WEll they wouldn't try to "crush" that site. MacFixIt is one of the largest and most-respected Mac sites on the Internet. It's also probably saved Apple tens of thousands of dollars in support costs due ot the help posted on that site everyday.
MacFixIt first was an web-update site for Ted Landau's Sad Macs, Bombs, and Other Disasters book. Since then, it has grown to be quite popular and well-known--#3 out of 56 sites on a recent survey.
This isn't Apple sending a harsh letter to some corporation in Asia ripping off its iMac or a letter seeking to shut down someone's domain that infringes on copyrights--it's Apple's lawyers politely, but firmly, explaining their problem with the update (the legalese is what makes it seem a bit...shall we say...stern?) to a website that is well known both inside and outside of Apple.
Apple is a company seeking to profit from the purchase of the hardware and software it produces.
Mac OS X is the culmination of more than 7 years of "next-generation" operating system development of many forms at Apple and untold millions, and probably more than a billion dollars in software development that has not begun to show any return for Apple until March of this year, after Mac OS X's release.
Pure Mac OS X sales will never pay for the development of the operating system. In a way, Mac OS X is the greatest loss-leader of them all--driving the hardware sales with fat margins that keeps the company afloat. While I'm aware that open-source choices in operating systems are free, $130 is not expensive for an OS, considering the price for other mainstream OSs.
The Mac OS 10.1 update is given away for free. You walk into any Mac-carrying retail outlet and they will hand you this nicely-packaged CD with instructions and send you on your way, without asking for proof of OS X ownership. Putting a check for 10.0.x in the software updater is not unexpected.
Apple legal has been heavyhanded in the past. Apple has a very strong brand to protect and does so vigorously. In this case, they're not just protecting the specific look of the iMac or a trademark, but the profits that any company should expect for producing a quality product.
This issue only affects people who have a leading or trailing "space" in the name of their volume--a tiny minority of those that may have downloaded the installer. The installer was posted for less than 24 hours--from late on a Friday night to the middle of Saturday. It only affects the Mac OS X 10.1 installer, not the Mac OS 9 installer. Despite the hype, the majority of Mac users are still using 9.
Apple obviously screwed up, but to say that 'thousands' may be affected is a bit much.
What's the moral of this story? Apple needs to do some better quality control on software-free or not-that it releases. Another lesson? Keep backups--very few people would be whining about how the lack of four quotation marks in code wiped their shit if they had a backup copy.
Your sig is from 1985, not March of 2000. There's some Time article that mentions this quote that was written in March of 2000, but this page quotes Ron as saying that in 1985 after meeting with the the ol' "founding fathers"
I don't think Ronald Reagan was doing anything but drooling applesauce on himself a year and a half ago.
The barcode
scanner is called a CueCat (with some lame marketroid colons that I'm not using because it irritates me when
people name things like that).
Slashdot readers should stick to their Linux stuff, they get a little confused when it comes to Apple matters.
The reason Apple did not handle it "internally" is because they needed the lawsuit to force Yahoo, on account of its GeoCities subsidiary, to release ISP information for the pictures "worker bee" linked to on the AppleInsider.com message boards. Then they also needed the legal action to force the ISP to release a name to match with an IP, etc etc. Someone above said something to the effect of: "why'd Yahoo take it up the ass for a corporation, but I couldn't ask them for the same thing!!!" Well sonny, that's because Apple has lawyers, and you don't. You don't think Apple would've liked to have handled it internally?
Of course they would, but this both allows them the legal ability to nab the dude who broke his NDA, and then to serve as a warning to all other employees.
I don't think this guy quite gets it. I don't know if he's a Sony USA VP or a Japanese executive, but he clearly doesn't understand how things work here in the US of A and around the world. Sure, you can shut Napster down (Beer GOOD!, Napster BAD!), you could even have a sniper take out Shawn Fanning and whatever real CEO they hired. That'd take care of that.
But the main point that EVERYONE in the industry forgets is that the Internet community, especially the Average Slashdot Reader (TM) will FIND A WAY. These are the same people a few articles ago that are talking about hacking a free barcode scanner from Radio Shack. These are the people who went on for weeks about hacking the Netpliance I-Opener, even after Netpliance made *numerous* attempts to prevent such mods. They now have an entire new unit coming because of this.
This community finds a way. You can kill Napster, but you can't kill Gnutella or your favorite variant. But you can't stop the same community that created its own OS when there wasn't one that suited their needs.
To cheesily quote Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park, "life finds a way."
Not to nit pick too much, but the slashdot authors are just a little dumb/misinformed/sloppy sometimes. It's MI5, not M15. You'd think if the guy who submitted the story got it right, the/. authors would have the capability to either look at it and figure it out, or use their mad copy and paste skilz to do so.
Whoever is doing this (obviously a large group coordinated somehow) has got a LOT of power behind what they're doing. eBay goes down like a cheap whore, but Yahoo, Amazon, and Cnn are not known for their vulnerability.
Apple has a bunch of pages that are 'pet projects' of certain guys at Apple. There are tons of derelict pages just like this one that haven't been updated in a while, haven't been brought up to the latest design of Apple's site (note that this design is the 2nd to last one, having been made obsolete only a month ago), or have pretty nasty spelling errors.
It's a long-ass article so I didn't read all of it, but the parts that I did read were very off base. Several times the article said "Apple copied Microsoft" and the like, which as everyone well knows from history, is just plain not true.
Sometimes stuff just becomes linked on a few site and/. links it, but they need to use a little more editorial control and not link to stuff that is blatantly false. Doug
Slashdot...you're getting a little rusty...this is VERY old news, on the order of 3 months anyway, Intel *announced these so long ago, but maybe just now they're shipping them.
Also, you seem very fascinated with the use-less-power-on-battery feature. When I ran a story on the Geyserville on my site PBZone.com, I got a flood of reader mail reminding me that Macs have been doing that since the Duos, so about five-six years, possibly longer.
Over 200,000 iBooks have been preordered and the product is now shipping to customers. How is that a failure? The old iMac was available for 13 months and sold over 2 million units. The iBook has only been available for *preorder* since July 21st, and has sold 200,000 units. How can that possibly be a failure?
There were several things I didn't like about the movie:
First, Steve Jobs' character faults were overdone. Yes, I realize it was a 'docudrama' not a documentary, but more specifics on the facts should have been included. They could've shortened the five minute Jobs-Drops-Acid scene.
The technical errors. We were chatting on IRC as the movie played, and we collectively noted a few errors. Gates used the IBM PC when it hadn't shown up on the scene yet. They used a Apple II screen that hadn't been invented for eight years. There were a few others.
The historical errors. I understand a certain poetic license must be taken to make this appeal to the common watcher. However, to say that Apple stole the GUI from Xerox PARC just as much as MS stole technology from Apple is ludicrous. There was a financial deal, involving a 1 million dollar payment that appreciated, to allow Apple access to the Xerox technologies.
Lastly, the time frame covered of the movie was really skewed. They focused on the years of the Lisa and original Mac, but didn't show the 14 or so years after that, leading up to the iMac that signalled the return of the company. They left it at MacWorld Boston 1997, where MS bought 150 million of *nonvoting* Apple stock. This was probably the beginning of Apple's turnaround...They could've at least added a note at the end during the messages like "bill gates is the richest man in the world" that simply said "Apple's latest iMac is the best-selling computer in the world, of all time.
The movie was decent. I think it was okay for a made-for-tv movie. However, for someone who has read all the inside-Apple non-fiction books, some info was lacking in some areas, and the choice of timeframe covered left a lot to be desired.
I suppose my main beef is that the millions of people whose only notion of Apple is that colorful iMac they see on TV now think the company is run by a acid-dropping CEO.
Okay, I've gone after some more information on this subject, as I admit my knowledge of PowerBooks much before Wallstreet is kind of hazy. The press releases, introduction, the whole shabang for the G3 processor was on November 10th, 1997. Both the desktop and laptop G3 processor (there's no different versions of the processor like Intel has) were introduced simultaneously. Here's my Source. (I think that because of Apple's confusing naming scheme, you confused the 'old' PowerBook G3 (Nov, 97) with the 'new' PowerBook G3 Series,(may 98)). But again, if you want to get picky, it's possible the PowerBook G3 was shipped to customers before the desktop g3.
But that's not the point really. The point is that G4 is not ready for introduction in Lombard before the Sawtooth desktop systems expected around MWNY this July. Lombard is a done machine, its production is ramping up in Taiwan right now, but has had some setbacks, which has thus delayed its introduction. It runs on the g3 processor, there really is no doubt about that. The guy who wrote the infoworld article may have just been fed real bad information by a reader or fell victim to one of Apple's notorious leak-detecting far-out rumors. Much like the apple/disney/pixar merger rumors that AppleInsider fell for.
Also, by reading some of the other posts, the codenames of Apple's PowerBooks are of much interest and intrigue. Yes, The Powerbook G3 Series is codenamed Wallstreet (and there was a low end version codenamed Mainstreet). Then the next PowerBook codenamed Lombard is named after the street in San Francisco, but it also has the additional codename of 101. This is from the highway in California named 101, which is renamed Lombard street when it reaches downtown San Francisco. Neat, huh? The connection of Lombard with the street in Britain akin to America's financial district has been recognized as well.If you want to go way into the future, speculation on the next generation after Lombard/101 says the machine may be codenamed 102, but that's likely to change as we get closer to that product's timeframe.
Wallstreet (curvy formfactor) came out on May 6th, 1998, more than six months after the G3 Desktop systems. if you're referring to the G3 portable based on the 3400, then you're right it actually came out a little before the desktop systems. This was because the G3 was hacked into the preexisting 3400 motherboard and was not a whole new design like the gossamer G3 motherboards for the desktops systems. nevertheless, if production problems would not have held gossamer up, the G3 would have been first in a desktop.
It is *highly* unlikely that Apple will release a G4 notebook system before a G4 desktop system. At no point in Apple's history has a new generation of processor debuted on a portable system. The other assumptions in the article are unlikely. For more info on lombard, visit www.pbzone.com/lombard.shtml.
Slashdot Mirror
Malda.
Seriously, are you ok, man?
This 'makes you want a mac'?
Three years of nothing more than misinformation and poor characterizations and understandings of each and every one of Apple's products and now this?
We in the Mac community worry for your health.
WEll they wouldn't try to "crush" that site. MacFixIt is one of the largest and most-respected Mac sites on the Internet. It's also probably saved Apple tens of thousands of dollars in support costs due ot the help posted on that site everyday.
MacFixIt first was an web-update site for Ted Landau's Sad Macs, Bombs, and Other Disasters book. Since then, it has grown to be quite popular and well-known--#3 out of 56 sites on a recent survey.
This isn't Apple sending a harsh letter to some corporation in Asia ripping off its iMac or a letter seeking to shut down someone's domain that infringes on copyrights--it's Apple's lawyers politely, but firmly, explaining their problem with the update (the legalese is what makes it seem a bit...shall we say...stern?) to a website that is well known both inside and outside of Apple.
Apple is a company seeking to profit from the purchase of the hardware and software it produces.
Mac OS X is the culmination of more than 7 years of "next-generation" operating system development of many forms at Apple and untold millions, and probably more than a billion dollars in software development that has not begun to show any return for Apple until March of this year, after Mac OS X's release.
Pure Mac OS X sales will never pay for the development of the operating system. In a way, Mac OS X is the greatest loss-leader of them all--driving the hardware sales with fat margins that keeps the company afloat. While I'm aware that open-source choices in operating systems are free, $130 is not expensive for an OS, considering the price for other mainstream OSs.
The Mac OS 10.1 update is given away for free. You walk into any Mac-carrying retail outlet and they will hand you this nicely-packaged CD with instructions and send you on your way, without asking for proof of OS X ownership. Putting a check for 10.0.x in the software updater is not unexpected.
Apple legal has been heavyhanded in the past. Apple has a very strong brand to protect and does so vigorously. In this case, they're not just protecting the specific look of the iMac or a trademark, but the profits that any company should expect for producing a quality product.
This issue only affects people who have a leading or trailing "space" in the name of their volume--a tiny minority of those that may have downloaded the installer. The installer was posted for less than 24 hours--from late on a Friday night to the middle of Saturday. It only affects the Mac OS X 10.1 installer, not the Mac OS 9 installer. Despite the hype, the majority of Mac users are still using 9.
Apple obviously screwed up, but to say that 'thousands' may be affected is a bit much.
What's the moral of this story? Apple needs to do some better quality control on software-free or not-that it releases. Another lesson? Keep backups--very few people would be whining about how the lack of four quotation marks in code wiped their shit if they had a backup copy.
Your sig is from 1985, not March of 2000. There's some Time article that mentions this quote that was written in March of 2000, but this page quotes Ron as saying that in 1985 after meeting with the the ol' "founding fathers"
I don't think Ronald Reagan was doing anything but drooling applesauce on himself a year and a half ago.
And he runs the site named "/."
The reason Apple did not handle it "internally" is because they needed the lawsuit to force Yahoo, on account of its GeoCities subsidiary, to release ISP information for the pictures "worker bee" linked to on the AppleInsider.com message boards. Then they also needed the legal action to force the ISP to release a name to match with an IP, etc etc. Someone above said something to the effect of: "why'd Yahoo take it up the ass for a corporation, but I couldn't ask them for the same thing!!!" Well sonny, that's because Apple has lawyers, and you don't. You don't think Apple would've liked to have handled it internally?
Of course they would, but this both allows them the legal ability to nab the dude who broke his NDA, and then to serve as a warning to all other employees.
But the main point that EVERYONE in the industry forgets is that the Internet community, especially the Average Slashdot Reader (TM) will FIND A WAY. These are the same people a few articles ago that are talking about hacking a free barcode scanner from Radio Shack. These are the people who went on for weeks about hacking the Netpliance I-Opener, even after Netpliance made *numerous* attempts to prevent such mods. They now have an entire new unit coming because of this.
This community finds a way. You can kill Napster, but you can't kill Gnutella or your favorite variant. But you can't stop the same community that created its own OS when there wasn't one that suited their needs.
To cheesily quote Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park, "life finds a way."
I don't care if it gets moderated down, because it sure is redundant, but I'd have to say this is the best slashdot comment I've ever read.
Doug
Whoever is doing this (obviously a large group coordinated somehow) has got a LOT of power behind what they're doing. eBay goes down like a cheap whore, but Yahoo, Amazon, and Cnn are not known for their vulnerability.
Doug
Sometimes stuff just becomes linked on a few site and /. links it, but they need to use a little more editorial control and not link to stuff that is blatantly false. Doug
Also, you seem very fascinated with the use-less-power-on-battery feature. When I ran a story on the Geyserville on my site PBZone.com, I got a flood of reader mail reminding me that Macs have been doing that since the Duos, so about five-six years, possibly longer.
Over 200,000 iBooks have been preordered and the product is now shipping to customers. How is that a failure? The old iMac was available for 13 months and sold over 2 million units. The iBook has only been available for *preorder* since July 21st, and has sold 200,000 units. How can that possibly be a failure?
The movie was decent. I think it was okay for a made-for-tv movie. However, for someone who has read all the inside-Apple non-fiction books, some info was lacking in some areas, and the choice of timeframe covered left a lot to be desired.
I suppose my main beef is that the millions of people whose only notion of Apple is that colorful iMac they see on TV now think the company is run by a acid-dropping CEO.
But that's not the point really. The point is that G4 is not ready for introduction in Lombard before the Sawtooth desktop systems expected around MWNY this July. Lombard is a done machine, its production is ramping up in Taiwan right now, but has had some setbacks, which has thus delayed its introduction. It runs on the g3 processor, there really is no doubt about that. The guy who wrote the infoworld article may have just been fed real bad information by a reader or fell victim to one of Apple's notorious leak-detecting far-out rumors. Much like the apple/disney/pixar merger rumors that AppleInsider fell for.
Also, by reading some of the other posts, the codenames of Apple's PowerBooks are of much interest and intrigue. Yes, The Powerbook G3 Series is codenamed Wallstreet (and there was a low end version codenamed Mainstreet). Then the next PowerBook codenamed Lombard is named after the street in San Francisco, but it also has the additional codename of 101. This is from the highway in California named 101, which is renamed Lombard street when it reaches downtown San Francisco. Neat, huh? The connection of Lombard with the street in Britain akin to America's financial district has been recognized as well.If you want to go way into the future, speculation on the next generation after Lombard/101 says the machine may be codenamed 102, but that's likely to change as we get closer to that product's timeframe.
Doug
Wallstreet (curvy formfactor) came out on May 6th, 1998, more than six months after the G3 Desktop systems. if you're referring to the G3 portable based on the 3400, then you're right it actually came out a little before the desktop systems. This was because the G3 was hacked into the preexisting 3400 motherboard and was not a whole new design like the gossamer G3 motherboards for the desktops systems. nevertheless, if production problems would not have held gossamer up, the G3 would have been first in a desktop.
It is *highly* unlikely that Apple will release a G4 notebook system before a G4 desktop system. At no point in Apple's history has a new generation of processor debuted on a portable system. The other assumptions in the article are unlikely. For more info on lombard, visit www.pbzone.com/lombard.shtml.
Doug