I hear this often enough, but it's really a groundless assumption with little basis in reality, if not revisionist.
When Jobs returned to Apple, he recognised that the clone program was introduced long after it would have been an effective agent in increasing marketshare for Macs. He first attempted to renegotiate the clone manufacturers' license to increase Apple's royalty an utterly unreasonable amount, and when the cloners rejected the offer Jobs ceased licensing of all future Apple products and bought Power Computing, the largest of the cloners, rather than continue negotiations. Let it never be that said sour grapes are a foreign flavour to Steve Jobs.:) The closure of the clone licensing program did not lead directly to any increase in marketshare or profits for Apple. The clones were introduced long after Apple had lost their place and become a very minor player in the market. Apple did not show any upward momentum until almost two years later when they introduced the iMac. The consolidation of their product line and the radical departure from the norm embodied by products like the iMac are what brought Apple back from the dead, NOT closing the cloning licensing program. The two-year cloning experiment made no reasonable impact (that's right, it was only two years).
In fact, ironically it's FAR more likely that IBM clones contributed more to what "almost killed Apple" than Mac clones. Well, that and Apple consistantly failed to advance their product line in any significant way during those years and introduced new products that were actually LESS featureful than their earlier models.
1. Apple would have to support a massively larger amount of hardware.
why?
2. there would be a loss of branding and a lowering of the quality associated with OS X.
how?
3. there are plenty of games on the Mac, but if you want the very latest cutting-edge PC games you'd never be satisfied anyway since you'd need ATI/nVidia making their latest cards in Mac versions too.
Apple "leaks" development copy of x86 OS X. it is time limited, slightly buggy, and bogged down by debug code. additionally, it reports back a single ping to Apple.com upon install.
Apple gets a very basic idea of potential install base for a beige box bootable OS X without suffering piracy because who would want to run the "old and busted" copy once the real one comes out?
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."
now this sounds like an EULA/Support restriction to me, but who knows?
i believe you're thinking of oxycontin. it seems lots of people posting are making the same mistake. this isn't the pain killer oxycontin, this is oxytocin which is used to induce labour and breastfeeding.
ugh you people just keep running in circles and it's making you look stupid. Gore's statement was attributed only and specifically to his role in CONGRESS.
can TiVo play movies and mp3s from my house media server? how about arcade emulation? can TiVo be my call centre with caller ID and voicemail? and what's this about TiVo injecting extra ads into your recordings?
Unfortunately you're taking a narrow and blind line of reasoning here. Gore's statement in the Blitzer interview was directly referring to Gore's 1990 education bill, which had a huge impact on taking the small government project known as ARPANET into the wider scope we call today's Internet. but then I suppose you're a better authority on the subject than Vint Cerf (who backs Gore's claim and is infinitely more important to the creation of the Internet than you or me).
is that the ability for parents to block all of this ALREADY EXISTS. and so, in addition to regulation on how ISPs must provide extra services, they're now literally destroying the "netnanny" industry for all of utah. congratulations, utah, you've made me sound like a libertarian.
Shutterbook is a nice one also, but it's more of a desktop app on the web type of solution. it's not a social networking app like many of the other solutions, but it's a heck of a lot more enjoyable to use imho.
i think the reason they're comparing this to wifi is that people use wifi so they don't have to run wires. your home is already wired for electricity in most cases all over the house, but wiring it (cleanly and nicely with a wall plug) for gigabit ethernet is going to cost you.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember that the clones almost killed Apple.
:) The closure of the clone licensing program did not lead directly to any increase in marketshare or profits for Apple. The clones were introduced long after Apple had lost their place and become a very minor player in the market. Apple did not show any upward momentum until almost two years later when they introduced the iMac. The consolidation of their product line and the radical departure from the norm embodied by products like the iMac are what brought Apple back from the dead, NOT closing the cloning licensing program. The two-year cloning experiment made no reasonable impact (that's right, it was only two years).
I hear this often enough, but it's really a groundless assumption with little basis in reality, if not revisionist.
When Jobs returned to Apple, he recognised that the clone program was introduced long after it would have been an effective agent in increasing marketshare for Macs. He first attempted to renegotiate the clone manufacturers' license to increase Apple's royalty an utterly unreasonable amount, and when the cloners rejected the offer Jobs ceased licensing of all future Apple products and bought Power Computing, the largest of the cloners, rather than continue negotiations. Let it never be that said sour grapes are a foreign flavour to Steve Jobs.
In fact, ironically it's FAR more likely that IBM clones contributed more to what "almost killed Apple" than Mac clones. Well, that and Apple consistantly failed to advance their product line in any significant way during those years and introduced new products that were actually LESS featureful than their earlier models.
it's on EVERY TORRENT SITE, EVERYWHERE.
:)
christ people, look before you open your mouth
1. Apple would have to support a massively larger amount of hardware.
why?
2. there would be a loss of branding and a lowering of the quality associated with OS X.
how?
3. there are plenty of games on the Mac, but if you want the very latest cutting-edge PC games you'd never be satisfied anyway since you'd need ATI/nVidia making their latest cards in Mac versions too.
they do. (i know, not a question)
Apple "leaks" development copy of x86 OS X. it is time limited, slightly buggy, and bogged down by debug code. additionally, it reports back a single ping to Apple.com upon install.
Apple gets a very basic idea of potential install base for a beige box bootable OS X without suffering piracy because who would want to run the "old and busted" copy once the real one comes out?
don't forget, the 64bit extention layer in the P4 is AMD's technology that Intel licensed.
from CNET:
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."
now this sounds like an EULA/Support restriction to me, but who knows?
the iMac G5 is THICK, my friend.
i believe you're thinking of oxycontin. it seems lots of people posting are making the same mistake. this isn't the pain killer oxycontin, this is oxytocin which is used to induce labour and breastfeeding.
FWIW, they make it pretty clear in the installer that they're doing this and give you the option to turn it off with a single check box.
ugh you people just keep running in circles and it's making you look stupid. Gore's statement was attributed only and specifically to his role in CONGRESS.
that's your joke going straight the f**k over every slashdotter's heads at mach 12.
can TiVo play movies and mp3s from my house media server? how about arcade emulation? can TiVo be my call centre with caller ID and voicemail? and what's this about TiVo injecting extra ads into your recordings?
nah you can buy it
man, if ever there was the wrong thing to call yourself, it's probbably "Transfan"
its only weakness... stairs.
is judicial activism occuring whenever a court decides something, or only when you disagree with it?
nah. garbage in, garbage out.
This is the equivalent of 4.3 × 1020 (430 quintillion) addresses per inch (6.7 × 1017 (670 quadrillion) addresses/mm) of the Earth's surface
hooray!
Unfortunately you're taking a narrow and blind line of reasoning here. Gore's statement in the Blitzer interview was directly referring to Gore's 1990 education bill, which had a huge impact on taking the small government project known as ARPANET into the wider scope we call today's Internet. but then I suppose you're a better authority on the subject than Vint Cerf (who backs Gore's claim and is infinitely more important to the creation of the Internet than you or me).
is that the ability for parents to block all of this ALREADY EXISTS. and so, in addition to regulation on how ISPs must provide extra services, they're now literally destroying the "netnanny" industry for all of utah. congratulations, utah, you've made me sound like a libertarian.
common courtesy isn't always defined by law.
Shutterbook is a nice one also, but it's more of a desktop app on the web type of solution. it's not a social networking app like many of the other solutions, but it's a heck of a lot more enjoyable to use imho.
i think the reason they're comparing this to wifi is that people use wifi so they don't have to run wires. your home is already wired for electricity in most cases all over the house, but wiring it (cleanly and nicely with a wall plug) for gigabit ethernet is going to cost you.
yeah, and the spanish!
you spelled "porn" wrong.