Slashdot Mirror

Your memory may be a bit hazy then. Atari and Commodore were easily beating Apple in the early 80s in the home market (most likely due to pricing factors). The Atari 800 was a far superior machine with bitmapped color and sound, and the capability to use a TV as a monitor all for a lower cost.

"In 1980, Gartner reported Apple's worldwide share of the computer market at 15.8%"
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/D579148C-8563-4FFB-8E97-C2613215F98E.html

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/4 - look at the chart at the bottom of the page. Apple was 3rd in sales after Commodore and Atari from 1980-84 (the years the chart covers). The chart on the next page from 84-87 also has Commodore and Atari ahead of Apple too.

While you may be closer on the education side because of Apple's educational discounts, there are a far more number of homes than there are schools. Even if they had 100% of the education market it still would have been less total market share than the others.

There's a nice article about this on RoughlyDrafted: Daniel Lyons: Fake Steve Jobs and the SCO Shill Who Hated Linux

It is fairly obvious that if Daniel Lyons suddenly professes a love for Linux, the only reason is to attract more pageviews. Using his alter ego "Fake steve jobs" he still likes to call Linux users "freetards" as much as ever.

Anyway, his articles (written as "Fake" Steve Jobs) about the music industry are still very entertaining and spot-on: The music industry nobs have finally figured out [Apple is] doing. But with regards to Linux or anything even remotely touching free software, I'd mostly ignore his comments.

Tiger:
% uname -v
Darwin Kernel Version 8.10.1: Wed May 23 16:33:00 PDT 2007; root:xnu-792.22.5~1/RELEASE_I386

Spot the major release? From version 7 to version 8? Leopard is Version 9.something. The Kernel reved its major release number.

And Mac OS 8 was in fact a point release. It was going to be 7.7 but was changed to be Mac OS 8 to lock out the cloners.

In the meantime, Jobs bought out Power Computing-the largest Mac cloner-for $100 million, and terminated other clone agreements by releasing Mac OS 7.7 as "Mac OS 8" in mid 1997

In the past year, Apple stock has been +115%, vs Microsoft +7%.

But over the last five years, Apple stock has been +2270%, vs Microsoft +21%.

An in the last ten years, Apple stock has been +4314%, vs Microsoft +89%.

What "long term investors" would prefer to have been sitting on MSFT?

Microsoft has 80,000 employees, +95% market share, and competes in businesses outside of Apple, which only has 18,000 employees and ~3% worldwide market share. However, Apple is bringing in more than a third of Microsoft's revenues and making more than a quarter of Microsoft's profits, and is selling new Macs--which eat up direct sales of Windows PCs--four times faster than the industry.

So Apple is doing good.

Microsoft exploded in the 90s, reached supernova in 2000, and has been flat as a pancake ever since. Apple exploded in the early 80s and ran into problems in the mid 90s, but recovered during the dotcom years and has been among few tech companies to wildly outperform its 2000-era peak. Microsoft certainly hasn't.

Apple doesn't have any catching up to do; it was already a high flying major company when Microsoft went public in 1986. Seriously, what "long term investors" have been holding Microsoft stock since 1986 apart from Bill Gates?

What has Microsoft done for you lately?

How Microsoft Got Its Office Monopoly

What You Expected, What You Got: Windows Vista Vs Mac OS X Leopard

In the past year, Apple stock has been +115%, vs Microsoft +7%.

But over the last five years, Apple stock has been +2270%, vs Microsoft +21%.

An in the last ten years, Apple stock has been +4314%, vs Microsoft +89%.

What "long term investors" would prefer to have been sitting on MSFT?

Microsoft has 80,000 employees, +95% market share, and competes in businesses outside of Apple, which only has 18,000 employees and ~3% worldwide market share. However, Apple is bringing in more than a third of Microsoft's revenues and making more than a quarter of Microsoft's profits, and is selling new Macs--which eat up direct sales of Windows PCs--four times faster than the industry.

So Apple is doing good.

Microsoft exploded in the 90s, reached supernova in 2000, and has been flat as a pancake ever since. Apple exploded in the early 80s and ran into problems in the mid 90s, but recovered during the dotcom years and has been among few tech companies to wildly outperform its 2000-era peak. Microsoft certainly hasn't.

Apple doesn't have any catching up to do; it was already a high flying major company when Microsoft went public in 1986. Seriously, what "long term investors" have been holding Microsoft stock since 1986 apart from Bill Gates?

What has Microsoft done for you lately?

How Microsoft Got Its Office Monopoly

What You Expected, What You Got: Windows Vista Vs Mac OS X Leopard

Check your facts: US antitrust laws apply to using market force to enter into other markets with an unfair advantage. Name me *one* popular OS that doesn't include the ability to watch vids and listen to music, much less browse the net and *gasp* Search.

These are defacto "parts" of the OS now, and have been for quite some time.

Curb your Windows Enthusiasm. It doesn't matter how "defacto" a practice is when a company holds monopoly control over what should be an open market. For a number of reasons, all significant PC makers HAVE to license Windows from Microsoft in order to sell PCs. There are major barriers to Linux on the desktop for consumers (despite it's being free), and developing a business model like Apple requires the ability to coast along under constant attack from Microsoft for a decade or so while developing your own OS. IBM, the Amiga, NeXT, and Be couldn't, and it appears clear nobody else ever could in the future.

The PC is not an open market, but only because of artificial barriers created by Microsoft to prevent competition. Unlike utility monopolies, it does not serve the public. We don't benefit from having to pay the Microsoft tax for every PC sold, and Microsoft has proven that without competition, it refuses to innovate (which is why development of IE suddenly stopped in 2001 and didn't resume until the threat posted by Firefox and Safari motivated it to poop out IE 7 five years later.)

The PC market was also not a product of choice. People didn't decide to use Windows over other alternatives; Microsoft simple ensured there were no other alternatives. While Windows Enthusiasts like to complain that Apple has "monopolized" music with iTunes and the iPod, the situation isn't even similar: no other manufacturers have to license Apple's tech (or even can) in order to sell their products. In reality, Microsoft monopolized music, because its pretty much impossible to get any kind of DRM music or player without it being involved. Apple just beat Microsoft in the marketplace by offering a better product before Microsoft could lock it all up. Without iTunes, we'd have the "choice" of various Windows Media stores and various Windows Media players, just as PC buyers only have the "choice" of buying Windows PCs from various makers.

In a similarly monopolized business, say the old phone market, or in the case of newspaper/broadcasting markets, there are laws that prevent companies with a certain position from acquiring other companies to extend their control over the market or leverage their control over one market to obliterate another. The fact that other smaller companies are not similarly restricted is not a defense against antitrust laws, and it makes no sense to bring up as if it were.

Saying that Apple bundles Safari or that Nokia bundles its own browser on its phones or that Nintendo offers Opera for the Wii is completely immaterial to the fact that Microsoft used its PC monopoly position to destroy Netscape, Sun, and every other rival in the desktop/web/API space to entrench Windows and tie all web development to its own proprietary browser. It just makes you look really stupid to repeat such absurd comments. What has Microsoft done for you lately?

How Microsoft Got Its Office Monopoly

So the same feature that first appeared on Windows Server in 2003 and then on Vista is considered a security risk, especially because it is too 'easy' to use. [...] And now the same freaking feature in OS X is considered a 'security feature', and they claim it is even 'easier' to use than Vista's version?

I agree, Microsoft's early lead with the 360 isn't going to hold up in the face of $8 billion in annual losses, much of which drained from from the bottom of its Xbox division. How long can it afford to pay people to buy Xbox consoles?

"For additional perspective, the "spectacular failure" of Chrysler that caused Mercedes to dump the division like a hot potato this year amounted to losses of $1.5 billion annually, a slight fraction of Microsoft's $8 billion cash bonfire this year. Without the Office cash cow, Microsoft would be unable to dump unfathomable amounts of money into profitless exercises intended to hold back innovation and prevent competition in new markets to increasingly broaden its sphere of influence."

BetaMax was "ahead early on" because it was the original video tape. JVC ripped it off a year later with VHS as a cheaper to license standard with longer recording times.

Format Wars in Home Theater

As for piracy, HD-DVD has just as outrageous of DRM as Blu-Ray. Both also have excessive titling features that demand significant processor power. And neither delivers something DVD's really can't.

H.264 can put an HD movie on a standard DVD today. The market for HD is also not that impressive in scope. Half a million standalone HD players for the entire industry is nothing to write home about. HD-DVD has other problems outside of market penetration.

Origins of the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD War

I agree, Microsoft's early lead with the 360 isn't going to hold up in the face of $8 billion in annual losses, much of which drained from from the bottom of its Xbox division. How long can it afford to pay people to buy Xbox consoles?

"For additional perspective, the "spectacular failure" of Chrysler that caused Mercedes to dump the division like a hot potato this year amounted to losses of $1.5 billion annually, a slight fraction of Microsoft's $8 billion cash bonfire this year. Without the Office cash cow, Microsoft would be unable to dump unfathomable amounts of money into profitless exercises intended to hold back innovation and prevent competition in new markets to increasingly broaden its sphere of influence."

BetaMax was "ahead early on" because it was the original video tape. JVC ripped it off a year later with VHS as a cheaper to license standard with longer recording times.

Format Wars in Home Theater

As for piracy, HD-DVD has just as outrageous of DRM as Blu-Ray. Both also have excessive titling features that demand significant processor power. And neither delivers something DVD's really can't.

H.264 can put an HD movie on a standard DVD today. The market for HD is also not that impressive in scope. Half a million standalone HD players for the entire industry is nothing to write home about. HD-DVD has other problems outside of market penetration.

Origins of the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD War

I agree, Microsoft's early lead with the 360 isn't going to hold up in the face of $8 billion in annual losses, much of which drained from from the bottom of its Xbox division. How long can it afford to pay people to buy Xbox consoles?

"For additional perspective, the "spectacular failure" of Chrysler that caused Mercedes to dump the division like a hot potato this year amounted to losses of $1.5 billion annually, a slight fraction of Microsoft's $8 billion cash bonfire this year. Without the Office cash cow, Microsoft would be unable to dump unfathomable amounts of money into profitless exercises intended to hold back innovation and prevent competition in new markets to increasingly broaden its sphere of influence."

BetaMax was "ahead early on" because it was the original video tape. JVC ripped it off a year later with VHS as a cheaper to license standard with longer recording times.

Format Wars in Home Theater

As for piracy, HD-DVD has just as outrageous of DRM as Blu-Ray. Both also have excessive titling features that demand significant processor power. And neither delivers something DVD's really can't.

H.264 can put an HD movie on a standard DVD today. The market for HD is also not that impressive in scope. Half a million standalone HD players for the entire industry is nothing to write home about. HD-DVD has other problems outside of market penetration.

Origins of the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD War

The problem with releasing new generations of a gaming platform is that it spits your existing installed base. It forces users to decide whether to upgrade (and many won't if the price is significant, as it is with high end graphics/processor upgrades) and it forces developers to decide whether they want to target their games to actually benefit from the advances of the new generation, or to aim for the lowest common denominator.

Incidentally, that was the same problem for the Amiga, NeXT, and other advanced platforms: why would the mass market upgrade? The catch-22 for users and developers meant the market instead gravitated toward the basic PC, which slowly evolved in a lowest common denominator way and finally caught up to advances released a decade or so prior.

Now look at the PS3: Sony's biggest competition isn't the Xbox 360, it's the PS2. Microsoft's console is big in the US, but has very limited sales outside. The 360 has sold more units so far, but that's because has been on sale twice as long as the PS3. Since the PS3's release, Sony has shipped around 7 million units, while Microsoft has only shipped an additional 2 million. In contrast, Nintendo has sold 12 million Wii units. Xbox sales look good only if you can't do math or don't understand how time relates to the graph of a sales chart.

Nintendo Wii vs Sony PlayStation 3 vs Microsoft Xbox 360: Q2 2007

Sony is worried about two things. First, there's already 115 million PS2s in the world; the PS3 has to be desirable enough to convince those users to upgrade. $500 for fancier versions of the same games is a difficult upgrade to force. Until it can sell 10-20 million PS3s, developers will make more money delivering new titles for the PS2, because there are more users buying games for it. Sony is still selling cheap PS2 units, so it's competing against itself on price.

The second problem for Sony (and the reason it competes with itself) is that it's trying to push sales of Blu-Ray players and drive down the manufacturing costs of blue lasers. That means Sony is willing to lose money selling the PS3 at an initial loss, just to get Blu-Ray widely installed. Microsoft has taken sides with Toshiba in selling the rival HD-DVD format. If Sony weren't pushing Blu-Ray in the PS3, HD-DVD would be ahead in installed base.

At last count:

HD-DVD standalone players sold around 150k units
Blu-Ray standalone players sold around 100k units

However:

HD-DVD options Xbox 360 players sold around 150k units
Blu-Ray players bundled with the PS3 have sold 7 million units

So Sony's PS3 game isn't just about replacing the PS2, it's also about pushing the Blu-Ray disc format. It has single-handedly turned the HD wars around and put HD-DVD in a distant second place to Blu-Ray: 7,100,000 to 300,000.

Without Blu-Ray, it wouldn't make much sense for Sony to be trying to sell an expensive games console to replace the PS2. The games war is being won by the Wii, which costs much less and has no installed base to compete against, thanks to the poor sales of the GameCube. Nintendo can't make enough to meet demand. Nintendo also doesn't care about selling an HD platform.

Microsoft is being left in the middle, selling a console that's losing on the game popularity end to the Wii, and losing on the HD end to Sony. It's also competing against itself with in the area of PC gaming; the Xbox 360 overlaps with PC gaming, eating up the cheap end of a finite market in the US. At least it's trying to make it easier for developers to redeploy PC games in console versions.

Blu-ray vs HD-DVD in Next Generation Game Consoles

PlayStation 3 vs. Xbox 360 vs. Nintendo Wii

The problem with releasing new generations of a gaming platform is that it spits your existing installed base. It forces users to decide whether to upgrade (and many won't if the price is significant, as it is with high end graphics/processor upgrades) and it forces developers to decide whether they want to target their games to actually benefit from the advances of the new generation, or to aim for the lowest common denominator.

Incidentally, that was the same problem for the Amiga, NeXT, and other advanced platforms: why would the mass market upgrade? The catch-22 for users and developers meant the market instead gravitated toward the basic PC, which slowly evolved in a lowest common denominator way and finally caught up to advances released a decade or so prior.

Now look at the PS3: Sony's biggest competition isn't the Xbox 360, it's the PS2. Microsoft's console is big in the US, but has very limited sales outside. The 360 has sold more units so far, but that's because has been on sale twice as long as the PS3. Since the PS3's release, Sony has shipped around 7 million units, while Microsoft has only shipped an additional 2 million. In contrast, Nintendo has sold 12 million Wii units. Xbox sales look good only if you can't do math or don't understand how time relates to the graph of a sales chart.

Nintendo Wii vs Sony PlayStation 3 vs Microsoft Xbox 360: Q2 2007

Sony is worried about two things. First, there's already 115 million PS2s in the world; the PS3 has to be desirable enough to convince those users to upgrade. $500 for fancier versions of the same games is a difficult upgrade to force. Until it can sell 10-20 million PS3s, developers will make more money delivering new titles for the PS2, because there are more users buying games for it. Sony is still selling cheap PS2 units, so it's competing against itself on price.

The second problem for Sony (and the reason it competes with itself) is that it's trying to push sales of Blu-Ray players and drive down the manufacturing costs of blue lasers. That means Sony is willing to lose money selling the PS3 at an initial loss, just to get Blu-Ray widely installed. Microsoft has taken sides with Toshiba in selling the rival HD-DVD format. If Sony weren't pushing Blu-Ray in the PS3, HD-DVD would be ahead in installed base.

At last count:

HD-DVD standalone players sold around 150k units
Blu-Ray standalone players sold around 100k units

However:

HD-DVD options Xbox 360 players sold around 150k units
Blu-Ray players bundled with the PS3 have sold 7 million units

So Sony's PS3 game isn't just about replacing the PS2, it's also about pushing the Blu-Ray disc format. It has single-handedly turned the HD wars around and put HD-DVD in a distant second place to Blu-Ray: 7,100,000 to 300,000.

Without Blu-Ray, it wouldn't make much sense for Sony to be trying to sell an expensive games console to replace the PS2. The games war is being won by the Wii, which costs much less and has no installed base to compete against, thanks to the poor sales of the GameCube. Nintendo can't make enough to meet demand. Nintendo also doesn't care about selling an HD platform.

Microsoft is being left in the middle, selling a console that's losing on the game popularity end to the Wii, and losing on the HD end to Sony. It's also competing against itself with in the area of PC gaming; the Xbox 360 overlaps with PC gaming, eating up the cheap end of a finite market in the US. At least it's trying to make it easier for developers to redeploy PC games in console versions.

Blu-ray vs HD-DVD in Next Generation Game Consoles

PlayStation 3 vs. Xbox 360 vs. Nintendo Wii

The problem with releasing new generations of a gaming platform is that it spits your existing installed base. It forces users to decide whether to upgrade (and many won't if the price is significant, as it is with high end graphics/processor upgrades) and it forces developers to decide whether they want to target their games to actually benefit from the advances of the new generation, or to aim for the lowest common denominator.

Incidentally, that was the same problem for the Amiga, NeXT, and other advanced platforms: why would the mass market upgrade? The catch-22 for users and developers meant the market instead gravitated toward the basic PC, which slowly evolved in a lowest common denominator way and finally caught up to advances released a decade or so prior.

Now look at the PS3: Sony's biggest competition isn't the Xbox 360, it's the PS2. Microsoft's console is big in the US, but has very limited sales outside. The 360 has sold more units so far, but that's because has been on sale twice as long as the PS3. Since the PS3's release, Sony has shipped around 7 million units, while Microsoft has only shipped an additional 2 million. In contrast, Nintendo has sold 12 million Wii units. Xbox sales look good only if you can't do math or don't understand how time relates to the graph of a sales chart.

Nintendo Wii vs Sony PlayStation 3 vs Microsoft Xbox 360: Q2 2007

Sony is worried about two things. First, there's already 115 million PS2s in the world; the PS3 has to be desirable enough to convince those users to upgrade. $500 for fancier versions of the same games is a difficult upgrade to force. Until it can sell 10-20 million PS3s, developers will make more money delivering new titles for the PS2, because there are more users buying games for it. Sony is still selling cheap PS2 units, so it's competing against itself on price.

The second problem for Sony (and the reason it competes with itself) is that it's trying to push sales of Blu-Ray players and drive down the manufacturing costs of blue lasers. That means Sony is willing to lose money selling the PS3 at an initial loss, just to get Blu-Ray widely installed. Microsoft has taken sides with Toshiba in selling the rival HD-DVD format. If Sony weren't pushing Blu-Ray in the PS3, HD-DVD would be ahead in installed base.

At last count:

HD-DVD standalone players sold around 150k units
Blu-Ray standalone players sold around 100k units

However:

HD-DVD options Xbox 360 players sold around 150k units
Blu-Ray players bundled with the PS3 have sold 7 million units

So Sony's PS3 game isn't just about replacing the PS2, it's also about pushing the Blu-Ray disc format. It has single-handedly turned the HD wars around and put HD-DVD in a distant second place to Blu-Ray: 7,100,000 to 300,000.

Without Blu-Ray, it wouldn't make much sense for Sony to be trying to sell an expensive games console to replace the PS2. The games war is being won by the Wii, which costs much less and has no installed base to compete against, thanks to the poor sales of the GameCube. Nintendo can't make enough to meet demand. Nintendo also doesn't care about selling an HD platform.

Microsoft is being left in the middle, selling a console that's losing on the game popularity end to the Wii, and losing on the HD end to Sony. It's also competing against itself with in the area of PC gaming; the Xbox 360 overlaps with PC gaming, eating up the cheap end of a finite market in the US. At least it's trying to make it easier for developers to redeploy PC games in console versions.

Blu-ray vs HD-DVD in Next Generation Game Consoles

PlayStation 3 vs. Xbox 360 vs. Nintendo Wii

When you title your article "Leopard's Release Date a Serious Mistake" it's a bit weak to say in the last paragraph of the article:

"With all things considered, did Apple make a serious mistake by delaying Leopard's release until October? I don't think so."

This isn't even an opinion, it's just a sensationalist, uninformed headline we've already read, with nothing backing it up, not even the author. What a waste of time.

-
The Great Google gPhone Myth - Pundits have seized upon rumors of a new mobile phone product from Google as their golden ticket for bashing the iPhone. The "gPhone" is the perfect foil for fear-based rumormongers because it's a secret Google han't said much about publicly. That lets the wags blow it out of proportion and stretch it into an iPhone Killer. They're wrong, here's why.

I liked this one: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/4E2A8848-5738-45B1-A659-AD7473899D7D.html. The Windows 7 hype, however, probably has as much to do with the way people are fleeing from Vista like it's Mt. Vesuvius.

It's not the same market nowadays, though, and I think people will be generally less inclined to fall prey to this kind of thing.

1. Announced in 1991 to distract from the lack of anything dramatically new in Windows 3.0.
2. Expected in 1994. Pushed to late 1995, pushed to late 1996, intended to debut in 1997. Changed to a vision.
3. Core features dropped. Ended up as polish on the existing Windows 3.0: Windows 95.

1. Announced in 2001 to distract from the lack of anything dramatically new in Windows XP.
2. Expected in 2003. Pushed to 2004, 2005, pushed to late 2006, intended to debut in 2007.
3. Core features dropped. Ends up as polish on the existing Windows XP: Windows Vista.

1. Announced in 2008 to distract from the lack of anything dramatically new in Windows Vista.
2. Expected in 2010. Pushed to 2014, 2015, pushed to late 2016, intended to debut in 2017.
3. Core features dropped. Ends up as polish on the existing Windows Vista: Windows 7.

Here's another one for ya... http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/4E2A8848-5738-45B1-A659-AD7473899D7D.html

...and here's 364,000 more http://www.google.com.au/search?q=microsoft+vaporware&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a.

"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state"

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with extreme right wing fundamentalist talking points:

- Don't criticize the administration or you are "supporting terrorism."
- Broad wiretap spying programs on citizens is important for nationalist security.
- Torture and indefinite imprisonment of the accused, with suspended Habeas Corpus, is critical to nationalist security.
- Limiting the right to travel around and to/from the country and imposing a Nationalist biometric ID program.

Centrist Americans in both the Democratic and Republican parties have historically found all those ideas repugnant. You are right to say those ideas have historically been associated with extremist socialist states such as Stalin's Russia, but they are also associated with with the Axis fascist countries and fundamentalist religious states. Authoritarian political ideology is not unique to a particular extreme end of political spectrum.

The US isn't in danger of falling to a communist revolution. It is, however, already knee deep in a cesspool of a fascist torture/spy/police state that considers individual rights and societal interests (freedom of expression, access to health care and education) subordinate to the needs of corrupt corporations that largely run the country. Corporate welfare, a government run media (Fox), and wartime profiteering are not American ideals.

The American right and conservatives in general are not represented by the NeoCon minority. Small and effective government and free markets have little to do with the torture/spy/police state fascism being advanced by NeoCons in their efforts to set up a fundamentalist religious state and declare war on other fundamentalist religious states throughout the world, partnered with welfare-state corporations like Haliburton and Blackwater.

What You Expected, What You Got

Dear anonymous coward NeoCon:

Commonwealth has nothing to do with communism or communal wealth distribution.

According to Wikipedia:

==The original phrase "common wealth" or "the common weal" comes from the old meaning of "wealth" which is "well-being". The term literally meant "common well-being". Thus commonwealth originally meant a state or nation-state governed for the common good as opposed to an authoritarian state governed for the benefit of a given class of owners.==

Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts are all officially designated as a commonwealth, and Puerto Rico is also described as a commonwealth of the US.

Trying to jingoize words to fit a fascist/fundamentalist right wing political simplification based on what you think they might mean just makes the world a stupider place. Please stop, our country is already stupid enough without your contributions.

What You Expected, What You Got.

The law you asked for is the Audio Home Recording Act, which mandated the use of copy protection on digital music players and destroyed the US market for DAT and MiniDisc.

It wasn't until the RIAA sued Diamond over the Rio--insisting that it put Serial Copy Management System on its MP3 player--and lost (the court ruled MP3 players weren't recording devices because they didn't copy from stereos, but rather just traded digital files with PCs) that the market for MP3 players had anywhere to go. Apple came in with the iPod and cleaned up.

Despite winning the case, Diamond tried to push the Rio toward DRM with music subscriptions. Sony tried to push ATRAC, and Microsoft tried to push WMA, but Apple got behind MP3, and later AAC, both of which are open formats; DRM has only ever been optional on the iPod. That gave Apple the music player market, and labels have been scrambling to figure out how to force music back under control with WMA music subscriptions ever since.

Rise of the iTunes Killers Myth

Then you'll enjoy my disassembly of Microsoft Shill Mike Elgan:

Arrogance Unleashed: The Foul Stench of Computerworld's Mike Elgan, where I point out not only the buffoonery of Elgan, but also the simpleton arguments that claim Apple has "bricked" phones and persecuted iPhone users by offering a security and feature update.

"While the philosophical debate over whether Apple should open the iPhone to third party development is interesting, the underlying technical grounds for disabling third party software can not be argued around. All of the unauthorized third party software developed for the iPhone relied upon exploiting buffer overruns. These were significant security flaws that could just as easily allow attack vectors to malicious coders. Apple had an obligation to its users to patch these cracks.

"However, Apple left the iPhone update an optional install. It did not roll out an automatic update that users could not shut off, as Microsoft does with its Windows XP and Vista software update. Apple also did not ban any equipment it found violating its terms of service, as Microsoft does when it permanently bans Xbox 360 users suspected of installing hacks to their console firmware from accessing its online Xbox Live services, or as it unintentionally did when its WGA system went down and legitimate XP and Vista users were locked down with a reduced feature set on suspicion of software piracy."

[...]

"Perhaps he doesn't understand that the iPhone isn't a small PC, but rather a series of at least three independent embedded processors, including a baseband cellular radio subsystem and the ARM processors running the OS X operating system.

"Each of these systems has its own firmware, and that firmware has to be in a known state in order to load software properly. When hackers dig through the system, they can overrun memory buffers until part of the system resets, then feed it replacement code to allow themselves further access into the system. This works very much like a biological virus, which inserts its own DNA code into cells to force them to perform other tasks. Like viruses, these break ins complicate how the host system works in complex ways.

"No computer or device makers can offer to support a PC or mobile device running with tampered firmware. For example, Microsoft doesn't guarantee that Windows will load properly on a system that does not work as originally designed after unsupported hacks are made to its BIOS. For Elgan to perform his theatrics about how Apple is abusing its customers with a "cold slap in the face" is simply a matter of intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy, and grosteque ignorance."

This is kind of stupid. Even if all the major US carriers were prevented from locking phones to their network, it would only open the market between T-Mobile and AT&T, and separately between Sprint and Verizon Wireless. Both use totally different networks (GSM vs CDMA2000), so nothing would be open.

Further, as 3G rolls out, T-Mobile and AT&T's versions of UTMS totally incompatible, meaning that their next generation of phone will be naturally locked to a single provider. They didn't do that on purpose, there just isn't available bandwidth in the US to share the same band.

The real solution--rather than enriching attorneys to raise frivolous lawsuits that won't accomplish anything--is to open up the TV spectrum and insist that it actually be open, as Google has been pushing for. That would rapidly obsolesce the existing mobile networks however, leaving them open for replacement as well. Verizon/Sprint/AT&T have spent billions building out old fashioned 2.5/3G mobile service, and aren't excited about the prospect of having it all thrown in the trash can.

How AT&T Picked Up the iPhone: A Brief History of Mobiles

Nokia and SonyEricsson phones have a public API. None of their third party developers are using a buffer overrun to exploit a way to reprogram portions of the firmware in various different ways. Sony Ericsson and Nokia do not support phones with tampered firmware.

Because Apple's update included a security patch that removed the exploits those unlock hacks used, they no longer work. Because the software updated the system, it did not make any provision to instantiate a makeshift public API based on what a few apps had done. In testing, Apple found that phones that had modified firmware may not update properly and warned users. Creating your own firmware patches is dangerous business. Apple didn't "brick" any devices, it only warned that tampered firmware would interfere with the update process.

Apple is under no legal obligation to support whatever firmware hacks users might try, just as PC makers and other mobile makers don't warrant that their systems will work perfectly after you break in an tamper with their firmware. Apple didn't stop anyone from doing that, it just noted that those hacks wouldn't be compatible with future releases. Apple left the iPhone update an optional install. It did not roll out an automatic update that users could not shut off, as Microsoft does with its Windows XP and Vista software update.

Interestingly, the same Windows Enthusiast who are trying to grandstand with a feigned outrage over Apple's update make excuses for Microsoft. Apple did not simply ban any equipment it found violating its terms of service, as Microsoft does when it permanently bans Xbox 360 users suspected of installing hacks to their console firmware from accessing its online Xbox Live services, or as it unintentionally did when its WGA system went down and legitimate XP and Vista users were locked down with a reduced feature set on suspicion of software piracy.

Sony Ericsson and Nokia do not support phones with tampered firmware either.

Arrogance Unleashed: The Foul Stench of Computerworld's Mike Elgan Mike Elgan, a former editor of Windows Magazine, has recently gone on an anti-Apple rampage, posting countless articles on why users should torment themselves with fear, doubt, and uncertainty about Apple. Elgan's desperation is so overreaching that it is, like Rob Enderle, an embarrassment even to Windows Enthusiasts.

Not to be rude, but there are more people in the Flat Earth Society, or who can translate Klingon to Esperanto.

I like old computers, but a few hundred people is not a market for an operating system, it's a small hobby. Apple is derided as a bit player on the Macintosh, and it has around 22 million active users of Mac OS X and thousands of developers.

SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 1990s
In the 80s, a new generation of graphical computers from Apple, Atari, Commodore, and NeXT--all based on the Motorola 68000 family of processors--leapt past the previous generation of 8-bit computers. That new hardware enabled more powerful software using a fully graphical user interface.

Microsoft has been in negative stories on Slashdot since 1997, and this has not resulted in any problem for the company. Don't overestimate the power of whining.

As for the iPhone, there are no major US carriers who lack a "very bad reputation." Sprint, TMobile, and Verizon are equally horrific compared to Cingular/AT&T. I've used them all. They all have horrible customer service. They all sell garbage-DRM media services, overpriced ringtones, and cheat customers with one-sided contracts and high fees while offering nothing really novel in terms of service.

Apple used its leverage to force one of them (logically the largest GSM carrier by far) to force it to deliver its Visual Voicemail, lower service prices significantly, and block all the unnecessary garbage services, allowing Apple to let users load their own music and video content. So the RIAA won't let Apple copy ringtones for free; pffft - I'd rather pick my own content than ringtones. When you deal with the devil, you can't win every concession at version 1.0.

Apple had to hold its nose to partner with AT&T just as it does in partnering with the RIAA labels, the studios, and Microsoft. In each case, Apple has pushed for its own interests, lowered prices and provided better products for consumers. Without Apple, pop music wouldn't be 99 cents, and Microsoft wouldn't have to keep cutting its prices on the Zune. We wouldn't have an iPhone, and Motorola and Nokia would be touting its basic phones that do nothing interesting at fake subsidy prices.

You can have the opinion that the iPhone doesn't do what you'd like, but it just isn't true to suggest that Apple found a bad mobile partner to lock their phone to so you would be upset.

The iPhone costs less to own for two years than really any other smartphone on the market from Verizon or Sprint. As I like to point out, the $99 Motorola Q cost around $200 more than the iPhone over two years of service... and since then Apple has dropped the iPhone's price $200. So stop harping that the iPhone is so terribly expensive. Most of the people whining about the iPhone's price tout features of the TyTn and N95, both of which retail for around $800, and are clunky piles of crap.

Apple (and every other company) is involved in lawsuits from a variety of moron customers who insist that they don't understand that their products couldn't be used underwater or swallowed or whatever. It is mostly Apple who has its frivolous ambulance chaser lawsuits paraded through the headlines, because those writers are desperate to find something scare-worthy about the company. Show me a lawsuit that has done anything but enrich lawyers. Even the states' lawsuits against Microsoft for cheating customers--while resulting in billion dollar settlements--have done very little for consumers. Some people got back a $100 or so on their purchases of thousands. It's only attorneys who make any money on the vast majority of these class action cases.

Do you really think that the woman suing Apple for a million dollars because "her market for reselling the iPhone doesn't exist anymore" will prevail? Why not sue the car makers for making a product that devalues by 50% when you drive it off the lot? It's all tripe and you know it, you're just fostering false information. Like Mike Elgan.

Arrogance Unleashed: The Foul Stench of Computerworld's Mike ElganMike Elgan, a former editor of Windows Magazine, has recently gone on an anti-Apple rampage, posting countless articles on why users should torment themselves with fear, doubt, and uncertainty about Apple. Elgan's desperation is so overreaching that it is, like Rob Enderle, an embarrassment even to Windows Enthusiasts.

Microsoft earlier tried to push VC-1 on standard DVDs; it would make a lot of sense for consumers to deliver AVC on DVD. It would not do much for producers and studios however, because DVDs are already easy to rip and the format is falling in price. Once "good enough" movie downloads start, the ability to market HD discs will become far harder, just as MP3s killed any real market for SACD/DVD-A.

Origins of the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD War
Blu-ray vs HD-DVD in Next Generation Game Consoles

Microsoft earlier tried to push VC-1 on standard DVDs; it would make a lot of sense for consumers to deliver AVC on DVD. It would not do much for producers and studios however, because DVDs are already easy to rip and the format is falling in price. Once "good enough" movie downloads start, the ability to market HD discs will become far harder, just as MP3s killed any real market for SACD/DVD-A.

Origins of the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD War
Blu-ray vs HD-DVD in Next Generation Game Consoles

That sounds good but isn't really accurate. NeXT was indeed based upon BSD, but didn't run an open source program, and didn't need to because BSD wasn't GPL. Microsoft used BSD's network stack, but didn't release anything because it similarly didn't need to do so. NeXT used BSD because it worked.

When Apple bought NeXT, it was already hosting some limited open source projects, including MkLinux from early 1996. That was a GPL project hosting the Linux kernel + GNU on top of the OSF microkernel (with some similarities to Mach+BSD). To suggest that Apple had to buy NeXT nearly a year later to get any interest in open source is therefore simply wrong.

Further, after Apple acquired NeXT, it had no obligation to release anything in NeXT's portfolio. Apple actually continued its own unrelated open source projects, including NetSprockets for cross platform gaming (an open source alternative to networking/input portions of DirectX, mostly rejected by the market).

Apple released the core OS of Mac OS X as Darwin in 2000, shortly before the first commercial release of Mac OS X and four years after buying NeXT. Darwin significantly improved upon NeXTSTEP 4, and updated it with a 5 years of newer code that had been released by the *BSDs. Very little of that code was under the GPL, and had Apple not decided that open source was in its own interests, it could have easily released a completely closed Mac OS X with very little work, or by simply isolating the difficult to replicate bits like GCC.

So Apple's open source programs weren't inherited from NeXT (which had none), and weren't forced by the GPL. They also weren't to irritate Microsoft, because Apple desperately needed Microsoft as a partner between 1998 and 2000. Why would Microsoft even care? MS doesn't hate open source any more than the Saudis "hate our freedom." (They hate their own freedom, remember?) Microsoft doesn't hate open source, it hates competition, and in the locked up PC monopoly, the only real competition is volunteer work.

Apple released its various code projects because they made business sense. Sometimes the code it released was to gain traction behind a strategy, such as when in opened up QuickTime Streaming Server to find interest in a product that would have otherwise died. Sometimes it's to allow developers access to code, such as with Darwin/Mac OS X. Sometimes its because good code has already been written and it makes no sense for Apple to reinvent a new wheel, such as Safari/WebKit based on KDE's KHTML.

Trying to attribute malice to Apple related to its open source projects is like hating Starbucks for trying to sell shade grown coffee. It's valid to feel righteous for hating chain stores or to have the opinion that Starbucks coffee isn't that good, but trying to vilify a big corporation when it does something decent--even if it's in its own interests--is a bit too much to have to listen to.

If the troll posting the original blurb had meant to say that Apple used open source to beat the crap out of Microsoft's OS development plans, then yes, that would be accurate. By leveraging open source, Apple can focus its efforts on things it does well, and incorporate lots of community development related to security, networking, and OS performance, which happen to be the three core competencies of the Open/Net/FreeBSD.

Apple's Open Source Assault
Microsoft's Unwinnable War on Linux and Open Source

That sounds good but isn't really accurate. NeXT was indeed based upon BSD, but didn't run an open source program, and didn't need to because BSD wasn't GPL. Microsoft used BSD's network stack, but didn't release anything because it similarly didn't need to do so. NeXT used BSD because it worked.

When Apple bought NeXT, it was already hosting some limited open source projects, including MkLinux from early 1996. That was a GPL project hosting the Linux kernel + GNU on top of the OSF microkernel (with some similarities to Mach+BSD). To suggest that Apple had to buy NeXT nearly a year later to get any interest in open source is therefore simply wrong.

Further, after Apple acquired NeXT, it had no obligation to release anything in NeXT's portfolio. Apple actually continued its own unrelated open source projects, including NetSprockets for cross platform gaming (an open source alternative to networking/input portions of DirectX, mostly rejected by the market).

Apple released the core OS of Mac OS X as Darwin in 2000, shortly before the first commercial release of Mac OS X and four years after buying NeXT. Darwin significantly improved upon NeXTSTEP 4, and updated it with a 5 years of newer code that had been released by the *BSDs. Very little of that code was under the GPL, and had Apple not decided that open source was in its own interests, it could have easily released a completely closed Mac OS X with very little work, or by simply isolating the difficult to replicate bits like GCC.

So Apple's open source programs weren't inherited from NeXT (which had none), and weren't forced by the GPL. They also weren't to irritate Microsoft, because Apple desperately needed Microsoft as a partner between 1998 and 2000. Why would Microsoft even care? MS doesn't hate open source any more than the Saudis "hate our freedom." (They hate their own freedom, remember?) Microsoft doesn't hate open source, it hates competition, and in the locked up PC monopoly, the only real competition is volunteer work.

Apple released its various code projects because they made business sense. Sometimes the code it released was to gain traction behind a strategy, such as when in opened up QuickTime Streaming Server to find interest in a product that would have otherwise died. Sometimes it's to allow developers access to code, such as with Darwin/Mac OS X. Sometimes its because good code has already been written and it makes no sense for Apple to reinvent a new wheel, such as Safari/WebKit based on KDE's KHTML.

Trying to attribute malice to Apple related to its open source projects is like hating Starbucks for trying to sell shade grown coffee. It's valid to feel righteous for hating chain stores or to have the opinion that Starbucks coffee isn't that good, but trying to vilify a big corporation when it does something decent--even if it's in its own interests--is a bit too much to have to listen to.

If the troll posting the original blurb had meant to say that Apple used open source to beat the crap out of Microsoft's OS development plans, then yes, that would be accurate. By leveraging open source, Apple can focus its efforts on things it does well, and incorporate lots of community development related to security, networking, and OS performance, which happen to be the three core competencies of the Open/Net/FreeBSD.

Apple's Open Source Assault
Microsoft's Unwinnable War on Linux and Open Source

Your Microsoft spin: "Being able to play MP3s wouldn't do any good if the world could only obtain pop music from iTunes on a rental basis, and DVDs only came with FairPlay encrypted video, and CDs became vehicles for AAC with FairPlay rather than raw AIFF data."

Except that Apple doesn't sell Janus-like DRM that expires content (no iTunes rentals like all the Napster/Rhapsody Microsoft WMA stores) and never made any deals to push FairPlay on DVD (as Microsoft did, ever hear of WM9 DVDs? Terminator 2?) and didn't set its sights on deploying a monoculture of WMA in the model of Microsoft's PC monopoly.

It's tiring to hear from morons who weren't paying attention in 2004 when the shills were all jizzing themselves over a world locked up tight by Windows Media and policed by Bill Gates' Palladium hardware. Trying to suggest iTunes is anything similar just highlights your ignorance of what happen when you were apparently not paying any attention. Go read CNET archives from 2001-2005.

Apple doesn't have to license FairPlay, because it doesn't run a purportedly open media platform. It sells a device, and sells content for it. That system does not lock out anyone else from selling their own device and selling content, and the fact that Apple is kicking Microsofts ass doesn't make that any different. Apple no more has a monopoly in music than Sony had in Walkmen or Nintendo had in gaming. Apple has lots of large competitors, and does not have exclusive contracts with content providers. Again, your ignorance of the issues is astounding.

Apple's shareholders need new customers to buy its products. Microsoft's shareholder need Microsoft to maintain its dominance of the market. Not the same thing.

"It's no better than Microsoft."

Obviously, you're not a shareholder.

Forbes' Fake Steve Jobs Is Also Fake On Apple
Daniel Lyons is the author of the Fake Steve Jobs blog and a columnist at Forbes. After developing a reputation for attacking bloggers, open source, and any alternatives to Microsoft, Lyons has shed his skin to escape from one scandal while at the same time squirming into position to choke the truth out of his next victim: Apple.

Yes there are driver issues with Vista, but the biggest complaints I see are from users who don't see the value of slowing down everything in order to deliver the Aero glass effects. Vista delivers Microsoft's first version of WPF, which is similar to Mac OS X's first version of Quartz back in 2001: entirely new and not entirely optimized. The only difference it that graphics compositing isn't novel in 2007.

When WGA crashed and turned off the features of the few Vista users who were trying to be happy with their purchase, it had the side effect of revealing that Vista's premium features were eating up significant resources, and simply turning them off made the system far more usable.

WGA the Dog: Microsoft's DRM Failure Earns Zoon Nomination
One disadvantage to Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage DRM program--which forces Windows users to verify their software as "not-stolen" in order to receive certain patches and updates, including Internet Explorer 7--is that Microsoft's WGA server is not as highly reliable as Microsoft likes to advertise.

I say "Vista is XP with a new theme, plus DRM support for the dying HD-DVD, and a bolted on version of Apple's Quartz (WPF) and Cocoa (.Net)."

And you ignore "and a bolted on version of Apple's Quartz (WPF)" to tell me Vista's "brand new rendering engine is a new "theme" as much as the OSX interface is a new "theme" for OS9. They're quite analogous in terms of changes made. Feel free to complain how MS ripped Apple on that one, at least it'll be more accurate" ?

You then tell me I'm stupid for comparing Quartz to WPF? And then back track to say that Shadow Copy is analogous to Time Machine? Wow.

Shadow Copy is an API designed to allow administrators to perform incremental backups. It has offered no real UI in previous versions of Windows. In my experience, it doesn't even work very well.

Time Machine is a hard link back service for creating local backups to a disk, with much of its value coming from its interface, which is usable by even non-technical people. Time Machine also does lots of things a regular backup system can't do, such as restoring individual contacts, emails, or other items from a collection, or include backed up items as results for Spotlight file system queries (search back in time). It does all this without an army of IT staff rushing in to help you out.

Time Machine is no clone of Shadow Copy, however much Paul Thurrott and other giddy Windows Enthusiasts might like it to be. Comparing Time Machine to Shadow Copy is like comparing all of Mac OS X to the Linux kernel; it might make you feel smart to say, but it makes no sense.

That's your Miss Carolina. Feel free to critique what I say, because I do make mistakes, but come armed with some facts.

Forbes' Fake Steve Jobs Is Also Fake On Apple

"Vista is as big a change from XP as OS X 10.4 (and probably .5) is from NeXT/OPENSTEP 4."

Tiger 10.4 is not even backwardly compatible with NeXTSTEP 4.

Tiger is actually Darwin 8, with the 8 being the major succession number dating back to NeXTSTEP releases.

NS1 = 1989
NS2 = 1992
NS3 = 1993
NS4 = OPENSTEP 4.0 -- 94-96
NS5 = 10.0/10.1 2001
NS6 = Jaguar 10.2 2002
NS7 = Panther 10.3 2003
NS8 = Tiger 10.4 2005
NS9 = Leopard 10.5 2007

Vista is NT 6.0

NT 3 = first version 1994
NT 4 = second half of the 90s
NT 5 = Windows 2000
NT 5.1 = XP 2001
NT 6 = Vista 2007
NT 7 = Seven 2015

So even Microsoft fails to agree with your assessment that Vista is more than a significant retooling of Windows XP. Suggesting that Microsoft has accomplished more to deliver Vista that Apple has to deliver several generations of Mac OS X is particularly comical given that most of the significant features in Vista were copied wholesale from Mac OS X, including its new graphic engine and the fundamentals of its development frameworks.

Of course, Microsoft based its earlier GDI graphics model on Apple's QuickDraw a half decade after Apple released it, so copying Quartz a half decade later for Vista is to be expected.

If Vista runs so well on 7 year old PCs, why are so many consumers demanding to roll back to XP on their brand new ones? What, don't tell me.

Forbes' Fake Steve Jobs Is Also Fake On Apple

Things to consider:

Not every PC in 2001 had "Designed for Windows XP" stickers. Wonder why?

"Barely running" and "no problem running" could overlap depending on your level of Windows Enthusiasm.

Windows XP had major and significant problems until SP2 in 2004.

Vista came out in 2007 (technically 2006). Do PCs from 2007 have no problem running Vista?

To reliably run Windows with features on par with 2005's Mac OS X Tiger, wait for Vista Service Pack 2 in 2010, or perhaps Seven in 2013, or Seven SP2 in 2016.

Yes I'm kidding, but no not really so much.

SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 2000s
SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 1990s
SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 1980s
SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 1970s

Things to consider:

Not every PC in 2001 had "Designed for Windows XP" stickers. Wonder why?

"Barely running" and "no problem running" could overlap depending on your level of Windows Enthusiasm.

Windows XP had major and significant problems until SP2 in 2004.

Vista came out in 2007 (technically 2006). Do PCs from 2007 have no problem running Vista?

To reliably run Windows with features on par with 2005's Mac OS X Tiger, wait for Vista Service Pack 2 in 2010, or perhaps Seven in 2013, or Seven SP2 in 2016.

Yes I'm kidding, but no not really so much.

SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 2000s
SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 1990s
SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 1980s
SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 1970s

Things to consider:

Not every PC in 2001 had "Designed for Windows XP" stickers. Wonder why?

"Barely running" and "no problem running" could overlap depending on your level of Windows Enthusiasm.

Windows XP had major and significant problems until SP2 in 2004.

Vista came out in 2007 (technically 2006). Do PCs from 2007 have no problem running Vista?

To reliably run Windows with features on par with 2005's Mac OS X Tiger, wait for Vista Service Pack 2 in 2010, or perhaps Seven in 2013, or Seven SP2 in 2016.

Yes I'm kidding, but no not really so much.

SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 2000s
SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 1990s
SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 1980s
SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 1970s

Things to consider:

Not every PC in 2001 had "Designed for Windows XP" stickers. Wonder why?

"Barely running" and "no problem running" could overlap depending on your level of Windows Enthusiasm.

Windows XP had major and significant problems until SP2 in 2004.

Vista came out in 2007 (technically 2006). Do PCs from 2007 have no problem running Vista?

To reliably run Windows with features on par with 2005's Mac OS X Tiger, wait for Vista Service Pack 2 in 2010, or perhaps Seven in 2013, or Seven SP2 in 2016.

Yes I'm kidding, but no not really so much.

SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 2000s
SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 1990s
SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 1980s
SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 1970s

Is that because you're not using it yet? I see a lot of people complaining about Leopard, but I've been using it since June, and I can't imagine going back.

Leopard is as great of a jump from Tiger as Tiger was from Panther. Nice refinements everywhere, significant new apps and features like Spaces/Time Machine, major improvements to Mail/iCal/Safari/Quicktime/iChat, lots of major improvements under the hood that will propel third party development, including Core Animation.

Vista is XP with a new theme, plus DRM support for the dying HD-DVD, and a bolted on version of Apple's Quartz (WPF) and Cocoa (.Net).

Leopard makes modern machines more usable. Trying to use it on a sub-800 Mhz G4 (which would include Powerbooks and iMacs prior to 2002, or PowerMacs from before 2001) might be unreasonable. Those machines are now over a half decade old. PCs from 2001 would barely run XP, let alone Vista.

The summary is wrong - it confuses "less than 800 MHz G4s" with "non G5s." There are more than a half decade of G4 Macs that will run Leopard.

Leopard, Vista and the iPhone OS X Architecture

You can invent all the prices you want, but I outlined a real comparison in my articles the detailed the software costs involved.

Quibble about what Dell features you like, but the hardware isn't really different. The Microsoft licensing is. It is outrageously expensive once you pay for all the hidden costs. That's why Windows Enthusiasts lie about it.

You're quick to mutter about how I'm wrong about a lot of things, but you can't point anything out. Typical of those without a foundation to stand upon.

SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 1990s

No you are wrong.

Consider a $5000 Apple Xserve and a similarly priced, similarly equipped Dell.

Apple bundles a copy of Mac OS X Server Unlimited with the hardware at no cost; bought alone, it would cost $999. Including or not including the software would make no difference in price. Apple could sell you an Xserve with no software and it would still cost $5000.

Dell does not include a free copy of Windows Server or Exchange Server, nor the client access licenses required. Dell has to buy these from Microsoft and resell them. So in addition to your $5000 Dell server, you have to buy two server products and 100 CALs for each, which totals $10,000 in software licensing.

Apple's $5000 server, for any number of users, costs $5000.

Dell's $5000 server costs $5000 plus $10,000 of Microsoft software to support 100 users = $15,000.

Dell can sell you a $5000 server with Linux (or without anything) for $5000.

Think about that for a while. Now consider desktops. Dell has to buy a Windows license to sell a desktop PC. It probably pays around $30 for each OEM license, a low price it gets because it is locked into a secret deal with a monopoly provider. If it advertises other operating systems in its ads, it loses its premiere partner standing with Microsoft and has to pay more for each PC it sells. If users had to buy their OS separately, the automatic $15 Billion Microsoft rakes in from Windows, almost entirely from OEM deals, would be opened up to a free market, and Linux and Mac OS X could compete.

You know nothing about Apple or why it does what it does. The reason Apple competes as it does now is largely influenced by the existing condition of the market. There is no functional market for PC operating systems. If there were, Apple's business would change.

If you think Microsoft would maintain its monopoly if there was a free market in PC software, you haven't been paying attention.

How Microsoft Got Its Office Monopoly
Microsoft's Outrageous Office Profits

No you are wrong.

Consider a $5000 Apple Xserve and a similarly priced, similarly equipped Dell.

Apple bundles a copy of Mac OS X Server Unlimited with the hardware at no cost; bought alone, it would cost $999. Including or not including the software would make no difference in price. Apple could sell you an Xserve with no software and it would still cost $5000.

Dell does not include a free copy of Windows Server or Exchange Server, nor the client access licenses required. Dell has to buy these from Microsoft and resell them. So in addition to your $5000 Dell server, you have to buy two server products and 100 CALs for each, which totals $10,000 in software licensing.

Apple's $5000 server, for any number of users, costs $5000.

Dell's $5000 server costs $5000 plus $10,000 of Microsoft software to support 100 users = $15,000.

Dell can sell you a $5000 server with Linux (or without anything) for $5000.

Think about that for a while. Now consider desktops. Dell has to buy a Windows license to sell a desktop PC. It probably pays around $30 for each OEM license, a low price it gets because it is locked into a secret deal with a monopoly provider. If it advertises other operating systems in its ads, it loses its premiere partner standing with Microsoft and has to pay more for each PC it sells. If users had to buy their OS separately, the automatic $15 Billion Microsoft rakes in from Windows, almost entirely from OEM deals, would be opened up to a free market, and Linux and Mac OS X could compete.

You know nothing about Apple or why it does what it does. The reason Apple competes as it does now is largely influenced by the existing condition of the market. There is no functional market for PC operating systems. If there were, Apple's business would change.

If you think Microsoft would maintain its monopoly if there was a free market in PC software, you haven't been paying attention.

How Microsoft Got Its Office Monopoly
Microsoft's Outrageous Office Profits

It wouldn't save you anything, as Apple doesn't pay itself to put Mac OS X on its Macs. "Unbundling" it would only allow you to obtain Windows or Linux to run on it, which you can already do (although not at the Windows OEM price).

Unbundling on a Dell or HP computer would mean consumers wouldn't be forced to pay for Windows if they didn't want it, because all PC makers pay Microsoft for Windows. That would cut Microsoft's air supply. Nobody with the option to pay $400 for Windows Vista Ultimatum, $200 for XP, $129 for Mac OS X, or nothing for Linux would buy Windows.

Apple hasn't entered the OEM PC market because it has no way to compete against Microsoft's OEM contracts, which charge vendors more if they make any mention of alternative operating systems or fail to publish the "we recommend Windows" mantra in their ads. Imagine how Mac OS X would rip Microsoft in half, and how Linux would eat up most of both halves.

No more 81% profit margins on sales of half decade old OS software from Microsoft; the company would dry up and blow away in two years.

Microsoft's Outrageous Office Profits

Apple users pay for software, not plastic. Compare the volumes of plastic in the clunky Zune to the iPods; clearly, plastic buyers would go for the Zune, and pay more to do so.

And when you say elite, are you talking about the Xbox 360 Elite, which charges you more for an HDMI connector, but doesn't even include WiFi? Or the Zune Halo, which has a painting on it? Or the Ultimatum version of Vista, which delivers Media Center features for the price of an Apple TV, without the hardware?

It's the Windows Enthusiasts who paid for Microsoft's 81% profit margins buying copies of the half decade old Windows XP last year. Sounds like the foolish customers are those that didn't get a Mac.

Microsoft's Outrageous Office Profits

No I'm saying you're unreasonable in demanding that Apple more than match Microsoft's abilities in the last ten years of its futile WinCE development within just six months of iPhone sales. Well, more than match... or perhaps 'exceed in every way possible.' Apple does have limited resources.

Apple doesn't make 81% profit margins from sales of half decade old software, as Microsoft reports in its earning statements. Perhaps Windows users are the real chumps, paying a premium to run old software laden with WGA spyware, unwelcomed auto-updates, and donating 25% of their processing power to run antivirus software because Windows will fall apart and make a mess without tightly fastened diapers.

Am I a slave for running out to pay $600 for a phone that does everything I want the way I want it to work, and saving myself several hundred dollars over the cost of buying a less capable Windows Mobile phone that technically "runs third party software," of which 90% of is worthless, overpriced garbage, and ties me to a CDMA2000 plan that only works in the US, and only on Verizon? Or only on Sprint?

Oh, and I got $100 back. When has Microsoft done that?

Think about that as you play your $600 xbox elite and its $50 games, or your $4000 gamer PC which you invest a $1000 of new video card hardware into every year. I don't complain about your spending, so don't fantasize sexual violence just because I bought a phone I'm happy with.

Microsoft's Outrageous Office Profits
WGA the Dog: Microsoft's DRM Failure Earns Zoon Nomination

No I'm saying you're unreasonable in demanding that Apple more than match Microsoft's abilities in the last ten years of its futile WinCE development within just six months of iPhone sales. Well, more than match... or perhaps 'exceed in every way possible.' Apple does have limited resources.

Apple doesn't make 81% profit margins from sales of half decade old software, as Microsoft reports in its earning statements. Perhaps Windows users are the real chumps, paying a premium to run old software laden with WGA spyware, unwelcomed auto-updates, and donating 25% of their processing power to run antivirus software because Windows will fall apart and make a mess without tightly fastened diapers.

Am I a slave for running out to pay $600 for a phone that does everything I want the way I want it to work, and saving myself several hundred dollars over the cost of buying a less capable Windows Mobile phone that technically "runs third party software," of which 90% of is worthless, overpriced garbage, and ties me to a CDMA2000 plan that only works in the US, and only on Verizon? Or only on Sprint?

Oh, and I got $100 back. When has Microsoft done that?

Think about that as you play your $600 xbox elite and its $50 games, or your $4000 gamer PC which you invest a $1000 of new video card hardware into every year. I don't complain about your spending, so don't fantasize sexual violence just because I bought a phone I'm happy with.

Microsoft's Outrageous Office Profits
WGA the Dog: Microsoft's DRM Failure Earns Zoon Nomination

Why would Creative omit support for open standards? Because as a licensee to Windows Media hardware and software, Microsoft would have the leverage to demand it.

You might as well wonder out loud why PC makers don't offer free operating systems on their PCs, since it would please customers and offer attractive options to Windows.

Have any PC makers worried too much about alienating consumers? No, they're only worried about pushing whatever Microsoft sells them. Look how many failures they've trotted out with enthusiastic backing, from Handheld PC to PocketPC to UMPC to Mira to Media2Go and PlaysForSure. They just keep lining up for more poorly conceived, Microsoft-centric ideas that aren't very good. None of them have innovated much on their own, whether Creative/Rio on the music end or HP/Dell/Samsumg/etc on the PC side.

You give a good example of hardware makers ready to support the broadcast flag, unaware of what that means for consumers. What about the really outrageous levels of DRM being pushed in HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, or even what came with DVD? Every generation of tech gets worse and more restricted, and more expensive.

Remember that nobody believed that the iPod would make a big difference back in 2001, because Microsoft was fated to rule the world with Windows Media. And now the Windows Enthusiasts are all lined up to agree amongst themselves what a bad thing it might be to have a real rival to Microsoft, able to line up content and offer it for cheaper.

Microsoft needs all the competition it can get, and if it has to face a music business dominated by Apple and a mobile smartphone business dominated by Symbian, let's not weep too long for the company that screwed us through the 90s with its monopoly in PC operating systems and desktop software, and then worked to destroy the web and media downloads and set up a Palladium police force to cage us in little DRM boxes.

How Microsoft Got Its Office Monopoly
Origins of the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD War
SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 2000s

Why would Creative omit support for open standards? Because as a licensee to Windows Media hardware and software, Microsoft would have the leverage to demand it.

You might as well wonder out loud why PC makers don't offer free operating systems on their PCs, since it would please customers and offer attractive options to Windows.

Have any PC makers worried too much about alienating consumers? No, they're only worried about pushing whatever Microsoft sells them. Look how many failures they've trotted out with enthusiastic backing, from Handheld PC to PocketPC to UMPC to Mira to Media2Go and PlaysForSure. They just keep lining up for more poorly conceived, Microsoft-centric ideas that aren't very good. None of them have innovated much on their own, whether Creative/Rio on the music end or HP/Dell/Samsumg/etc on the PC side.

You give a good example of hardware makers ready to support the broadcast flag, unaware of what that means for consumers. What about the really outrageous levels of DRM being pushed in HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, or even what came with DVD? Every generation of tech gets worse and more restricted, and more expensive.

Remember that nobody believed that the iPod would make a big difference back in 2001, because Microsoft was fated to rule the world with Windows Media. And now the Windows Enthusiasts are all lined up to agree amongst themselves what a bad thing it might be to have a real rival to Microsoft, able to line up content and offer it for cheaper.

Microsoft needs all the competition it can get, and if it has to face a music business dominated by Apple and a mobile smartphone business dominated by Symbian, let's not weep too long for the company that screwed us through the 90s with its monopoly in PC operating systems and desktop software, and then worked to destroy the web and media downloads and set up a Palladium police force to cage us in little DRM boxes.

How Microsoft Got Its Office Monopoly
Origins of the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD War
SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 2000s

Why would Creative omit support for open standards? Because as a licensee to Windows Media hardware and software, Microsoft would have the leverage to demand it.

You might as well wonder out loud why PC makers don't offer free operating systems on their PCs, since it would please customers and offer attractive options to Windows.

Have any PC makers worried too much about alienating consumers? No, they're only worried about pushing whatever Microsoft sells them. Look how many failures they've trotted out with enthusiastic backing, from Handheld PC to PocketPC to UMPC to Mira to Media2Go and PlaysForSure. They just keep lining up for more poorly conceived, Microsoft-centric ideas that aren't very good. None of them have innovated much on their own, whether Creative/Rio on the music end or HP/Dell/Samsumg/etc on the PC side.

You give a good example of hardware makers ready to support the broadcast flag, unaware of what that means for consumers. What about the really outrageous levels of DRM being pushed in HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, or even what came with DVD? Every generation of tech gets worse and more restricted, and more expensive.

Remember that nobody believed that the iPod would make a big difference back in 2001, because Microsoft was fated to rule the world with Windows Media. And now the Windows Enthusiasts are all lined up to agree amongst themselves what a bad thing it might be to have a real rival to Microsoft, able to line up content and offer it for cheaper.

Microsoft needs all the competition it can get, and if it has to face a music business dominated by Apple and a mobile smartphone business dominated by Symbian, let's not weep too long for the company that screwed us through the 90s with its monopoly in PC operating systems and desktop software, and then worked to destroy the web and media downloads and set up a Palladium police force to cage us in little DRM boxes.

How Microsoft Got Its Office Monopoly
Origins of the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD War
SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 2000s

I'm not getting religious, I'm simply pointing out that Creative had absolutely no motivation to set up an independent, competing effort against WMA. It pushed WMA-DRM subscriptions and exploding media because Microsoft invented it, just as the PC makers all went along with every version of Windows. Dell never threatened to compete against Windows ME, it simply shipped it out. Same as Creative.

Being able to play MP3s wouldn't do any good if the world could only obtain pop music from WMA stores on a rental basis, and DVDs only came with WM video (which MS was pioneering with Disney), and CDs became vehicles for WMA rather than raw AIFF data.

Apple didn't shoot down WMA because it was the Right Thing To Do, but because a world of Windows Media content would not be compatible with the Mac, and Apple would be left at the mercy of MS for licensing its iTunes playback. Apple wanted an open standard licensed in a non discriminatory fashion.

So Apple sold music in AAC, which is cheaper to license than MP3, and devised a simple DRM system that is easy to work around, allowing anyone who buys AAC-protected music to remove the protection. WMA is designed to be far more difficult to crack, and far easier to patch.

It happens that Apple's own best interests are aligned with consumers. Microsoft's partners are aligned with Microsoft's interests, because Microsoft runs an operation that only follows its own best interests. It just happens that Microsoft's bests interests are not aligned with consumers' best interests.

Apple can do wrong, it just doesn't do as wrong as Microsoft, and no complaining on your part about me pointing out reality changes that fact.

Universal vs Apple in the iTunes Store Contracts