant exactly? If they're adopting their tactics it obviously means that Microsoft has previously done similar things! So there is no stretch of the imagination, don't let your hatred of Microsoft cloud your views of what people have and have not said! All you seem to do is continually assume that I am in some way supporting everything that Microsoft does ... where have I said anything to that affect?

As for open standards, last time I checked several components of .NET were submitted to the standards board, which is a lot more than can be said for Sun and Java. That of course is not to say that Microsoft aren't doing this to benefit themselves, of course they are, they have a lot of shareholders that expect them to make more money.

Get off your high horse, I'm not supporting Microsoft but I am not running around like a headless chook whinging about Microsoft!

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 5, 2002 - 7:20 PM

"Get off your high horse"

I don't ride horses. Oh, excuse me, you mean I'm SUPPOSED to ASSUME that you meant SOMETHING ELSE by what you WROTE? I thought I wasn't supposed to do that? LOL

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 4, 2002 - 5:19 AM

"I am not running around like a headless chook whinging about Microsoft!"

That's because you're (pick one or more)
A) naive
B) ignorant
C) complacent
D) lazy

and I'm an arrogant prick -- but a well-read one, LOL

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Jul 4, 2002 - 7:35 PM

You may or may not be well-read, but you're definetely not very well informed if your quotes and backup's come from such reliable news sources as The Register!!!

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 5, 2002 - 3:10 AM

Now look who's whining like a headless chook -- it's like the pot calling the kettle black. In case you didn't notice, your own little clever item about "Apple adopting MS-style tactics" is from none other than The Register as well.

In other words, when it's YOU who are citing The Register, that particular source is deemed trustworthy. When it's me, then the source isn't trustworthy. Well, bright boy, which one is it, then?

Face it: you're in MASSIVE DENIAL about the liabilities of running Windows, and you can't stand to have it pointed out to you. LOL

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 5, 2002 - 3:17 AM

"you're definetely not very well informed if your quotes and backup's come from such reliable news sources as The Register!!!"

And MIT Technology Review, and the U.S. Federal Government Computer News, and Wired, and the Consumer Project on Technology, and.... do you want me to go on, or is your humiliation at this point not yet enough? LOL

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Jul 5, 2002 - 10:54 AM

I'm sorry... where did I mention that the news source I used was trustworthy? oh that's right, I didn't... you just made that up, I mean 'assumed'. I saw that on another web site and thought it was ironicle/funny so I cut and pasted it. You never argued the matter or asked me to produce a trustworthy source of information.

"Face it: you're in MASSIVE DENIAL about the liabilities of running Windows"
Please stop making things up, assuming, or whatever else it is that you do when you're not busy posting comments here, at times to yourself. I never said anything about the lack of or amount of liabilities of running Windows. I don't have any liabilities as a result.... if you do... that's you're issue... deal with it.

What are you going to make up next? Is it so unbelievable to you that someone could not like OS X? In that case you better go and tell your story to the author of this story... I'm sure you'll be able to recognise the source =) http://www.theregister.c...tent/archive/23531.html

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 5, 2002 - 7:30 PM

"Please stop making things up, assuming, or whatever else it is that you do when you're not busy posting comments here, at times to yourself."

Let me see if I understand the above CORRECTLY. I should stop making things up -- I don't make them up, I quote them from sources on the web, or relate my own experiences. I should stop assuming -- oh, so when you say "Get off your high horse" you mean I shouldn't ride horses at all, or just high ones? I don't ride horses, period. Oh, you mean now I have to assume that you meant something else, such as "Don't be such an arrogant prick!" But I thought I wasn't supposed to be assuming anything!

But the last part of your statement above is truly amazing. "whatever else it is that you do when you're not busy posting comments here, at times to yourself."

That's the rest of my life, including the photo assignment I just finished this morning. And I'm not making that up, just as I'm not lying about what I post here, which is more than I can say for some of the others who populate this forum, such as 'mrastudent' or Mr. 'wendor' or a certain mr. 'kabuki' who posted that Macs always crash and then offered no direct experience to back up his statement. LOL

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Jul 5, 2002 - 10:26 PM

Christ are you really that STUPID? I never said that your quotes were made up, I said your assumptions and your "what you thought I meant" are made up. If you don't understand "Get off your high horse", then you will not understand "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" etc etc, in which case I recommend you educate yourself a little more rather than spend all your time and effort in here.

"That's the rest of my life, including the photo assignment I just finished this morning. And I'm not making that up"
I didn't say you were making that up, there's you assuming things again.

"or a certain mr. 'kabuki' who posted that Macs always crash and then offered no direct experience to back up his statement."

It was a JOKE, (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=joke) look it up, hence why I said that you "windows is a bug" is almost as funny yet not quite as accurate as "M.A.C.I.N.T.O.S.H.".

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 6, 2002 - 1:08 AM

Move along, nothing to see here, except lamebrains. LOL

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 5, 2002 - 5:01 PM

"I'm sorry... where did I mention that the news source I used was trustworthy? oh that's right, I didn't... you just made that up, I mean 'assumed'.... You never argued the matter or asked me to produce a trustworthy source of information."

I never argued the matter? In response to your initial post, I go into detail about WHAT "MS-style' tactics are like, based on (a) information in the public domain that dovetails with (b) inside information I have about projects that were killed, from working at PC vendors such as IBM, DEC, and Compaq.

DEC was, prior to the Compaq takeover, the closest partner Microsoft had. Why? Because Dave Cutler, the chief architect of Windows NT, had been the chief software architect of VAX/VMS, DEC's minicomputer operating system. Without boring you with the details, of which I'm quite certain you're not interested in anyway, DEC had a very promising hardware and software internal project that was killed by DEC senior management, not because the product was unlikely to be profitable, but because of pressure from none other than Microsoft.

Unless you have insider information of the same nature, YOU HAVEN'T GOT A LEG TO STAND ON AS FAR AS YOUR CREDIBILITY IN REFUTING THESE CLAIMS IS CONCERNED.

"I never said anything about the lack of or amount of liabilities of running Windows. I don't have any liabilities as a result.... if you do... that's you're issue... deal with it."

ST-ST-STAMMERING...FROM... LACK OF CREDIBILITY? LOL

"Is it so unbelievable to you that someone could not like OS X?"

GEE, LOOK WHO'S MAKING THINGS UP NOW1 LOL

Read my post -- I said there are things I could cite that Apple could do to make OS X BETTER. My premise, however, is that OS X is BETTER than Windows, and I have provided an abundance of information, including links to articles that show how defects in Windows (IIS, for example) have caused, insurance companies to raise LIABILITY rates for companies using it, and for the Gartner Group to advise their clients to move their web apps off IIS and use Apache instead. Apache is standard with OS X; IIS runs on Windows only. I grow tired of repeating the same information over and over again in this forum, and providing the URLs, which I make sure are UP TO DATEe, unlike some of the people who like to provide LINKS TO OUT OF DATE INFORMATION (you know who YOU are). If you can't be bothered to check your information for both accuracy AND timeliness, fine. Stay ignorant. LOL

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Jul 5, 2002 - 10:31 PM

"ST-ST-STAMMERING...FROM... LACK OF CREDIBILITY? LOL "
Hardly, You came out with the claim that there are liabilities associated with running Windows. I don't have any, therefore yes, if you happen to, then it's your problem not mine. And just because you have had liabilities as a result of running Windows doesn't mean everyone else has had them as well.

"BETTER"
Better is subjective, surely someone of your obvious intellect should be able to grasp that? Defects in Windows... IIS? IIS is not Windows! Is Apache Linux? Is Tomcat Linux? Is gcc Linux?

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 5, 2002 - 6:18 PM

"Is it so unbelievable to you that someone could not like OS X?"

Is it so unbelievable to you that, once a person has tasted the pleasures of modern indoor plumbing, that they would not want to go back to a smelly, bug-infested outhouse? LOL

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Jul 5, 2002 - 10:36 PM

The comparisons you come out with fairly poor...

Is it so unbelievable to you that, once a person has listed to CD's and digital music in general (which is of much higher quality than vinyl), that they would not want to go back to vinyl?

You would be suprised just how many people refuse to drop vinyl for cd's, regardless of their superiority.

Now if you use this example to compare Windows to OS X, which I can imagine you doing, stop and ask yourself this, Should those people clinging onto vinyl not be able to do so just because there is something more superior out there for them?

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 6, 2002 - 1:13 AM

Only if they like having backdoors installed on their record players, er, computers. But hey, if you like that sort of thing, who am I to stop you? LOL

Move along, nothing to see here. ROTFL

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 3, 2002 - 10:48 PM

"If I come across as arrogant"... It's because you are"

Did I not say as much in the subject line "Why Victor is such an Arrogant Prick", or did that escape your notice, too, like so much else in the long history of Microsoft's business philosophy, of which Palladium is just the most recent manifestation? Do you remember 'Smart Tags'?

LOL

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 3, 2002 - 1:34 AM

Since when does a company with less than 5% of the market qualify as a monopolist? Even if further development of Logic Audio for Windows is discontinued, there is always Steinberg Cubase, Digidesign Protools, and Cakewalk, all of which have substantial market share on Windows. Apple's buyout of one company (among many that produce the same type of software), whose existing customer base is more than 65% Macintosh, and whose products were delayed in being ported to MacOS X, is a survival tactic -- to ensure its continued existence in a crucial niche market that might otherwise be lost to Windows as well. MS has no problems dominating ANY market category it wishes to, it only has problems letting anyone else share the playing field.

If you can't make the too-fine distinction between a twice-convicted predatory monopolist with 95% of the market, and a niche computer vendor with less than 5%, you are possibly more seriously deluded than I thought.

If at this juncture you still can't see that the choice ultimately boils down to

1. Subsidize a twice-convicted predatory monopolist with 95% of the market and no end in sight to its desire to control the Internet through Palladium, .NET, Smart Tags, etc.

2. Do NOT subsidize a twice-convicted predatory monopolist by using Linux, MacOS X, or some other non-Microsoft OS

then no amount of evidence, logical reasoning, or moral persuasion will suffice. So go on and continue subsidizing a predatory monopolist if you like, just don't expect the 5% who know better to think much of your reasoning ability.

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Jul 3, 2002 - 2:06 AM

I never said they qualified as a monopolist, those are your words not mine. I simply stated that Apple (seems) to be adopting MS-style tactics.... buy out company, cut out all other platforms from the distribution list.

"If you can't make the too-fine distinction between a twice-convicted predatory monopolist with 95% of the market, and a niche computer vendor with less than 5%, you are possibly more seriously deluded than I thought."

Tell me something, would you have remained quiet if it had been Microsoft doing this? I somehow doubt it, but yet you warrant your hypocrisy with the belief that determining wether or not an act is right or wrong depends on who is doing it! Apple are doing a 'bad' thing here, it is irrelevant how much market share they have! And you complain about my reasoning ability! ha!

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 3, 2002 - 3:20 AM

"buy out company, cut out all other platforms from the distribution list."

You know, you can't even get this one right. Here's MS style tactics for you, aka Monopoly 101:

1. Integrate key software components into core OS so that removal of components becomes difficult if not impossible; such components must displace or interfere with components of a similar nature from competing software vendors and even from Intel itself (DirectX, undocumented Win32 APIs, WMA)

In contrast, Apple and Real signed a gentleman's agreement not to interfere with each other's media players, and Real and Apple appear to both be supporting MPEG-4 going forward, as well as Macromedia Flash, etc., while MS wants to shut out everyone else from Windows Media

2. Use such integration and appropriate product bundling arrangements or giveaways to undercut all other existing products in the same market category (MS Money, MS IE)

Meanwhile, Apple licensed its in-house font technology, TrueType, to Microsoft -- which must have angered Adobe, one of Apple's key independent software developers and a leading digital type foundry -- Apple was possibly retaliating for Adobe's decision to give Windows development priority to certain applications that were crucial to preventing further erosion of Apple's small market share (Premiere, Acrobat)

3. Buy market leader in a given software category and RAISE prices once ALL other competition has been destroyed or rendered irrelevant (MS Visio)

In contrast, Apple bundles selected shareware titles from small software vendors with its consumer and pro computers, and promotes these vendors on their website; its purchase of Emagic and planned discontinuation of further development on the Windows version does not change the competitive position on Windows of Steinberg Cubase, Digidesign Pro Tools, or Cakewalk SONAR. It may change the competitive position of Pro Tools, which is currently the leading DAW in the film industry, but that is yet to be seen.

Consider the situation with FileMaker, which was also from an independent SW company, or with ClariWorks. Both titles are available for Macintosh and Windows. It is in Apple's economic interest to offer both versions because of the size of the market on each platform. It is likely not in Apple's economic interest to continue supporting Windows users on a software product that was already mostly Mac-based. The same thing happened when Apple acquired NeXT -- Apple stopped developing OpenSTEP (Intel based), but WebObjects is still supported on Win2K, Solaris, and MacOS X.

The list goes on, but if by this time you still don't 'get it' then no matter how exhaustively detailed the list gets, YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND.

What's that you were saying about my reasoning ability? LOL

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 3, 2002 - 4:56 AM

"its purchase of Emagic and planned discontinuation of further development on the Windows version does not change the competitive position on Windows of Steinberg Cubase, Digidesign Pro Tools, or Cakewalk SONAR."

On second thought, Apple's discontinuation of Logic Audio on Windows, if anything, ENHANCES the competitive position of Cubase, Pro Tools, and SONAR -- on Windows! Well, duh!

I think I will go take my medication now... ;-)

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 6, 2002 - 2:54 AM

Using software to sell more hardware:

Emagic offers no-cost crossgrade to its Windows customers

"we will continue to service and support all Logic Windows owners according to the standard product warranty policies beyond September, 30th 2002....
In addition, for those users of Logic 5 on Windows who wish to enjoy all the current and future benefits of Logic running on the Mac platform, Emagic will make a free cross-platform crossgrade available from August 1st. This free crossgrade offer will allow you to keep and use your current Logic 5 Windows version - Logic Audio 5, Gold 5 or Platinum 5 - on Macintosh as well. The offer will be available until December 31st 2002 for every registered Logic 5 Windows user"

Looks like they're not willing to just abandon their Windows using customers to Steinberg, Digidesign, and Cakewalk. Of course, continuing with Logic Audio now means buying one of those horrid little Macintrashes that don't do ANYTHING except CRASH ALL THE TIME ;-)

HORRORS!

No thanks, I prefer my backdoors "monopolized."

Move along, nothing to see here. LOL

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 3, 2002 - 2:41 AM

"Tell me something, would you have remained quiet if it had been Microsoft doing this? I somehow doubt it, but yet you warrant your hypocrisy with the belief that determining wether or not an act is right or wrong depends on who is doing it!"

If MS did something like this -- and why would they have to? They dominate most other categories of software already.

I did not say what Apple is doing is 'right'. I said it was an act of survival. Do the ends justify the means? If your family were starving, would you steal a loaf of bread?

You said:
"Apple are doing a 'bad' thing here, it is irrelevant how much market share they have! And you complain about my reasoning ability! ha!"

Have you heard of the term "mitigating circumstances"? If you failed to see how they apply in this case, I will be generous and assume it is due to some form of naivete. And if you fail to grasp what the specific "mitigating circumstances" are, let me spell them out for you:

Steinberg Cubase, Digidesign Protools, and Cakewalk ALL have healthy market share in this software category. Apple is NOT DESTROYING competition by dropping further development for Logic Audio on Windows and then GIVING AWAY Logic Audio for MacOS. They may reduce the price of Logic Audio, but that would depend on what they think the market will bear, in a competitive market that will remain very competitive for the forseeable future regardless of what Apple does. For Apple's acquisition to qualify as "MS-style" (in the substantively appropriate sense of the term, not in the distantly related sense that you seem to impute), Apple would have to

(a) buy out Steinberg, Digidesign, AND Cakewalk
(b) make Logic Audio file formats incompatible with OMF and other cross-platform/cross-application technologies
(c) "embrace and extend" MIDI so that it only worked on Macs

And you, sir, by attempting to equate a small transgressor's survival tactics with the competition destroying predations of a behemoth on a moral plane, have committed both the hypocrisy and disingenuousness of saying, in effect:

"Stealing is stealing regardless of how much is stolen, and regardless of who does it, and why. Period, end of story."

There. I believe I have amply demonstrated how limited your MORAL reasoning ability is.

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Jul 3, 2002 - 10:10 PM

"I did not say what Apple is doing is 'right'."
You didn't say it was wrong either and that is what i was getting at. If you were unbiast you would have admitted that what Apple are doing is wrong and most likely give reasons for why they did what they did.

"If your family were starving, would you steal a loaf of bread?"
Is it not theft because I stole it for a 'good reason'? Is it ok to commit murder for a 'good reason'? Morally speaking it is not. Legally speaking I guess it depends on how good your lawyers are!

"Have you heard of the term "mitigating circumstances"? If you failed to see how they apply in this case, I will be generous and assume it is due to some form of naivete. And if you fail to grasp what the specific "mitigating circumstances" are, let me spell them out for you:"
And you have the nerve to call anyone else arrogant?

''"Stealing is stealing regardless of how much is stolen, and regardless of who does it, and why. Period, end of story."
There. I believe I have amply demonstrated how limited your MORAL reasoning ability is.''
So stealing depends on how much you steal, who does it and why they do it? ... So if I go and steal a few cents from a Bank each day because my family is poor, that isn't stealing? After all, I'm not stealing very much and I have a 'good reason' for doing it! I wonder how far that would go in the REAL WORLD!

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 3, 2002 - 11:26 PM

I said:
""I did not say what Apple is doing is 'right'."

You argued:
You didn't say it was wrong either and that is what i was getting at. If you were unbiast you would have admitted that what Apple are doing is wrong and most likely give reasons for why they did what they did.

I gave it a great deal of thought. And to be sure, there is no such thing as complete lack of bias -- unless you're dead or in a coma.

If similar titles exist in the same category, with similar feature sets, and competition is not being removed from the marketplace, then the decision to support a user community on a particular platform is dictated by (a) availability of resources for continued development (b) expected return on investment. Apple, being one of the few truly vertically-integrated computer companies (Sun and SGI are two others), takes on a significant support requirement, and given the diversity of PC hardware, for possibly a small ROI it may not be worth the investment (I am obviously not privy to the financials). Sure, it loses the goodwill and very likely the business of Logic Audio users on Windows -- they may all very well jump ship to Cubase, Pro Tools, or SONAR -- but that is a calculated risk Apple may or may not choose to mitigate through aggressive platform crossgrades, combined with rebates on Apple hardware. If they're smart, that's the route they'll take. If they're dumb (and they have done some pretty boneheaded things, it's a wonder they're still around after such mismanagement -- must be the products are good), they'll just let all the existing Logic Audio Windows users go over to the competition (which, as I've said, is not going away).

"Is it not theft because I stole it for a 'good reason'? Is it ok to commit murder for a 'good reason'? Morally speaking it is not."

Then there is no such thing as a just war, is there? When Adolf Hitler's army was exterminating millions of Jews, it was not morally acceptable to murder the SS and the Gestapo, by your oh-so-precious reasoning.

"And you have the nerve to call anyone else arrogant?"

I have LOTS of nerve. LOL

Facing down armed government thugs does that to you.

I apologize...you're not arrogant. I can tell from your posts that you're naive -- or disingenuous.

"So if I go and steal a few cents from a Bank each day because my family is poor, that isn't stealing? After all, I'm not stealing very much and I have a 'good reason' for doing it! I wonder how far that would go in the REAL WORLD!"

*chuckle*

You should perhaps consider moving to certain countries, where they cut off your hands for stealing regardless of whether you stole a 10-carat diamond or a loaf of stale bread. Seems that such an inflexible sense of "justice" and fairness accords with your own. LOL

Your intent in posting "Apple adopting MS-style tactics" is, to my (no doubt) jaundiced eye, an attempt to discredit Apple as a viable and worthy alternative to MS, under the pretence of journalistic balance. Given that Windows already has 95% of the PC market, what possible "balance" can we deduce from any attempt to preserve the status quo "move along, nothing to see here" or eliminate ALL competition by equating the 5% niche player with the 95% monopolist?

Orwellian Newspeak is alive and well in our time:

http://www.around.com/microspeak.html

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Jul 5, 2002 - 11:09 AM

"I gave it a great deal of thought."

So much thought and yet no response on wether what they did was right or wrong, interesting.

"Then there is no such thing as a just war, is there? When Adolf Hitler's army was exterminating millions of Jews, it was not morally acceptable to murder the SS and the Gestapo, by your oh-so-precious reasoning."

Please tell me that you're a little smarter than this! Your comparison makes no sense! Surely you realise that every action has a consequence! If you steal, you will be punished for it. If you kill someone, you will be punished for it. If you go out and kill million of Jews in some of the most horrific ways, other people will 'punish' you for it. And hopefully you're well aware of the fact that during wars morals usually take second place. Let's use another example, let's say you have a daughter who is one day kidnapped, beaten and raped. The authorities find the person responsible and you take matters into your own hands and kill that person. According to you, what you did was completely just as you did it with 'good reason', and a lot of people would be thinking that the person got 'what they deserved'. I think you'll find that you will be punished for your action because what you did was wrong, regardless of what you think. And just remember what Ghandi said "if everyone follows the principle 'an eye for an eye', we would all be blind".

"I have LOTS of nerve. LOL
Facing down armed government thugs does that to you."

Oh cry me a river!

"You should perhaps consider moving to certain countries, where they cut off your hands for stealing regardless of whether you stole a 10-carat diamond or a loaf of stale bread. Seems that such an inflexible sense of "justice" and fairness accords with your own. LOL "

In that case, care to point me to those countries where I can go and steal money from a Bank and not be punished for it? Thanks in advance!

"Your intent in posting "Apple adopting MS-style tactics" is, to my (no doubt) jaundiced eye, an attempt to discredit Apple as a viable and worthy alternative to MS"

There you go assuming again. No I actually posted it for two reasons. The first is that i knew it would get your blood boiling, the second is that I thought it was ironicle and funny that Apple are doing similar things to those that Microsoft did/does? yet no-one says anything, because it's not Microsoft.

"Given that Windows already has 95% of the PC market, what possible "balance" can we deduce from any attempt to preserve the status quo "move along, nothing to see here" or eliminate ALL competition by equating the 5% niche player with the 95% monopolist?"

What does market share have to do with anything? If nothing but market share changed, would you no longer run around screaming about Microsoft? If Microsoft had 40% market share, would you complain as much as you do now?

Score: 0

By orinoco

posted Jul 10, 2002 - 11:14 AM

>>In that case, care to point me to those countries where I can go and steal money from a Bank and not be punished for it? Thanks in advance!

Try the Philippines. It's public officials have been shamelessly stealing from its poor for the past how many decades.

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 19, 2002 - 4:12 AM

Good example, although some banks are less greedy than others. ;-)

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 5, 2002 - 7:15 PM

"And just remember what Ghandi said "if everyone follows the principle 'an eye for an eye', we would all be blind".

Since we are quoting Gandhi (I ASSUME you meant HIM -- or am I not allowed to make ASSUMPTIONS about what you mean?) LOL

"Noncooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good"
(also attributed to Martin Luther King Jr.)

1. Support the predatory monopolist
2. DO NOT support the predatory monopolist

Simple choice.

Blue pill, or red pill? LOL

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 5, 2002 - 6:12 PM

"So much thought and yet no response on wether what they did was right or wrong, interesting."

I said it looks like an act of survival to me. Since Apple has less than 5% of the market, that would be plausible now, wouldn't it? I worked briefly for a small software company in 1994, and we supported only those platforms where we could justify the return on investment. If a particular segment was too small to justify allocating new development resources, it was put in maintenance mode, or dropped. If Apple acquired Logic Audio for the purpose of incorporating its technology into future software, it would make sense to drop Windows support if the expected revenue base from those customers does not justify the cost of continuing to develop Logic Audio for Windows. That does not change the fact that there are other viable programs with similar feature sets, ON WINDOWS. There is a competitive market, because Apple is not a monopoly -- far from it -- even with this purchase.

Your style of argumentation is to reduce the issues to black and white and ignore the CONTEXT, when there are in fact this case should be considered in the context of the market realities. Unless you can demonstrate that Apple is creating a monopoly in that market you cannot argue that it is, in fact, doing precisely what a TRUE monopoly (Microsoft) does.

"Interesting" is your latest attempt to grasp at straws. LOL

Score: 0

By chris_kabuki

posted Jul 5, 2002 - 10:38 PM

Microsoft wasn't a monopoly when it first started performing these sort of tactics either.... try a new argument.

Score: 0

By victorpanlilio

posted Jul 6, 2002 - 1:35 AM

"Microsoft wasn't a monopoly when it first started performing these sort of tactics either.... try a new argument."

Ah, and this is where your selective memory (or ignorance of history) plays right into where I wanted you. See, back in 1981, when IBM was looking for an operating system for its new PC, it first approached a certain Mr. Gary Kildall of Digital Research, makers of CP/M (if you don't remember what CP/M is, look it up). Apparently, Mr. Kildall could not be bothered to give the IBM folks the time of day, so a more business-savvy individual by the name of Bill Gates landed the contract to be the SOLE provider of the OS for IBM's new PC (though that did not stop Digital Research from later trying to ship CP/M-86 for IBM PCs). Microsoft had what is called fi