Slashdot Mirror

"When your at the top you just cant afford to innovate" is a total cop out. While it might take more balls to challenge the status quo once you own the game, it clearly is possible to be better than Microsoft has been.

Look at Apple's iPod: virtually unchallenged over the last 7-8 years. Yes there's competition, but none of it matters. Apple could have sat back and grown comfortable, releasing gold plated iPods or ones with graphics printed on the case or some other non-features, but that would have allowed others to catch up.

Instead, Apple chose to jump ahead several times when it was already on top. The iPod Mini was a super popular top seller when Apple dropped it and replaced it with the Nano. That took balls, and was widely criticized.

However, had Apple kept milking the Mini for another two years, the small players that came out in 2006-7 would have looked far more competitive than they did. Instead, Apple bumped the iPod ahead of everything and maintained its dominant share of the market. It's still growing in unit and dollar numbers in a rough economy where competitors are failing.

So could Microsoft have taken stronger stabs with Windows and its related APIs? It's a different market, but judging from the weak performance of its status quo maintenance strategy, it certainly should have done something more ballsy.

Unlike Apple's iPod, which resisted competition from larger and more entrenched rivals like Sony and MS, Microsoft's Windows is being eaten into by Mac sales and by community efforts with Linux. Microsoft is becoming the old Apple.

How Microsoft has become the Beleaguered Apple â96

Windows Enthusiasts keep saying that, but what's the advantage to waiting three years for Microsoft to introduce another way to run Windows XP in Parallels/VMWare?

Windows Vista, 7, and Singularity: The New Copland, Gershwin, Taligent

Maybe we should patent REALLY BAD IDEAS to prevent them from spreading. Of course, it's hard to imagine in advance that ISPs and a company like VeriSign would make a business from poisoning and subverting DNS.

Flash Wars: Adobe in the History and Future of Flash

UMPC is Microsoft's new name for its old tablet idea. It does not encompass mini Linux laptops like the EEE PC, ultra cheap Linux systems like the XO, WiFi handheld mobiles like the iPhone, very thin but expensive laptops like the MacBook Air, or any other products that might be ultra mobile but not from Microsoft.

Last year, UMPC units didn't sell a million units. That's why nobody is in any hurry to call their product a "UMPC." That, and its a stupid name that almost appears to be designed to prevent sales.

CES: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

What exactly do you want to "run in Java," mobile phone games?

And as for Flash, the removal of nuisance ads from the web pretty much makes up for the loss of being able to see the handful of visualization elements done in SWF.

I would like to have a BT profile to use a slim keyboard with the iPhone for writing while traveling. That would make a great combination that's much lighter than a typical laptop and more practical than the joke UMPC/tiny laptops that try to do everything by doing it all poorly.

TFA seemed to be an ad for Intel's Atom, which I'm not convinced will uproot the existing mobile dominance of ARM processors, particularly since the only real need for x86 compatible chips in mobile devices is to support Microsoft's inability to get Windows to run on other hardware.

Given that the most interesting and successful small devices are running Linux or Apple's OS X, the need for x86 processors in that space is not at all obvious. Why wait for Intel to catch up when literally hundreds of ARM licensees are now shipping 3 billion parts a year?

Also note that Intel lost something like $5 billion pouring money into the StrongARM business it got from DEC (and rebranded as XScale) before handing it to Marvell for a mere $600 M. If it couldn't beat TI in ARM processors, how can it expect to beat ARM with an inferior and more complicated processor design?

ARM, x86 Chip Makers Fight to Ride Mobile Growth

Will Apple Rescue Intel's Silverthorne?

What exactly do you want to "run in Java," mobile phone games?

And as for Flash, the removal of nuisance ads from the web pretty much makes up for the loss of being able to see the handful of visualization elements done in SWF.

I would like to have a BT profile to use a slim keyboard with the iPhone for writing while traveling. That would make a great combination that's much lighter than a typical laptop and more practical than the joke UMPC/tiny laptops that try to do everything by doing it all poorly.

TFA seemed to be an ad for Intel's Atom, which I'm not convinced will uproot the existing mobile dominance of ARM processors, particularly since the only real need for x86 compatible chips in mobile devices is to support Microsoft's inability to get Windows to run on other hardware.

Given that the most interesting and successful small devices are running Linux or Apple's OS X, the need for x86 processors in that space is not at all obvious. Why wait for Intel to catch up when literally hundreds of ARM licensees are now shipping 3 billion parts a year?

Also note that Intel lost something like $5 billion pouring money into the StrongARM business it got from DEC (and rebranded as XScale) before handing it to Marvell for a mere $600 M. If it couldn't beat TI in ARM processors, how can it expect to beat ARM with an inferior and more complicated processor design?

ARM, x86 Chip Makers Fight to Ride Mobile Growth

Will Apple Rescue Intel's Silverthorne?

The "jPhone" was just an OpenMoko device with a poorly drawn iPhone interface clone photoshopped over the top.

Schwartz' Lighthouse design made some nice looking NeXTSTEP apps, but that has more to do with NeXT than anything Sun acquired. Have you seen Sun software? There isn't anything that doesn't look like ass, even if some of it is great underneath.

However, in the mobile arena, there isn't much great underneath AND it looks like ass. Look at the jPhone pics:

Sun Tries to Jump on iPhone Bandwagon with jPhone

The iPhone could "easily" support Flash if it either:

- used an old version that didn't properly render modern Flash content (like the Flash used in the PlayStation 3)

- used a Lite version of Flash that didn't render anything but a minor subset of Flash, and which will only work with basic FLA video players in its latest version (not officially out yet IIRC)

- used a completely reengineered, yet somehow backwards compatible version of Flash that perfectly ran PC targeted Flash content that currently plays like crap on the Mac with memory leaks and other bugs, but rewritten for the iPhone's ARM architecture with major integration into Apple's Cocoa Touch software.

So yeah, that'd be a piece of cake if Apple gave two shits about spending a year constructing a crutch to hold up Adobe's shitty platform that should go away and make way for a real reach Internet application platform such as HTML 5.

I don't think Apple is going to do that, and if Adobe could, they might have already fixed their Mac version.

It appears that you think is some sort of conspiracy, or that Apple has a moral obligation to devote its resources to supporting a shitty architecture that destroys the web, but only because there are a handful of useful things that could far more easily be redesigned to use standards that are already open.

Gone in a Flash: More on Appleâ(TM)s iPhone Web Plans

Apple clearly had a choice. Between 1987 and 1993 it did very little to push the state of the art because it was selling Mac hardware hand over fist. During the same time Steve Jobs assembled at team at NeXT that did what Apple should have: delivered the next great thing. Apple only tried to copy NeXT with IBM and HP in the Taligent project, just as Microsoft is struggling to copy Mac OS X today with its Windows efforts. Microsoft even says as much.

Apple's OS wasn't a mess due to fate, and neither is Microsoft's today. Fate has nothing to do with it. Both simply dropped the ball and got passed up.

But thanks for the non sequitur / wishful thinking summation of your fantasy worldview. Makes for a brilliant conclusion to your thesis.

How Microsoft has become the Beleaguered Apple â96

Apple could likely make just as much money with a slower rate of new products coming out. However, that would make it far easier for competitors to catch up.

Microsoft's second generation Zune, had it arrived a year earlier, would have been competitive hardware wise with the then current iPods. As it was, Apple's rapid upgrading left it looking like nothing special.

The old Apple of the late 80s basically stopped the frantic pace of upgrades, and that's exactly what allowed Microsoft to catch up over a ten year period from 1985-1995. The bumper sticker that said "Windows 95 = Mac 89" was funny, but the sad part was that Mac 89 wasn't so far behind Mac 95.

Now the tables are turned, and Microsoft is the one coasting along on past performance, allowing Apple to catch up and surpass it.

Windows Vista, 7, and Singularity: The New Copland, Gershwin, Taligent

innuendo and half-truths?

The points I was "trying to make" were pretty clearly outlined. Microsoft's best effort at delivering a cross platform architecture were a failure nobody could use.

You can complain that Mac OS X benefits from being newer, but the fact that NeXT delivered a fat binary, cross platform architecture YEARS before the joke of NT with less money, less clout, and less arrogance really just blows your house of cards down.

MS tried and failed. It's still failing. If WinCE were a victim of being from the late 90s, why was it so much shittier than mobile OSs from the early 90s, such as GO or Newton? And why hasn't it become usable after ten years of work?

Seriously, what makes you defend a worthless sheister company that has never done anything but hold back technology?

Why Did Apple Buy PA Semi?

If you look at the approach MS took to support Itanium (IA64) and PC x86 (IA32), it really highlights why the company's cross platform efforts are so terrible.

IA64 uses EFI, but MS won't adopt EFI for IA32 until PCs are all EFI, probably Windows 7 in 2010 (if it's on time, hehe). That's another three years of core compatibility failure between the two platforms.

Also, 64bit x86 and 32bit x86 are similarly binary incompatible because of MS' engineering decisions.

Mac OS X is not only 64bit and EFI savvy, but there's no problem running the same software on 32/64 bit hardware, and there's even a smooth ramp between the PPC/Intel platforms. Apple even has their OS running on ARM, rather than a seperate "mobile version" that uses an entirely different kernel design, as MS did with WinCE.

So despite MS' mid 90s efforts to make NT cross platform, it was never really accomplished in a workable way (no equivalent to the late 80s NeXTSTEP running on all those platforms, nor the modern Universal Binary Apple is using), and that's why MS couldn't sustain it.

Saying there was "no real demand" for cross platform support is a bit silly. You could also say Bob was excellent, and just lacked "enough demand." There was "no real demand" for NT's cross platform features because IT WASN'T VERY GOOD.

Windows Vista, 7, and Singularity: The New Copland, Gershwin, Taligent

Pippin was built and marketed by Bandai, not Apple. Bandai was acting as a (classic) Mac OS licensee, along with Pioneer (which never shipped anything IIRC) and Power Computing.

Blaming Pippin's failure on Apple is like blaming Gametrac's failure on Microsoft.

Also, Pippin was developed in 1995. Not only was that a very different market, but Apple was also a very different company headed toward ruin rather than being a top consumer electronics vendor with a significant retail store presence.

You might as well say the company would never build Apple TV because of the failure of the Quadra based iTV prototype of the same period.

Having said all that, it is somewhat unlikely that Apple would create another living room console to compete against the Wii/Xbox/PS3. Where's the opportunity to make any money?

What Apple is doing is shipping a handheld console: the iPhone and iPod Touch. They compare very favorably with the DS and PSP, which I profiled in an article on the subject:

iPhone 2.0 SDK: Video Games to Rival Nintendo DS, Sony PSP

.Mac isn't iDisk. .Mac is integrated into Mac OS X's Sync Services so that users can upload all their synced data (PIM phone and iPod data, Address Book contacts, calendar items, web bookmarks, app preferences, keychain passwords and certificates, Dock items, Dashboard widgets, email account settings, mail rules and signatures and smart mailboxes) to .Mac as a central repository, allowing multiple Macs to be kept in sync with the same data. Sync Services also allows developers to package their app preferences and other data for syncing with .Mac.

This isn't new, it was rolled into Mac OS X Tiger in 2005, and sharpened up in Leopard. It's one of the more useful things about .Mac.

Ironically, Apple introduced ".Mac" as a play on .NET (which it really has very little relation to apart from the idea of networked data sharing) at a time when Microsoft was touting the potential to be a gatekeeper for PC users with Passport.

MS never really delivered those promises (it did f-up data integrity with Passport's high profile data leaks), but Apple quietly delivered it as a system that just works. Now Microsoft is announcing that it's "introducing" something that is nothing new as a beta.

Windows Vista, 7, and Singularity: The New Copland, Gershwin, Taligent

Double digit share of what market?

The IDG/Gartner numbers (currently at 6.6% in the US, somewhere under 4% worldwide) include all PC, handheld and servers shipped (but only x86 servers). If you're waiting for Apple to take over those gerrymandered statistics, you'll be waiting for some time.

However, if you're looking at the markets Apple sells to, the company already has double digit market penetration in retail laptops (~20%), in home/SOHO (~16%) and education (very high across the US/EU, where Apple is #1 or close to being).

Market share isn't really that critical of a number, expecially when the market isn't defined to do anything but make Microsoft look good. Apple had ~5% OS market share in PCs throughout 2007, but made roughly half as much revenue as MS did with its 95% share of PC OS market. Those statistics also indicate that Linux has zero "market share," when we know some people are using Linux on the desktop.

Conversely, Apple had ~80% market share in music and MP3 players, but rivals, including MS, mostly only lost money. Market share doesn't tell you much about a products quality, suitability, desirability, or anything else. It's like a straight guy measuring his dick. It really doesn't matter.

IBMâ(TM)s Strategic Interest in Macs Goes Beyond Pilot Program

Can you cite a specific instance of Roughly Drafted posting fabricated documents in the past, or is this just an ad hominem attack?

Have you even read RD? I read it daily and laugh hard. He can't be serious but it's fun. Take a look at this one.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/660E746C-F388-4AC7-98F5-6CB951501472.html

Which you certainly can do, particularly if you have no profit motive.

However, the majority of iPhone developers are going to be expending their efforts to get paid. Distributing jailbreak software will be as profitable as trying to sell Palm or WinCE software: 99% will be used without payment, and those who do pay will expect expensive support. Good luck with that kind of business plan.

Developers who join up with the AppStore will be able to sell their work to large, paying audiences with little piracy loss, just like iPod Games and other iTunes downloads.

Ever talk to indie musicians who sell their work via iTunes? They make real money. They could also sell MP3s from their own website and avoid paying the ~40% cut Apple takes, but they wouldn't sell anything that way. Same for you.

iPhone 2.0 SDK: How Signing Certificates Work

Who pays you to keep your PC humming and your lights on and your mouth full of pizza and beer and your health insurance premiums and your continuing eduation and your programming books from Amazon?

Don't believe Steve Ballmer; FOSS isn't communism. Sometimes you have to have a day job if you don't have a business plan supporting the software you develop.

Anyone who harps about a $99 certificate is either grossly ignorant of every other more expensive signing program or is simply a disingenuous asshat.

iPhone 2.0 SDK: How Signing Certificates Work

Because leaded gas would destroy the catalytic converter in newer cars.

Old cars used lead in fuel to lubricate engine parts. Lead is toxic. In addition to removing lead, newer cars added catalytic converters to burn off tailpipe toxins. If you run leaded gas through them, it contaminates the catalysts.

So to prevent people who didn't know better from thinking they could run "regular" gas through their newer cars without destroying a ~$300 part and dumping out more pollution, they make it difficult to do so with a smaller filler hose and port.

That shares little in common with the idea of using GPL software in the iPhone. First of all, there's no damage: anyone can adapt FOSS libraries or develop new code under a free license and use this to deliver iPhone programs. Their open source code can be distributed for others to adapt; the only difference is that in order for someone to actually deploy an adapted version of that code, that new developer would need to be in the iPhone dev program so they could sign and distribute it.

Apple uses both GPL and BSD licensed software on the iPhone, and makes their source available from its website. Why can't other software developers do the same?

Perhaps I'm missing something, but even the GPL doesn't force developers to guarantee that their code will never be used on a secured platform that requires code signing. iPhone development offers no barriers to open source ideologies. It's only the official AppStore distribution of completed software that requires some approval from Apple. It seems pretty clear that there will always be some software that requires modifying the iPhone's firmware to distribute non-signed, unofficial software, so even that is hardly relevant.

What's the controversy here? Seems to be much grasping at straws by the ignorant diggtard crowd that likes to bewail the "Apple monopoly." Of course, the problem is that Apple competes against lots of other products in the market. There are lots of MP3 players, media software, and smartphones; there are no commercial PC operating systems to choose from, and even the free volunteer options are hard to find available on a new PC that doesn't already include a Windows license. That's the difference between the Windows monopoly and the competition of iTunes, the iPod, and the iPhone.

iPhone 2.0 SDK: How Signing Certificates Work

Actually Netscape made regular progress and delivered new innovations (although increasingly proprietary ones) through ~97 version 4.0).

IE was based on SpyGlass, which was Mosaic's code (and also the original basis for Netscape). It was way behind, and took several years to become less than worthless in comparison to Netscape.

Netscape hoped to sell a premium browser and give away a regular version, but MS' bundling of IE destroyed any market for a non-free browser. By 1997, Netscape's inability to sell their browser, combined with the difficulty of getting users to download it at a time when people had dialup, resulted in the company running out of oxygen.

It had to rethink how to compete with the bundling of IE and Windows, so it released Communicator 4.0 with email and other desktop features, cross platform. This ground its web browser to a halt and screwed the company.

  At the same time, MS made a 1997 deal with Apple to bundle IE for Mac with new Macs, and to hide Netscape from the desktop. Microsoft continued to develop its browser until Netscape was dead ~2000. Once that happened, IE on the Mac was put on hold around 2003, and even the Windows version went into maintenance mode.

It wasn't until the resurgence of Firefox (Netscape's ashes) and Safari that MS began thinking about a new version of IE.

Apple in the Web Browser Wars: Netscape vs Internet Explorer

3D is a gimmick to get people into theaters. In life action films, 3D gets pretty old quick. It's great for adding a few cheesy yucks to slasher films, but after awhile, the novelty grows old.

I went to a triple feature of 3D films and got my fill for a year or two: Jaws 3D, Jason 3, and something else IIRC.

In puter animation, 3D is free. 2D CGI films frequently use shots that would be impossible using a real camera. 3D just makes that kind of thing more involving. Beowolf did a lot of that; I didn't see it in 2D, so I don't know how much would be lost without the glasses, but it made the movie something I'd try as opposed to passing (I went not knowing it was CGI, amazingly).

Other gimmick film techniques, such as Cinerama, used multiple cameras to make a crazy wide shot. The problem is that when you have multiple cameras, it changes how you can zoom and pan, greatly limiting the cinematography you can use.

There are lots of "ways things are done" that would be exposed in live 3D filming. Adding 3D effects to a CGI film are cheap and simple, but live action movies would add considerably expense and complexity to get back less effect and impose greater limitations on the art in the film.

the Origin of Home Theater: TV and Movies Fight For Attention in the 50s and 60s

The entire point of theaters going to 3D is to entice people away from their HDTVs with something that is unique and compelling can can't be as easily experienced at home.

That's why Pixar is doing it, and why George Lucas, James Cameron, Robert Zemeckis, Robert Rodriguez, Randal Kleiser, and Peter Jackson "implored the exhibition community to invest in digital projectors" to show their upcoming 3D movies.

Of course, at the same time Lucas also told Variety, "We don't want to make movies. We're about to get into television. As far as Lucasfilm is concerned, we've moved away from the feature-film thing because it's too expensive and it's too risky."

If 3D doesn't help get viewers into the theater, there will be fewer blockbuster movies coming out, and entertainment will shift further toward TV.

Five Ways Apple Will Change TV: 5 - George Lucas Talks Movies

Except that NeXT did have devices - it ran on more platforms than you could shake a stick at. It also had users. Not the Win95 crowd, but people doing real work, from Tim Berner-Lee to John Carmack, who accomplished things Windows wasn't well suited to do. And then there's Dell, the banks, the trading companies, the NSA/CIA spooks...

NeXT had serious devices and serious users. It's just that Microsoft decided to "piss on it" because it preferred to showcase Cairo as its own copy, years later, which then never actually arrived.

For its second act, NeXT is making NT+15 years of work look silly, while also making the last ten years of CE look absurd.

1990-1995: Microsoft's Yellow Road to Cairo

Actually, Google just ripped off Overture's technology and implemented it better. Yahoo bought Overture, and ended up giving Google a license to it in exchange for cash. It's not obvious that Yahoo ever did anything well, it just happened to be positioned well at a fortunate time in the development of the web.

That Yahoo is still around, and that Microsoft wants to buy it, really says something miraculous about the sustainability of bullshit and the absolute desperation/incompetence of Microsoft, which has been around trying to figure out the web longer than Google or Yahoo.

Try to fathom the reality that Microsoft's attempts to monopolize web search have failed despite its efforts to tie things to its OS/web browser. There is little reason for thinking that Microsoft+Yahoo would be even equal to the sum of its parts, but MS has little else available to buy and demonstrably can't build its own web strategy from scratch.

Why Does Microsoft Really Want Yahoo?

It's the stock buybacks that are eating up MS' cash reserve. Buying back your own stock is an admission you have nothing better to do with your money that give it back to your shareholders

Remember the words of Michael Dell wrt Apple? Apple isn't buying back its stock, it's buying new campuses, data centers, retail outlets, investing in building products to serve new markets, all of which are selling off the charts.

Microsoft is failing in every consumer electronics arena it enters. It's brightest star is the xbox, which has only made a few million in the last quarter after billions of losses. Sales have now plateaued, forcing the company back to release a new xbox generation and start spending again.

Video Game Consoles 2007: Wii, PS3 and the Death of Microsoftâ(TM)s Xbox 360

Vista might be shipping on some new PCs, but remember that nobody ever questioned Windows' ability to sell. It's a monopoly! Everyone expected MS to sell Vista without any hiccups. It was the consumer business and Windows Media/PlaysForSure, Zune, WinCE/Windows Mobile, Windows Embedded that were all on fire and sustaining deep losses. Microsoft can't sustain mild sales on Vista after spending billions to develop it over the last 6 years and having nothing really to show for all that.

Windows 7 won't show up for another three years, so Vista has to generate cash across that whole time period, not just ship on some new PCs. What's happening though, is that cheap PCs like the EEE and OLPC are running Linux, premium PC sales are getting eaten into by sales of Macs that are outpacing PC sales by 4x, and major vendors are begging to ship XP.

Microsoft's flat stock has been placid for a decade during record earnings boosted by automatic OEM PC sales in a period where the PC-box was the only game in town and there was no effective competition. MS is now being hit by competition at the low end and the high end, while also finding the PC market itself coasting along statically. Sales volumes are shifting toward mobile devices.

MS hasn't successfully delivered mobile devices anyone wants. UMPC was a huge failure, Windows Mobile is a joke. Now its facing the iPhone/iPod Touch and an array of smartphones from other vendors, without any viable game plan.

At some point, you can't say MS will survive on its good looks and personality alone, because its business is facing several points of failures. Yahoo knows that. It also knows that a MS takeover would gut the company and destroy shareholder value.

Why Does Microsoft Really Want Yahoo?

It's the stock buybacks that are eating up MS' cash reserve. Buying back your own stock is an admission you have nothing better to do with your money that give it back to your shareholders

Remember the words of Michael Dell wrt Apple? Apple isn't buying back its stock, it's buying new campuses, data centers, retail outlets, investing in building products to serve new markets, all of which are selling off the charts.

Microsoft is failing in every consumer electronics arena it enters. It's brightest star is the xbox, which has only made a few million in the last quarter after billions of losses. Sales have now plateaued, forcing the company back to release a new xbox generation and start spending again.

Video Game Consoles 2007: Wii, PS3 and the Death of Microsoftâ(TM)s Xbox 360

Vista might be shipping on some new PCs, but remember that nobody ever questioned Windows' ability to sell. It's a monopoly! Everyone expected MS to sell Vista without any hiccups. It was the consumer business and Windows Media/PlaysForSure, Zune, WinCE/Windows Mobile, Windows Embedded that were all on fire and sustaining deep losses. Microsoft can't sustain mild sales on Vista after spending billions to develop it over the last 6 years and having nothing really to show for all that.

Windows 7 won't show up for another three years, so Vista has to generate cash across that whole time period, not just ship on some new PCs. What's happening though, is that cheap PCs like the EEE and OLPC are running Linux, premium PC sales are getting eaten into by sales of Macs that are outpacing PC sales by 4x, and major vendors are begging to ship XP.

Microsoft's flat stock has been placid for a decade during record earnings boosted by automatic OEM PC sales in a period where the PC-box was the only game in town and there was no effective competition. MS is now being hit by competition at the low end and the high end, while also finding the PC market itself coasting along statically. Sales volumes are shifting toward mobile devices.

MS hasn't successfully delivered mobile devices anyone wants. UMPC was a huge failure, Windows Mobile is a joke. Now its facing the iPhone/iPod Touch and an array of smartphones from other vendors, without any viable game plan.

At some point, you can't say MS will survive on its good looks and personality alone, because its business is facing several points of failures. Yahoo knows that. It also knows that a MS takeover would gut the company and destroy shareholder value.

Why Does Microsoft Really Want Yahoo?

I agree that there isn't a confusion between the two entities; however, the issue isn't Apple suing to stop NYC from using the idea of an apple. It's a simple one of Apple legal filing to contest a logo that has more than a little similarity to its own. It's not close to being exactly the same, but if Apple hadn't taken any action, it would not have much to stand on when a third party in the PC/MP3/smartphone/software business began using something just as similar.

Apple Corps sued Apple over its name in 1978, and the case was settled in 1981 with Apple paying $80,000 and agreeing to stay out of the music business.

In 1989, Apple Corps sued again over the Mac's ability to play back MIDI and the Apple IIGS, which incorporated an Ensoniq sound chip. Apple Corps had an electronics business that failed in 1968. Apple settled again, paying $26.5 million.

When Apple introduced the iPod and iTunes, Apple Corps sued again, but the group lost its case against Apple. The two came to an agreement that gave Apple the rights to the name, the freedom to run its business, and gave Apple Corps the freedom to use the Apple name as well through a licensing agreement from Apple. The amount Apple Corps got was not published.

All these frothing Apple critics that say the company persecuted the Beetles are uninformed.

The Unavoidable Malware Myth: Why Apple Won't Inherit Microsoft's Malware Crown

WMF: I'll type this slowly for you:

The concept is that politically powerful people who live in NYC could be induced to start taking action on the issue of IP because of this tempest in a teapot.

NYC's own politicians are probably too busy with shit to care about another minor issue from some legal challenge.

You try so hard to malign Apple that it hurts. Good thing you're not very effective. Why not just jerk off furiously in your basement instead? Nobody gives a shit either way.

Five Factors Shifting the Future of Malware and Platform Security

Apple isn't arguing that NYC can't use the term Big Apple. The suit is about a new ad campaign that uses an apple logo with a swirl. It does not look much like Apple's logo, but if Apple didn't work to defend its logos and trademarks vigorously, it could lose them, perhaps not Apple, but others.

If it never said anything about the NYC apple, then what about a about a company that recycled computers with a similar iconic apple logo? What about a company making Applee iPodds?

I agree with an early poster: Apple winning the seemingly frivolous action might generate enough attention to reform the rather insane IP laws in general.

Filling the Unlocked iPhone Gap with .Mac

nice username.

Microsoft hasn't ever even described its concept for Windows 7, let alone began any serious work on it.

Vista was Microsoft's Copland, and 7 is its Gershwin. Apple shipped a developer release of Copland after four years of diddling, then pulled it back and recycled its feature set into Mac OS 8 and 9, and incorporated others into Mac OS X. Gershwin was never actually worked on, just floated as an upcoming release as a placeholder.

Similarly, "Windows 7" exists to take some of the heat off of Vista and suggest that a stopgap solution will be coming Real Soon Now. Unlike the old Apple, Microsoft released betas of Vista after four years of diddling, then kept working on it, scaled back features, and shipped something nobody wanted. There was far more excitement among Mac users for Mac OS 8 and 9 than there was among PC users for Vista.

The big difference is that Apple had an actual backup plan in place after buying NeXT in late 1996, and while it took a half decade to put together and ship Mac OS X, Apple had salable products to fill time in between (Mac OS 8, 8.5, 9). Microsoft not only lacks a serious product right now (driving PC users back to 2001's XP or into examining Linux), but it also clearly lacks any concrete plans for the future. Windows 7 is as vaporously devoid of specifics as it can be.

All Microsoft can talk about is Windows 7, which supposedly actually does what Vista promised but will only take 12 months to deliver instead of ~70, and Singularity, which floats some interesting concepts that are not even remotely close to being ready for any practical use. Talk about both only serves to distract from the disappointing reality of Vista.

Apple doesn't (and hasn't) ever removed the focus on its currently shipping version of Mac OS X to talk about something that's still two years off. Leopard didn't begin its marketing intro until Apple had its release set for 6 months out. Even despite pushing Leopard's release another ~8 months to ship the iPhone, that left the Leopard marketing little more than a year long effort, a full two years after the release of Tiger.

Microsoft begins talking about the next OS shortly before releasing its current version (XP hype began months before the release of 2000). Microsoft is always fixating attention two years out, not because it takes two years to deliver a release, but because it diverts attention from the shameful, non-competitive crap it's currently foisting upon the market.

Remember that MS took two years to get from Win95 to Win98, and then had to push out 98SE to make it actually work. Another two years brought WinME, which was dreadful. Win2000 was a good product, but was the result of a four YEAR effort to improve upon NT 4. Then a year later, Win2000 was merged with ME junk to deliver XP, a major and significant release but a relatively minor jump in technology, as indicated by the internal version number incrementing from 5.0 to 5.1. Then no new real updates for PC users until the disappointing Vista, which despite 6 years of work (and external hardware progress in the PC industry that should have made it faster), is still slow and suffers from backward compatibility problems.

If Vista can't run existing software flawlessly and support a wide range of PC hardware, how is some radical new version of Windows that has even less intrinsic backwards support (that is, relies on some sort of VM ghetto rather than providing native legacy support) in Windows 7 going to offer users any advantages?

And how is it that a company that has never introduced compelling operating system technology on anything close to an aggressive schedule is going to pull this off in some magically short time frame, when everything else the company has touched recently has turned into failure (Windows Mobile/WinCE, Windows Media, PlaysForSure, Vista, WHS, Surface, Zune, etc)?

CES: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

Gates says Vista will have a replacement in a year, and everyone assumes that a significant new version of Windows will ship?

Remember that last year, Gates promised Surface by the end of the year. It couldn't ship that big ass table on time, and when it did, it turned out to be just what I said it would be: a hobbyist kit with dev tools forcing buyers to write the software end themselves. In other words, MS couldn't ship the software end as promised.

Scratching the Surface of Microsoft's New Table PC
Microsoft Surface: the Fine Clothes of a Naked Empire

Sound familiar? It spent over year just getting Vista SP1 out, and that's largely a package of the security updates already released, not a major feature upgrade. Yet observers are warning people to wait for MS to fix SP1, because there's still lots of problems.

Remember Windows Home Server? Was supposed to arrive in 2006, but ended up getting reintroduced at CES 2007, still not ready. WHS is a simplified version of Windows Server with a web interface, not a substantial product.

Windows Home Server vs AirPort Extreme

Microsoft couldn't ship Windows Mobile 6 on time, which was supposed to ship alongside Vista; both were delayed, but Vista even more so.

The Spectacular Failure of WinCE and Windows Mobile

Do we even need to point out that Longhorn Vista spent 6 years in gestation before being released to snores? New tech, but still swimming in old legacy and limited by decisions MS though would be a good idea until it actually got knee deep and realized it had optimized for the wrong problems. Many features, such as the fabled database file system, couldn't get figured out at all.

Microsoft has never delivered by Bill Gates' promises and timelines. Remember Cairo in 1991? Remember what NT was supposed to deliver? Why will Microsoft suddenly be able to fulfill Gates' announcements after never having been able to previously, even over the last couple years?

1990-1995: Microsoft's Yellow Road to Cairo

Remember that MS has recently failed to stay competitive with Windows Mobile, with Windows Media, with PlaysForSure, with the Zune, with WHS, etc. ad nauseam. Now suddenly after the failure of the Vista launch, why would anyone rush to believe the idea that Microsoft can successfully ship a buzzword-heavy, detail-light operating system update that offers significant reasons to upgrade, is delivered at a reasonable price, runs well on existing hardware, and does not introduce major new problems for existing users with existing software? That's insane.

Why Microsoft's Zune is Still Failing

Microsoft is trying to do damage control after having targeted Windows 7 for arrival sometime in 2011, using the "two years out" promises that the company has always given, but never keeps. Facing real competition for the first time ever, Microsoft is now forced to cut its lie in half and promise something so fantastically egregious that pundits have no choice but to repeat it.

Windows 95 and Vista: Why 2007 Won't Be Like 1995

Filling the Unlocked iPhone Gap with .Mac

Gates says Vista will have a replacement in a year, and everyone assumes that a significant new version of Windows will ship?

Remember that last year, Gates promised Surface by the end of the year. It couldn't ship that big ass table on time, and when it did, it turned out to be just what I said it would be: a hobbyist kit with dev tools forcing buyers to write the software end themselves. In other words, MS couldn't ship the software end as promised.

Scratching the Surface of Microsoft's New Table PC
Microsoft Surface: the Fine Clothes of a Naked Empire

Sound familiar? It spent over year just getting Vista SP1 out, and that's largely a package of the security updates already released, not a major feature upgrade. Yet observers are warning people to wait for MS to fix SP1, because there's still lots of problems.

Remember Windows Home Server? Was supposed to arrive in 2006, but ended up getting reintroduced at CES 2007, still not ready. WHS is a simplified version of Windows Server with a web interface, not a substantial product.

Windows Home Server vs AirPort Extreme

Microsoft couldn't ship Windows Mobile 6 on time, which was supposed to ship alongside Vista; both were delayed, but Vista even more so.

The Spectacular Failure of WinCE and Windows Mobile

Do we even need to point out that Longhorn Vista spent 6 years in gestation before being released to snores? New tech, but still swimming in old legacy and limited by decisions MS though would be a good idea until it actually got knee deep and realized it had optimized for the wrong problems. Many features, such as the fabled database file system, couldn't get figured out at all.

Microsoft has never delivered by Bill Gates' promises and timelines. Remember Cairo in 1991? Remember what NT was supposed to deliver? Why will Microsoft suddenly be able to fulfill Gates' announcements after never having been able to previously, even over the last couple years?

1990-1995: Microsoft's Yellow Road to Cairo

Remember that MS has recently failed to stay competitive with Windows Mobile, with Windows Media, with PlaysForSure, with the Zune, with WHS, etc. ad nauseam. Now suddenly after the failure of the Vista launch, why would anyone rush to believe the idea that Microsoft can successfully ship a buzzword-heavy, detail-light operating system update that offers significant reasons to upgrade, is delivered at a reasonable price, runs well on existing hardware, and does not introduce major new problems for existing users with existing software? That's insane.

Why Microsoft's Zune is Still Failing

Microsoft is trying to do damage control after having targeted Windows 7 for arrival sometime in 2011, using the "two years out" promises that the company has always given, but never keeps. Facing real competition for the first time ever, Microsoft is now forced to cut its lie in half and promise something so fantastically egregious that pundits have no choice but to repeat it.

Windows 95 and Vista: Why 2007 Won't Be Like 1995

Filling the Unlocked iPhone Gap with .Mac

Gates says Vista will have a replacement in a year, and everyone assumes that a significant new version of Windows will ship?

Remember that last year, Gates promised Surface by the end of the year. It couldn't ship that big ass table on time, and when it did, it turned out to be just what I said it would be: a hobbyist kit with dev tools forcing buyers to write the software end themselves. In other words, MS couldn't ship the software end as promised.

Scratching the Surface of Microsoft's New Table PC
Microsoft Surface: the Fine Clothes of a Naked Empire

Sound familiar? It spent over year just getting Vista SP1 out, and that's largely a package of the security updates already released, not a major feature upgrade. Yet observers are warning people to wait for MS to fix SP1, because there's still lots of problems.

Remember Windows Home Server? Was supposed to arrive in 2006, but ended up getting reintroduced at CES 2007, still not ready. WHS is a simplified version of Windows Server with a web interface, not a substantial product.

Windows Home Server vs AirPort Extreme

Microsoft couldn't ship Windows Mobile 6 on time, which was supposed to ship alongside Vista; both were delayed, but Vista even more so.

The Spectacular Failure of WinCE and Windows Mobile

Do we even need to point out that Longhorn Vista spent 6 years in gestation before being released to snores? New tech, but still swimming in old legacy and limited by decisions MS though would be a good idea until it actually got knee deep and realized it had optimized for the wrong problems. Many features, such as the fabled database file system, couldn't get figured out at all.

Microsoft has never delivered by Bill Gates' promises and timelines. Remember Cairo in 1991? Remember what NT was supposed to deliver? Why will Microsoft suddenly be able to fulfill Gates' announcements after never having been able to previously, even over the last couple years?

1990-1995: Microsoft's Yellow Road to Cairo

Remember that MS has recently failed to stay competitive with Windows Mobile, with Windows Media, with PlaysForSure, with the Zune, with WHS, etc. ad nauseam. Now suddenly after the failure of the Vista launch, why would anyone rush to believe the idea that Microsoft can successfully ship a buzzword-heavy, detail-light operating system update that offers significant reasons to upgrade, is delivered at a reasonable price, runs well on existing hardware, and does not introduce major new problems for existing users with existing software? That's insane.

Why Microsoft's Zune is Still Failing

Microsoft is trying to do damage control after having targeted Windows 7 for arrival sometime in 2011, using the "two years out" promises that the company has always given, but never keeps. Facing real competition for the first time ever, Microsoft is now forced to cut its lie in half and promise something so fantastically egregious that pundits have no choice but to repeat it.

Windows 95 and Vista: Why 2007 Won't Be Like 1995

Filling the Unlocked iPhone Gap with .Mac

Gates says Vista will have a replacement in a year, and everyone assumes that a significant new version of Windows will ship?

Remember that last year, Gates promised Surface by the end of the year. It couldn't ship that big ass table on time, and when it did, it turned out to be just what I said it would be: a hobbyist kit with dev tools forcing buyers to write the software end themselves. In other words, MS couldn't ship the software end as promised.

Scratching the Surface of Microsoft's New Table PC
Microsoft Surface: the Fine Clothes of a Naked Empire

Sound familiar? It spent over year just getting Vista SP1 out, and that's largely a package of the security updates already released, not a major feature upgrade. Yet observers are warning people to wait for MS to fix SP1, because there's still lots of problems.

Remember Windows Home Server? Was supposed to arrive in 2006, but ended up getting reintroduced at CES 2007, still not ready. WHS is a simplified version of Windows Server with a web interface, not a substantial product.

Windows Home Server vs AirPort Extreme

Microsoft couldn't ship Windows Mobile 6 on time, which was supposed to ship alongside Vista; both were delayed, but Vista even more so.

The Spectacular Failure of WinCE and Windows Mobile

Do we even need to point out that Longhorn Vista spent 6 years in gestation before being released to snores? New tech, but still swimming in old legacy and limited by decisions MS though would be a good idea until it actually got knee deep and realized it had optimized for the wrong problems. Many features, such as the fabled database file system, couldn't get figured out at all.

Microsoft has never delivered by Bill Gates' promises and timelines. Remember Cairo in 1991? Remember what NT was supposed to deliver? Why will Microsoft suddenly be able to fulfill Gates' announcements after never having been able to previously, even over the last couple years?

1990-1995: Microsoft's Yellow Road to Cairo

Remember that MS has recently failed to stay competitive with Windows Mobile, with Windows Media, with PlaysForSure, with the Zune, with WHS, etc. ad nauseam. Now suddenly after the failure of the Vista launch, why would anyone rush to believe the idea that Microsoft can successfully ship a buzzword-heavy, detail-light operating system update that offers significant reasons to upgrade, is delivered at a reasonable price, runs well on existing hardware, and does not introduce major new problems for existing users with existing software? That's insane.

Why Microsoft's Zune is Still Failing

Microsoft is trying to do damage control after having targeted Windows 7 for arrival sometime in 2011, using the "two years out" promises that the company has always given, but never keeps. Facing real competition for the first time ever, Microsoft is now forced to cut its lie in half and promise something so fantastically egregious that pundits have no choice but to repeat it.

Windows 95 and Vista: Why 2007 Won't Be Like 1995

Filling the Unlocked iPhone Gap with .Mac

Gates says Vista will have a replacement in a year, and everyone assumes that a significant new version of Windows will ship?

Remember that last year, Gates promised Surface by the end of the year. It couldn't ship that big ass table on time, and when it did, it turned out to be just what I said it would be: a hobbyist kit with dev tools forcing buyers to write the software end themselves. In other words, MS couldn't ship the software end as promised.

Scratching the Surface of Microsoft's New Table PC
Microsoft Surface: the Fine Clothes of a Naked Empire

Sound familiar? It spent over year just getting Vista SP1 out, and that's largely a package of the security updates already released, not a major feature upgrade. Yet observers are warning people to wait for MS to fix SP1, because there's still lots of problems.

Remember Windows Home Server? Was supposed to arrive in 2006, but ended up getting reintroduced at CES 2007, still not ready. WHS is a simplified version of Windows Server with a web interface, not a substantial product.

Windows Home Server vs AirPort Extreme

Microsoft couldn't ship Windows Mobile 6 on time, which was supposed to ship alongside Vista; both were delayed, but Vista even more so.

The Spectacular Failure of WinCE and Windows Mobile

Do we even need to point out that Longhorn Vista spent 6 years in gestation before being released to snores? New tech, but still swimming in old legacy and limited by decisions MS though would be a good idea until it actually got knee deep and realized it had optimized for the wrong problems. Many features, such as the fabled database file system, couldn't get figured out at all.

Microsoft has never delivered by Bill Gates' promises and timelines. Remember Cairo in 1991? Remember what NT was supposed to deliver? Why will Microsoft suddenly be able to fulfill Gates' announcements after never having been able to previously, even over the last couple years?

1990-1995: Microsoft's Yellow Road to Cairo

Remember that MS has recently failed to stay competitive with Windows Mobile, with Windows Media, with PlaysForSure, with the Zune, with WHS, etc. ad nauseam. Now suddenly after the failure of the Vista launch, why would anyone rush to believe the idea that Microsoft can successfully ship a buzzword-heavy, detail-light operating system update that offers significant reasons to upgrade, is delivered at a reasonable price, runs well on existing hardware, and does not introduce major new problems for existing users with existing software? That's insane.

Why Microsoft's Zune is Still Failing

Microsoft is trying to do damage control after having targeted Windows 7 for arrival sometime in 2011, using the "two years out" promises that the company has always given, but never keeps. Facing real competition for the first time ever, Microsoft is now forced to cut its lie in half and promise something so fantastically egregious that pundits have no choice but to repeat it.

Windows 95 and Vista: Why 2007 Won't Be Like 1995

Filling the Unlocked iPhone Gap with .Mac

Gates says Vista will have a replacement in a year, and everyone assumes that a significant new version of Windows will ship?

Remember that last year, Gates promised Surface by the end of the year. It couldn't ship that big ass table on time, and when it did, it turned out to be just what I said it would be: a hobbyist kit with dev tools forcing buyers to write the software end themselves. In other words, MS couldn't ship the software end as promised.

Scratching the Surface of Microsoft's New Table PC
Microsoft Surface: the Fine Clothes of a Naked Empire

Sound familiar? It spent over year just getting Vista SP1 out, and that's largely a package of the security updates already released, not a major feature upgrade. Yet observers are warning people to wait for MS to fix SP1, because there's still lots of problems.

Remember Windows Home Server? Was supposed to arrive in 2006, but ended up getting reintroduced at CES 2007, still not ready. WHS is a simplified version of Windows Server with a web interface, not a substantial product.

Windows Home Server vs AirPort Extreme

Microsoft couldn't ship Windows Mobile 6 on time, which was supposed to ship alongside Vista; both were delayed, but Vista even more so.

The Spectacular Failure of WinCE and Windows Mobile

Do we even need to point out that Longhorn Vista spent 6 years in gestation before being released to snores? New tech, but still swimming in old legacy and limited by decisions MS though would be a good idea until it actually got knee deep and realized it had optimized for the wrong problems. Many features, such as the fabled database file system, couldn't get figured out at all.

Microsoft has never delivered by Bill Gates' promises and timelines. Remember Cairo in 1991? Remember what NT was supposed to deliver? Why will Microsoft suddenly be able to fulfill Gates' announcements after never having been able to previously, even over the last couple years?

1990-1995: Microsoft's Yellow Road to Cairo

Remember that MS has recently failed to stay competitive with Windows Mobile, with Windows Media, with PlaysForSure, with the Zune, with WHS, etc. ad nauseam. Now suddenly after the failure of the Vista launch, why would anyone rush to believe the idea that Microsoft can successfully ship a buzzword-heavy, detail-light operating system update that offers significant reasons to upgrade, is delivered at a reasonable price, runs well on existing hardware, and does not introduce major new problems for existing users with existing software? That's insane.

Why Microsoft's Zune is Still Failing

Microsoft is trying to do damage control after having targeted Windows 7 for arrival sometime in 2011, using the "two years out" promises that the company has always given, but never keeps. Facing real competition for the first time ever, Microsoft is now forced to cut its lie in half and promise something so fantastically egregious that pundits have no choice but to repeat it.

Windows 95 and Vista: Why 2007 Won't Be Like 1995

Filling the Unlocked iPhone Gap with .Mac

Gates says Vista will have a replacement in a year, and everyone assumes that a significant new version of Windows will ship?

Remember that last year, Gates promised Surface by the end of the year. It couldn't ship that big ass table on time, and when it did, it turned out to be just what I said it would be: a hobbyist kit with dev tools forcing buyers to write the software end themselves. In other words, MS couldn't ship the software end as promised.

Scratching the Surface of Microsoft's New Table PC
Microsoft Surface: the Fine Clothes of a Naked Empire

Sound familiar? It spent over year just getting Vista SP1 out, and that's largely a package of the security updates already released, not a major feature upgrade. Yet observers are warning people to wait for MS to fix SP1, because there's still lots of problems.

Remember Windows Home Server? Was supposed to arrive in 2006, but ended up getting reintroduced at CES 2007, still not ready. WHS is a simplified version of Windows Server with a web interface, not a substantial product.

Windows Home Server vs AirPort Extreme

Microsoft couldn't ship Windows Mobile 6 on time, which was supposed to ship alongside Vista; both were delayed, but Vista even more so.

The Spectacular Failure of WinCE and Windows Mobile

Do we even need to point out that Longhorn Vista spent 6 years in gestation before being released to snores? New tech, but still swimming in old legacy and limited by decisions MS though would be a good idea until it actually got knee deep and realized it had optimized for the wrong problems. Many features, such as the fabled database file system, couldn't get figured out at all.

Microsoft has never delivered by Bill Gates' promises and timelines. Remember Cairo in 1991? Remember what NT was supposed to deliver? Why will Microsoft suddenly be able to fulfill Gates' announcements after never having been able to previously, even over the last couple years?

1990-1995: Microsoft's Yellow Road to Cairo

Remember that MS has recently failed to stay competitive with Windows Mobile, with Windows Media, with PlaysForSure, with the Zune, with WHS, etc. ad nauseam. Now suddenly after the failure of the Vista launch, why would anyone rush to believe the idea that Microsoft can successfully ship a buzzword-heavy, detail-light operating system update that offers significant reasons to upgrade, is delivered at a reasonable price, runs well on existing hardware, and does not introduce major new problems for existing users with existing software? That's insane.

Why Microsoft's Zune is Still Failing

Microsoft is trying to do damage control after having targeted Windows 7 for arrival sometime in 2011, using the "two years out" promises that the company has always given, but never keeps. Facing real competition for the first time ever, Microsoft is now forced to cut its lie in half and promise something so fantastically egregious that pundits have no choice but to repeat it.

Windows 95 and Vista: Why 2007 Won't Be Like 1995

Filling the Unlocked iPhone Gap with .Mac

Gates says Vista will have a replacement in a year, and everyone assumes that a significant new version of Windows will ship?

Remember that last year, Gates promised Surface by the end of the year. It couldn't ship that big ass table on time, and when it did, it turned out to be just what I said it would be: a hobbyist kit with dev tools forcing buyers to write the software end themselves. In other words, MS couldn't ship the software end as promised.

Scratching the Surface of Microsoft's New Table PC
Microsoft Surface: the Fine Clothes of a Naked Empire

Sound familiar? It spent over year just getting Vista SP1 out, and that's largely a package of the security updates already released, not a major feature upgrade. Yet observers are warning people to wait for MS to fix SP1, because there's still lots of problems.

Remember Windows Home Server? Was supposed to arrive in 2006, but ended up getting reintroduced at CES 2007, still not ready. WHS is a simplified version of Windows Server with a web interface, not a substantial product.

Windows Home Server vs AirPort Extreme

Microsoft couldn't ship Windows Mobile 6 on time, which was supposed to ship alongside Vista; both were delayed, but Vista even more so.

The Spectacular Failure of WinCE and Windows Mobile

Do we even need to point out that Longhorn Vista spent 6 years in gestation before being released to snores? New tech, but still swimming in old legacy and limited by decisions MS though would be a good idea until it actually got knee deep and realized it had optimized for the wrong problems. Many features, such as the fabled database file system, couldn't get figured out at all.

Microsoft has never delivered by Bill Gates' promises and timelines. Remember Cairo in 1991? Remember what NT was supposed to deliver? Why will Microsoft suddenly be able to fulfill Gates' announcements after never having been able to previously, even over the last couple years?

1990-1995: Microsoft's Yellow Road to Cairo

Remember that MS has recently failed to stay competitive with Windows Mobile, with Windows Media, with PlaysForSure, with the Zune, with WHS, etc. ad nauseam. Now suddenly after the failure of the Vista launch, why would anyone rush to believe the idea that Microsoft can successfully ship a buzzword-heavy, detail-light operating system update that offers significant reasons to upgrade, is delivered at a reasonable price, runs well on existing hardware, and does not introduce major new problems for existing users with existing software? That's insane.

Why Microsoft's Zune is Still Failing

Microsoft is trying to do damage control after having targeted Windows 7 for arrival sometime in 2011, using the "two years out" promises that the company has always given, but never keeps. Facing real competition for the first time ever, Microsoft is now forced to cut its lie in half and promise something so fantastically egregious that pundits have no choice but to repeat it.

Windows 95 and Vista: Why 2007 Won't Be Like 1995

Filling the Unlocked iPhone Gap with .Mac

I remember when Longhorn was the next Cairo. Now, of course, Vista isn't Longhorn, just like the Segway wasn't really Ginger. (Remember how that worked out? Yeah.) Nobody sane in that company thinks that Windows 7 is due next year. They don't even have a damned marketing name for it yet. This will be at least the third major OS release they've pulled this crap with--Cairo, Longhorn and now "Windows 7"--and nobody's looking at the history. It's enough to make one switch to a different OS.

Right, because all of the people suffering from dementia today didn't drink coffee every day.

That's all they drank! That's all there was in the 40s!

Who pays for this kind of research, and why don't they have a subscription to any sort of reality?

Five Factors Shifting the Future of Malware and Platform Security

I still think Roughly Drafted had it right in a post last year.

Surface took longer, was more expensive, and is uglier than the iPhone. The iPhone uses real touch sensitivity, while Surface uses cameras and a projection screen. Surface had interesting tricks like identifying objects, but it did that through essentially 8 dot bar codes.

So here we are, a year later. Surface has been no where to be seen. It is now coming to 4 AT&T stores in large cities, where it will do next to nothing.

You can compare phones. Neat. A normal kiosk could do that (as the article points out). The more interesting abilities of Surface (like collaboration and such) won't come out in that. You can only compare two phones at once? There are only 8 or the (what, 20+) phones AT&T sells that will work with it? And how long before people steal some of the special phones (with the magic bar codes or whatever) thus rendering it a big expensive table? Or will those phones be tied up with leashes also?

It's a semi-interesting technology, that isn't going anywhere because of the management. Is anyone surprised? This is how basically every tech demo ends up. We never see it, or it gets managed to death.

They should have just started selling them to the (business) public at a high price with an SDK and just let people figure it out.

Cairo, Longhorn and Windows 7 are all the same thing, vapor used to crush working implementations.

Well if the worst I've done is to upset you with "blatant lies" is in saying that WHS wasn't available at the time of the writing of an article you dug up months after I wrote it, then I have little to worry about.

Thanks for clueing me into the fact that there are fanatical Microsoft fans in the UK. That should be obvious, but it hadn't occurred to me. Why anyone would be a devoted fan and defender of such a shitty, undeserving, criminal company always has me puzzled. But then again, there are plenty of people who hate Apple for its serious crimes, such as outlining a unique development strategy for its own mobile platform, or as you point out, naming its WiFi base stations AirPorts. That's something like being sued by the US, EU, and most of the states for cheating customers with excessive prices, illegally preventing competition, and monopolizing markets to restrain trade and the state of the art. And being forced to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements to a series of companies it cheated as a partner. Microsoft is shithole, and why you'd want to shove your tongue up it leaves me speechless.

I already outlined the zealotry on both sides in Zune vs. iPhone: Five Phases of Media Coverage.

Everyone on slashdot knows you are an anti-Apple troll, as both your sig and username suggest.

Everyone also knows that I'm the author of RoughlyDrafted, as you yourself do despite your disingenuous hypocrisy. Here's something you might not know: pretty much every fan letter I get comes from somebody with a sig suggesting experience, background and an education beyond mine: PhDs, artists, military officers (seem to be well represented). Yet they note appreciation for the facts I put together and the opinions I present based on rational ideas. Sure, readers don't always agree with everything I have to say, and they are free to note their own opinions in my comments.

I get a few fan letters every day, along with some PayPal donations. I have about 15,000-20,000 unique visitors every day, not because of sensationalist headlines posted to Digg, but because about a third have subscribed to my RSS and read it regularly, a third come from direct links on sites that find it link worthy, and another third comes from Google due to my having lots of external links on my articles. I am not a corporate media site like Wired, Engadget, Gizmodo, or the CNET/ZDnet blogs, and I'm not a blurb aggregator. I write original content in a long form that visitors spend a significant amount of time reading.

The only people who really take any issue with any of the things I've written are anonymous cowards such as yourself and the vast diggtard hoard of mouth breathing, profanity laced, name calling group thinkers who assail me for various things, including exposing the misleading sales numbers of the Xbox 360 (unit sales were down roughly 30% year over year in 2007; nobody dare say it except for me) and outing the historical revisionism Windows Enthusiasts are working to write into Wikipedia articles.

It is impossible for me to be offended by your insults, because you have already positioned yourself among these morons with your emotionalist claptrap. There isn't much you could say that would penetrate the jail of intellectual contempt I have created around you to encase your raving bullshit.

As for your lone attempt to present a real argument, please let us know where the market for Mac viruses and exploits is, and who is going to make any money off that. Also, please fill us in on what you think it means to be a zombie, because a zombie process has nothing to do with being part of a Windows botnet.

On second thought, just keep quiet as we've heard enough ignorance from you already.

CanSecWest and Swiss Federal Institute of Tech Deliver Attacks on the Reality of Mac Security

As you note, Mac OS X does not force you to use the CLI. This is because Apple "forced" developers to follow its Human Interface Guidelines.

I see the point you are making, and I agree with it in principle, but empowering CLI scripting, X11 apps and Unix power tools on a desktop machine is not equivalent to allowing developers to convert the iPhone into another junk mobile platform with the interface of WinCE, the stability of the Palm OS, the performance of Java ME, the viruses of Symbian, and the political feuding and incompatibilities of mobile Linux.

One reason the iPod worked is that Apple didn't clutter it with a public API for adding bells and whistles. The iPhone has done exceptionally well as a closed smartphone. Adding a limited SDK is better than turning it into a Linux Tinker Toy set that converts into a pile of junk after you install a few apps.

Despite all of Apple's restrictions, there will apparently continue to be a jailbreak community adding unsupported apps, so I don't understand what the controversy is here. It looks like we can all have our cake and eat it too.

Or are you suggesting that to have #3, everyone else needs to be officially exposed to complexity, security, performance and battery life issues that Apple should somehow take ownership of after third parties create the mess?

Mac Shot First: 10 Reasons Why CanSecWest Targets Apple

You are too old to be expressing yourself like you are 16.

By 46, you should know that time is valuable enough to avoid being a pedantic nut. You should also know the meaning of sarcasm and irony.

You should also be able to reasonably predict obvious risks. I haven't had anyone spill their drink on me in a plane yet (purposely or not), but I have spilled drinks on a laptop, and I have witnessed people spilling drinks on airplanes. In the last month, I managed to be sitting next to two different women who both managed to spill a drink all over themselves in various ways. Putting those tidbits of knowledge together, I recognize some threat related to exposed laptops, drinks, airplanes, turbulence, and hysterical and/or clumsy women. It has nothing to do with being genteel.

Oh dear, I believe I am fated to increasingly be stuck in pedantic conversations about ridiculous subjects on the Internet. Please don't take my remarks as a personal offense.

Mac Shot First: 10 Reasons Why CanSecWest Targets Apple

I do not comment on every issue related to Apple. I typically write about topics that either interest me, or are being falsely portrayed by idiots in the corporate media.

Taking that into perspective, it's no mystery why I quite consistently side with Apple: I'm choosing between Apple and Idiots. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Apple, and I do take some effort to mention these when they haven't already been drummed to death.

Calling me a shill just highlights that you don't know what a shill is. FYI: it pertains to somebody who directs attention to a product they know is worthless or a rip off, like carnival games, while pretending they have benefitted from them or are a happy customer. For that reason, I have no problem speaking of Windows Shills.

Describing the genius of a marketing strategy, or plotting tech trends that appear to favor Apple is not something than can be described as being a shill.

Your position on unrestricted mobile development is your own opinion (one you hold with all the other corporate media idiots, I might add). I've detailed rational reasons why I disagree, and think Apple is doing the right thing. I have not seen any rational ideas bubble up from the OMG APPLE HURTS US WITH RESTRICTIONS camp, just frothy emotional outbreaks and broad generalizations that dismiss the facts the Windows PC is a security nightmare, Java ME is a mess on phones, and that Symbian and RIM are both pursuing a similar restriction strategy as Apple.

You can spew emotional rhetoric about how everything Apple does is an expression of the farcical tyranny of Steve Jobs, and how Apple has a moral obligation to open EDGE to VoIP despite its contracts with AT&T, but it doesn't add up to anything more than the whining of an anti-fanboy.

Microsoft attained its position by being anticompetitive: announcing products it never shipped on time, exclusive agreements that blocked any rivals, products tied to its core monopolies, and buying up products and companies and shutting them down. Apple is attaining its success by delivering better products, putting a lot of work into them, a lot of forethought, and delivering consistent advancements.

If you want to dismiss me as a shill for being the lone voice in the wilderness defending one of the best companies to ever exist in tech, pound your keyboard to death doing so. If you want to insist that Apple has a moral obligation to start following your strategies now that it has leading products and significant market power, you are sure free to babble on about it just like the 90% of CNET/ZDNet that wasn't recently laid off. However, you don't really have any right to demonize me for writing truth and reporting accurately, and allowing critics such as yourself to freely post your own counterpoints in the comments of my articles.

I also disagree with your opinion that "Apple is better because the product is better, not because they have better control over your experience." I would say Apple's products are often better because it offers better control over your experience. That's why it "just works," and why DIY FOSS does not. There are great advantages to open ended freedom, but there are drawbacks too. Most people don't want a car that forces them to do daily maintenance on it for it to work.

A maintenance free battery and computer-controlled ignition are not "freedom barriers" but rather time savers that prevent drivers from having to pour water in their battery, balance its electrolytes, and fiddle with rotors, points and a tricky butterfly valve. It's the same thing with the sealed battery in the iPhone and the limitations on apps to prevent them from going apeshit and killing your phone.

You can continue to froth emotionally about how evil Apple is for not following the "wisdom" of the crowd, but I prefer to think Apple knows more about what its doing than the morons who are too quick to bewail it.

And now, a link:
Mac Shot First: 10 Reasons Why CanSecWest Targets Apple

I've tried out the Virgin America system. Half of the VA flights I went on lacked the hardware, but on the newer planes that have it, most of the features don't yet work.

There are billboards around SF touting its in cabin IM features (chat with other passengers), but they weren't working yet.

I tried ordering snacks, but that didn't work either.

Movies cost something ridiculous like $8 to watch.

Most of the system is just a placeholder. And please, a seatback display is maybe okay for watching TV video clips, but it is no replacement for a newspaper. This thing isn't going to save any trees by forcing users to squint at a tiny display two feet away.

I'd rather have in-flight WiFi and use my iPhone to do things that don't bill me per second (although the inflight WiFi likely would.)

10 Things to Remember About CanSecWest and Software Vulnerabilities

Since you asked for it:

Phone 2.0 SDK: The No Multitasking Myth

The short version: remember the headlines gasping that the iPhone could have spy software installed that took pictures with its camera and mailed them to the Terrorists? That can't happen with SDK software. It can (hypothetically) happen with jailbroken phones. That's why Apple has engineered safeguards into its SDK. Because it's trying to be responsible, unlike the current state of Windows, Java, Flash and other filthy platforms.

The fact that you'd rather spew forth ignorance than recognize that obvious fact demonstrates that you're either a moron or highly disingenuous. You don't have to support Apple's outlook, but representing it as a pointless limitation that hurts users is simply irresponsible.