They did not attempt extortion. Apple made a request and Gizmodo said yes provided it was a formal request, in writing not a phone call. Steve Jobs considered that extortion, because he believed rightly, the purpose of the formal request was to generate a story which would generate page views. That's not remotely extortion.
How exactly is a willingness to purchase stolen goods to get information not consistent with a source being a good source of information? As a consumer of journalism I want journalists that go the extra mile.
I don't have personal experience with iTunes on Windows. As for management most everything can be done on the phone itself, you are a few years out of date. I prefer iTunes but I'm using iTunes on its native platform.
As for the rest you should read the list. I doubt your batter life is better than your friend's iPhone. I doubt your phone comes with a nearby store or extensive online and over the phone technical support.... Those are the functions that sell the iPhone.
Wasn't KDE at the time in question under QPL, rather than GPL, just like Qt was?
No KDE was always under the GPL. QT was under the QPL and before that a non commercial license.
. Caldera's problem was that as an OS company, they had myriad competitors out to eat their breakfasts, lunches & dinners. But as an applications or solutions company servicing either all, or at least the major Unix companies out there - Sun, HP, IBM, DEC, et al, as well as the major Linux bases i.e. Red Hat, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, et al, they'd have had a rich source of opportunities - and income, since all of these guys would have been their partners.
My point is their applications weren't good enough. Caldera's apps were good by Linux standards they weren't good by Solaris or AIX standards.
I think if it had been Democrats the form of TARP would have been direct mortgage assistance to home owners. In any case the government made a slight profit on TARP so it wasn't a massive expense though it was a massive intervention.
I assume "it just works" sounds like "better integration" and possibly innovation. I assume the sample answers discouraged "it just works". In terms of why people didn't pick the phone, Apple estimated it at the high 40s in terms of Verizon customers i.e. people who would have bought Apple but got Android instead. I think the underestimated since within 3 quarters of coming to Verizon they were 54% of Verizon's smartphone sales.
In the other direction people who reject Apple. A good proxy might be the 1/4 of AT&T customers that choose Android over Apple for their smartphones.
As an aside I'm in the "it just works" group. By which I mean: better integration with OSX, better quality of construction so I don't have to worry about wear and tear after 2 years, monitored app marketplace so I don't have to worry about viruses, and customers with a pole up their ass about quality defects so I can trust reviews.
I don't see how Caldera could be a BSD company. Their claim to fame involved things like KDE (GPL) and extensions to the Linux kernel. Without Linux they weren't anything but a SCO service company. Even when we talk about Caldera getting out of the OS business and just selling servers to all Unixes... everything they wrote was Linux specific.
As far as the plethora of Unixes, that was a problem for the SCO half of the business as it created a competitive environment. For Linux (and Caldera in particular) all those other Unixes were a source of ideas, features and sometimes even code i.e. food for Linux's growth to a mature feature rich system. Remember 1990s Linux was about building stuff that was worse than the commercial Unixes much cheaper and undercutting them on price, disruption from below. SCO strategy was similar on the surface, using x86 hardware for servers, instead of more expensive hardware, essentially Microsoft's server strategy but they were totally vulnerable to Linux. I.E. the typical problem for Caldera that the two sides of the business had intrinsically opposite strategies.
Honestly, United Linux was the right move if you believed in the migration strategy. Just imagine if by 2004 there had been an industry standard binary compatible Linux available in a few dozen languages with support teams on four continents backed by several major corporations pulling in applications from multiple legacy platforms. I think that's a pretty compelling product. They just lost faith in their own direction and decided to sue everyone instead of making stuff.
I agree that Caldera's problem was unique but it wasn't some hidden problem. Caldera had always been a money loser but was clearly tied to the future. SCO's two products were money makers but were making money only because they had decided to stop trying to keep up. Caldera failure to decide on a business strategy was bad.
I don't know whether the GPL was what reduced the options Caldera had in terms of licensing - whereas OSE or Unixware could be sold on a per seat basis,
No Caldera was mostly fine. Caldera and United Linux has always managed to have effective per seat licensing by intermixing GPL and commercial code at the distribution level. For example Volution Messaging Server replaced Microsoft Exchange and that was closed source proprietary for Linux. On the other hand per seat licensing completely alienated the Linux community and Caldera (and the other United Linux partners) couldn't get support from upstream projects. If they were having problems the general attitude was often "good, I'm glad you are having problems". RedHat has been masterful in a way few others ever have in bridging the gap between the Open Source community and the business community.
In terms of the lines about compatibility, you might be misreading it, "Caldera was built on the Linux kernel which ran on x86, PowerPC and Alpha architectures." this was back at the start of Network desktop long before there was sparc integration.
As for the McBride strategy of suing people, I think that really happened after and in response to both sides of the business were collapsing.
You are right about the trademark. Anyway regardless of the trademark my answer still stands. Though its odd to sell the brand name to one person and the brand to another.
Among people who wanted to buy an iPhone and choose Android instead:
Wanted to stay with current wireless service provider: 48% Trusted the Google brand: 36% Preferred larger screen: 30% Preferred the Android market for apps (Gmail, Google Docs, Google-Voice): 27% Wanted better integration with Google services: 26% Wanted the latest and greatest smartphone: 26% Wanted turn by turn GPS navigation: 25% Wanted the latest technology: 25%
Conversely JD Power and associates did the opposite survey and found the number one reason people choose Apple was battery life. An area where they are only beaten by 1 RIM model as a matter of fact. #2 reason was Apple's high level of customer service after point of sale #3 better integration #4 singular vision #5 better sales staff (I'm assuming they mean Apple stores as contrasted with regular carrier based stores) #6 innovation
I read those and they seem mostly true in both directions. I don't personally agree with the "latest and greatest" and "technology" arguments on Android but I can see where Android customers might view Apple as too conservative.
No that's not what I meant. I had the timeline through Bush. That being said the Democrats did about 1 bad thing for every 5 the Republicans did on crony capitalism. As Joe Biden likes to say (who BTW authored the Bankruptcy reform act one of those really horrible laws under Bush) "compare me to the alternative not to The Almighty".
Unixware was a Novell/SCO brandname for their Unix. In terms of the difference there was a greater focus on working well and helping people transition from Netware to more Unix (i.e. what we today call "standard internet" type services). The OpenGroup doesn't own the Unixware trademark, SCO owned that.
I'm all for better laws, though the ones we have are good just mostly not enforced.
As for pulling charters... it could be easily done. Assume that a company's right to operate in a state could be pulled by public referendum that would have a huge impact on corporate behavior. Assume the US treasury had this power and used it regularly. That would clean up corporations.
Now I agree that a treasury department that would have no problem disbanding large corporations is also a treasury department that doesn't need to. But Timothy Geitner frequently complained about his lack of legal authority to do what he needed to do during the crisis. Our governing official do frequently complain they lack sufficient legal powers.
Odd you would pick Walmart. I don't see how rural areas would have food shortages however. Even for most rural areas there are other large grocery stores within 100 miles. Given high demand they can extend hours and move far more product than they do today. There is plenty of excess road capacity in rural areas. Not much of anything would happen.
As for Walmart's suppliers, similar to the food. Kmart, target... pick up the slack and to pick up the slack they go to existing suppliers.
. Apple is also safe because most of those people have never tried nor want to try an android device.
Please. Android is the top selling phone OS in the world. It is the dominant competitor everywhere iPhone is marketed. People don't live in a bubble. They know what Android devices are and like the alternate product better.
Yeah the metric here is market cap not societal importance. It will be a good day when people stop confusing the two and that applies much more broadly than just Apple.
Not all of it. Just our mistrust of immortal persons and a willingness to treat for profit entities like we do non profit ones today. But it is disappointing that governments haven't used the authority except in the example of non profits. Could catch on your part.
If it is after Ransom Love that was the McBride era. On the osmosis issue I wrote an article years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caldera_OpenLinux . Caldera around '95 had written an compatibility layer to allow UnixWare apps to run on their Linux. They had really believed that United Linux was the obvious migration path. The resellers didn't see it that way. Caldera was in some ways ahead of its time by a few years. If they hadn't bought SCO and used the money from the DR DOS settlement to run the business they might very well have lasted to the point when people were migrating.
But its tough for a company that spent a decade selling "Unixware is old school switch to us" to change over to "Unixware is great want a support contract?"
Sorry I replied before realizing you used to work there.
In which case I understand you hate Caldera but by the time Caldera bought SCO they weren't the Caldera that had been part of Linux. The integration was bad between those two companies and their interests conflicted.
Rob Enderle -- has written a fairly long explication of his involvement. His reputation is permanently damaged. Maureen O'Gara -- didn't have much of a reputation to start with but there are now many articles that insinuate she fabricated information for pay, which is likely about the worst she did. Dan Lyons -- The link to his apology is easy to find http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/19/software-linux-lawsuits-tech-oped-cx_dl_0919lyons.html
But I still thought it would be foolish to predict how this lawsuit (or any lawsuit) would play out. I even wrote an article called "Revenge of the Nerds," which poked fun at the pack of amateur sleuths who were following the case on a Web site called Groklaw and who claimed to know for sure that SCO was going to lose.
Turns out those amateur sleuths were right. Now some of them are writing to me asking how I'd like my crow cooked, and where I'd like it delivered.
Others in that highly partisan crowd have suggested that I wanted SCO to win, and even that I was paid off by SCO or Microsoft. Of course that's not true. I've told these folks it's not true. Hasn't stopped them.
The truth, as is often the case, is far less exciting than the conspiracy theorists would like to believe. It is simply this: I got it wrong. The nerds got it right.
SCO started as a copyright claim. The main thing in question was the claim that Linux SMP was in violation and that has been resolved in Linux's favor.
Slashdot Mirror
They did not attempt extortion. Apple made a request and Gizmodo said yes provided it was a formal request, in writing not a phone call. Steve Jobs considered that extortion, because he believed rightly, the purpose of the formal request was to generate a story which would generate page views. That's not remotely extortion.
How exactly is a willingness to purchase stolen goods to get information not consistent with a source being a good source of information? As a consumer of journalism I want journalists that go the extra mile.
I don't have personal experience with iTunes on Windows. As for management most everything can be done on the phone itself, you are a few years out of date. I prefer iTunes but I'm using iTunes on its native platform.
As for the rest you should read the list. I doubt your batter life is better than your friend's iPhone. I doubt your phone comes with a nearby store or extensive online and over the phone technical support.... Those are the functions that sell the iPhone.
Wasn't KDE at the time in question under QPL, rather than GPL, just like Qt was?
No KDE was always under the GPL. QT was under the QPL and before that a non commercial license.
. Caldera's problem was that as an OS company, they had myriad competitors out to eat their breakfasts, lunches & dinners. But as an applications or solutions company servicing either all, or at least the major Unix companies out there - Sun, HP, IBM, DEC, et al, as well as the major Linux bases i.e. Red Hat, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, et al, they'd have had a rich source of opportunities - and income, since all of these guys would have been their partners.
My point is their applications weren't good enough. Caldera's apps were good by Linux standards they weren't good by Solaris or AIX standards.
I think if it had been Democrats the form of TARP would have been direct mortgage assistance to home owners. In any case the government made a slight profit on TARP so it wasn't a massive expense though it was a massive intervention.
I assume "it just works" sounds like "better integration" and possibly innovation. I assume the sample answers discouraged "it just works". In terms of why people didn't pick the phone, Apple estimated it at the high 40s in terms of Verizon customers i.e. people who would have bought Apple but got Android instead. I think the underestimated since within 3 quarters of coming to Verizon they were 54% of Verizon's smartphone sales.
In the other direction people who reject Apple. A good proxy might be the 1/4 of AT&T customers that choose Android over Apple for their smartphones.
As an aside I'm in the "it just works" group. By which I mean: better integration with OSX, better quality of construction so I don't have to worry about wear and tear after 2 years, monitored app marketplace so I don't have to worry about viruses, and customers with a pole up their ass about quality defects so I can trust reviews.
I don't see how Caldera could be a BSD company. Their claim to fame involved things like KDE (GPL) and extensions to the Linux kernel. Without Linux they weren't anything but a SCO service company. Even when we talk about Caldera getting out of the OS business and just selling servers to all Unixes... everything they wrote was Linux specific.
As far as the plethora of Unixes, that was a problem for the SCO half of the business as it created a competitive environment. For Linux (and Caldera in particular) all those other Unixes were a source of ideas, features and sometimes even code i.e. food for Linux's growth to a mature feature rich system. Remember 1990s Linux was about building stuff that was worse than the commercial Unixes much cheaper and undercutting them on price, disruption from below. SCO strategy was similar on the surface, using x86 hardware for servers, instead of more expensive hardware, essentially Microsoft's server strategy but they were totally vulnerable to Linux. I.E. the typical problem for Caldera that the two sides of the business had intrinsically opposite strategies.
Honestly, United Linux was the right move if you believed in the migration strategy. Just imagine if by 2004 there had been an industry standard binary compatible Linux available in a few dozen languages with support teams on four continents backed by several major corporations pulling in applications from multiple legacy platforms. I think that's a pretty compelling product. They just lost faith in their own direction and decided to sue everyone instead of making stuff.
I agree that Caldera's problem was unique but it wasn't some hidden problem. Caldera had always been a money loser but was clearly tied to the future. SCO's two products were money makers but were making money only because they had decided to stop trying to keep up. Caldera failure to decide on a business strategy was bad.
I don't know whether the GPL was what reduced the options Caldera had in terms of licensing - whereas OSE or Unixware could be sold on a per seat basis,
No Caldera was mostly fine. Caldera and United Linux has always managed to have effective per seat licensing by intermixing GPL and commercial code at the distribution level. For example Volution Messaging Server replaced Microsoft Exchange and that was closed source proprietary for Linux. On the other hand per seat licensing completely alienated the Linux community and Caldera (and the other United Linux partners) couldn't get support from upstream projects. If they were having problems the general attitude was often "good, I'm glad you are having problems". RedHat has been masterful in a way few others ever have in bridging the gap between the Open Source community and the business community.
In terms of the lines about compatibility, you might be misreading it, "Caldera was built on the Linux kernel which ran on x86, PowerPC and Alpha architectures." this was back at the start of Network desktop long before there was sparc integration.
As for the McBride strategy of suing people, I think that really happened after and in response to both sides of the business were collapsing.
You are right about the trademark. Anyway regardless of the trademark my answer still stands. Though its odd to sell the brand name to one person and the brand to another.
Apple conducted a study on this.
Among people who wanted to buy an iPhone and choose Android instead:
Conversely JD Power and associates did the opposite survey and found the number one reason people choose Apple was battery life. An area where they are only beaten by 1 RIM model as a matter of fact.
#2 reason was Apple's high level of customer service after point of sale
#3 better integration
#4 singular vision
#5 better sales staff (I'm assuming they mean Apple stores as contrasted with regular carrier based stores)
#6 innovation
I read those and they seem mostly true in both directions. I don't personally agree with the "latest and greatest" and "technology" arguments on Android but I can see where Android customers might view Apple as too conservative.
No that's not what I meant. I had the timeline through Bush. That being said the Democrats did about 1 bad thing for every 5 the Republicans did on crony capitalism. As Joe Biden likes to say (who BTW authored the Bankruptcy reform act one of those really horrible laws under Bush) "compare me to the alternative not to The Almighty".
Unixware was a Novell/SCO brandname for their Unix. In terms of the difference there was a greater focus on working well and helping people transition from Netware to more Unix (i.e. what we today call "standard internet" type services). The OpenGroup doesn't own the Unixware trademark, SCO owned that.
In terms of a specification: http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix/single_unix_specification.html
I'm all for better laws, though the ones we have are good just mostly not enforced.
As for pulling charters... it could be easily done. Assume that a company's right to operate in a state could be pulled by public referendum that would have a huge impact on corporate behavior. Assume the US treasury had this power and used it regularly. That would clean up corporations.
Now I agree that a treasury department that would have no problem disbanding large corporations is also a treasury department that doesn't need to. But Timothy Geitner frequently complained about his lack of legal authority to do what he needed to do during the crisis. Our governing official do frequently complain they lack sufficient legal powers.
Odd you would pick Walmart. I don't see how rural areas would have food shortages however. Even for most rural areas there are other large grocery stores within 100 miles. Given high demand they can extend hours and move far more product than they do today. There is plenty of excess road capacity in rural areas. Not much of anything would happen.
As for Walmart's suppliers, similar to the food. Kmart, target... pick up the slack and to pick up the slack they go to existing suppliers.
. Apple is also safe because most of those people have never tried nor want to try an android device.
Please. Android is the top selling phone OS in the world. It is the dominant competitor everywhere iPhone is marketed. People don't live in a bubble. They know what Android devices are and like the alternate product better.
Yeah the metric here is market cap not societal importance. It will be a good day when people stop confusing the two and that applies much more broadly than just Apple.
Not all of it. Just our mistrust of immortal persons and a willingness to treat for profit entities like we do non profit ones today. But it is disappointing that governments haven't used the authority except in the example of non profits. Could catch on your part.
If it is after Ransom Love that was the McBride era. On the osmosis issue I wrote an article years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caldera_OpenLinux . Caldera around '95 had written an compatibility layer to allow UnixWare apps to run on their Linux. They had really believed that United Linux was the obvious migration path. The resellers didn't see it that way. Caldera was in some ways ahead of its time by a few years. If they hadn't bought SCO and used the money from the DR DOS settlement to run the business they might very well have lasted to the point when people were migrating.
But its tough for a company that spent a decade selling "Unixware is old school switch to us" to change over to "Unixware is great want a support contract?"
I understand Microsoft's theory but suits were in the Android era. Read that article you linked to. Its well written and describes the timeline.
I can't find any examples of for profit corporations since the 1840s.
Cleveland Clinic refused to cooperate with the city in a zoning dispute had its charter revoked and its building taken under eminent domain.
Sorry I replied before realizing you used to work there.
In which case I understand you hate Caldera but by the time Caldera bought SCO they weren't the Caldera that had been part of Linux. The integration was bad between those two companies and their interests conflicted.
Not really. Caldera was Bryan Sparks and Ransom Love. Caldera died when McBride moved in.
Rob Enderle -- has written a fairly long explication of his involvement. His reputation is permanently damaged.
Maureen O'Gara -- didn't have much of a reputation to start with but there are now many articles that insinuate she fabricated information for pay, which is likely about the worst she did.
Dan Lyons -- The link to his apology is easy to find http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/19/software-linux-lawsuits-tech-oped-cx_dl_0919lyons.html
SCO started as a copyright claim. The main thing in question was the claim that Linux SMP was in violation and that has been resolved in Linux's favor.