OK -- I've got a pile of cash ready to give to Apple, and I explain why they ain't getting it, and what happens?
+ A bunch of zealots imply that I'm ignorant about Apple's products. WRONG. + Other zealots tell me my keyboard preferences are unnecessary. WRONG. + The zealots censor my perfectly valid point as Flamebait. Also WRONG.
I'm sorry, if Apple wants to put themselves in direct competition with Wintel laptops, you zealots have to accept comparative points and drop this Apple-Ueber-Alles crap. Again? Is the MacBook the perfect laptop? It would be if they fixed the keyboard/mouse.
> there just isn't enough money to be made selling developer tools on Windows.
Actually, Microsoft makes lots and lots of money with DevTools. There's also a fair amount of money in the Java devtool world, eventhough one can get the eclipse IDE for free.
No, the biggest argument against this is industry politics -- MS controls the system APIs on Windows, and trying to challenge them is foolhardy if you depend on them elsewhere (MS Office:Mac).
Plus I also question how competitive Apple's tools are. NeXT was state of the art 10 years ago, but the competition has gotten a lot better. Cocoa/ObjC For Windows would be mainly of interest to Mac developers -- Windows devs would likely stick with Visual Studio.
> Don't knock it until you've used it (for a significant period of time).
I've used Apple laptops for decades and they've seen a ton of my money. Therefore I have the right to say it sucks.
> Apple keyboards do have all the standard keys except for pause and scroll lock, which nobody uses anyway.
Apparently you've never looked at an Apple Extended Keyboard -- Page Up, Page Down, Forward Delete, Home, End. (And please don't tell about FN keys. They suck!)
Honestly, my heart really wants to buy this MacBook Pro. But frankly, I don't use my PowerBooks as much as I would like to because the keyboard & mouse is such a pain-in-the-ass. Maybe lusers and one-mouse-button droolers really like this keyboard, but it is singularly forcing me to send my money to Levano.
Have you typed for any length of time on a MacBook Pro's keyboard where you can honestly make this assertion or is your assertion simply based on speculation and presumption?
I have a late-model Powerbook G4, and it's basically the same (bad) keyboard. Can't Apple blame this POS on Micheal Spindler and move on?!
> Macs aren't just about the hardware: they have a unique selling point, which is OS X and its applications.
While that's true, this "unique selling point" has basically left them treading water in terms of marketshare -- As long as Apple maintains the status quo, they're going to remain at 2% marketshare indefinately. Macs are profitable, but without a change in strategy, Apple is basically stuck playing defense forever.
Apple's shiny hardware and industrial design is also a huge USP -- and one they could easily use to attack Dell/Sony/Alienware in the high-end wintel market. Unlike the old Mac-only strategy, this would put Apple on the offensive and they would sell a ton of machines that they otherwise would not have. 1% of the Wintel market @ 25% margin = Huge Profits.
File this next to: + Apple will never ship Intel x86 CISC + Apple will never ship an obsolete BIOS
It's high time that people stop thinking of Apple's Mac Strategy in terms of 2004 and earlier. At this point it's a basic Occam's Razor issue -- why would Apple create a Windows boot environment, if they weren't planning on selling it.
> I'm sure that's why iWork was started, and I'm just as sure that the iWork crew are hard at work on replacing every part of MS Office
I'm sure that Apple will do everything within their power to keep Microsoft Office on Mac OS X. It's the highest selling software package for their platform, and absolutely critical to their corporate customers. Steve Jobs himself made that absolutely clear. I know the Appleheads hate to acknowledge it, but Apple and MS are buddies.
So, in conclusion, your message is standard MacZealot-talk, and MacZealots have a horrible track record predicting Apple's next move over the last year.
Obviously it has the look, and it's got great specs. But it's also hobbled by a terrible keyboard that's missing a lot of standard keys and a single mouse button. And there's no docking station available. Bottom line is that it's kick-ass laptop with a totally luser-style keyboard/mouse setup (for no reason other than that's what Apple came up with 10 years ago). Hard thing to over look for my $two grand.
But that's all personal choice, which is the key here. Apple only offers a handful of laptops, and they're all limited in one way or another, and fairly pricey to boot. Which might be fine for *some people*, but if you can't find an Apple model that you want to buy, you really have no choice but to not run OS X. Which is why people want "OSX on Dell" -- because Dell and the rest of the PC world offers a lot more choice in terms of size/feature/price than Apple does.
(Personally, I want "OS X on ThinkPad" -- but I know I'll probably never get it legally.)
The eternal question about Apple is if they're a software company or a hardware company... and when it comes down to it, I think they'll choose hardware.
The release of the Bootcamp Beta opens the door for Apple becoming a Windows OEM and shipping dualboot systems with Windows and OS X. Apple still has decent margins on their hardware, and can make plenty of money selling to customers that just want a stylish Wintel box. Plus it gives people a low-risk opportunity to try OS X.
Apple has also had a very strong relationship with Microsoft in recent years, and I don't see them competiting head-to-head for Dell's sales.
It's bullshit because Microsoft lumps Mac software into their "Consumer" division, so you have no idea relatively how profitable it is or isn't. And your list ignores several major units like Dev Tools and MBS.
That sounds like a migration plan FROM the Mac not TO the Mac. The programs Windows users have already run fine without Cocoa. So, Cocoa for Windows would function as a life-raft for Mac developers more than anything.
It's really funny watching your peabrain grapple with the irrelvant difference between a "trademark agreement" and a "trademark license", but ultimately it doesn't matter -- Apple Computer can only use the "Apple" trademark according to their agreements with Apple Records. Fact.
And the story about Steve Jobs naming Apple while listening to Beatles records has been repeated in numerous of histories of the company. Even if it is "Baloney", Apple Records was still a widely known brandname in the 1970s, one that Steve Jobs was certainly aware of. And even if he wasn't, Apple Records was still there first. And that's why Apple Computer paid money for use of the term "Apple".
I love how you pointed out the agreements are "confidential" and then proceed to bullshit about exactly what they contained.
We do know this -- Apple Computer paid millions of dollars so that they could use the word "Apple" in certain, specific ways. That's either an explicit trademark license or effectively the same thing as a trademark license.
Maybe Photoshop is not the best example, because like Firefox and OpenOffice, it's carries it's own standalone bloat with a cross-platform toolkit. But I think a fair amount of software will use the advanced display features in Vista (especially because they will also be backported to XP).
Well, it's not that simple. When the OS provides more services, it makes it easier to write software for it, and the more software it has, the more likely you are to use it. DOS is a lightweight OS, but you aren't going to run Photoshop on it.
Re:You say you want a revolution?
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Obviously there's been decades of "spin" around the issue, so at this point there's plenty of folklore to go around. But, Apple Computer has been licencing their trademark from Apple Records since 1981 (long before they had a sound chip even), so if you follow the money, it's pretty obvious why.
It doesn't matter -- you are expending a ton of effort to make a moot point.
Would you ever argue that Apple Computer deserves to lose their trademarks because they "rehashed" the same "old, tired" operating system for the entire 1990s? Of course not -- Apple can do next to nothing and still own "MacOS(tm)" as long as they are still around. It's a ridiclous position to take.
What does matter is that (1) Apple Records was there first, (2) Apple Records is not defunct, and (3) Apple Inc has licenced the trademark for certain fields of endevor from Apple Records.
As someone else pointed out, Apple Records released some "new" Beatles material that hit #1 in the charts a couple years ago. No use pretending that Apple Records is not an active concern, it's obviously untrue.
That Apple Inc spends more money on advertising is not debatable, but I'm not sure if that should affect who is right or wrong.
Yeah -- and that's exactly the same thing people said about 500Mhz PCs and XP, and they were wrong!
Turns out that the massive decrease in PC prices over the last few years have actually increased the turnover rate rather than decreased it. The only people who plan to hold onto machines for 5 years nowdays are Mac users. Personally I think the $100 PC is only a couple years away, and the more disposible things get the faster Vista will get out there.
Apple Computer paid millions of dollars for the right to use the "Apple" name in certain fields. Please explain how that's not a license agrement.
I don't see how an agreement struck in 1991 proves that Apple Computers took the idea from a Beatles record.
I didn't say it did -- only that it was a commonly repeated folklore story in the 1980s. Besides, what do any of us know about what Jobs/Woz may have admitted to under deposition? They may well have fessed up to it!
Slashdot Mirror
OK -- I've got a pile of cash ready to give to Apple, and I explain why they ain't getting it, and what happens?
+ A bunch of zealots imply that I'm ignorant about Apple's products. WRONG.
+ Other zealots tell me my keyboard preferences are unnecessary. WRONG.
+ The zealots censor my perfectly valid point as Flamebait. Also WRONG.
I'm sorry, if Apple wants to put themselves in direct competition with Wintel laptops, you zealots have to accept comparative points and drop this Apple-Ueber-Alles crap. Again? Is the MacBook the perfect laptop? It would be if they fixed the keyboard/mouse.
You replied to the wrong post, doofus. See Subject Line.
Attn doofus: If you don't even know what these keys do, you aren't going to successfully argue me down on my keyboard preferences.
> there just isn't enough money to be made selling developer tools on Windows.
Actually, Microsoft makes lots and lots of money with DevTools. There's also a fair amount of money in the Java devtool world, eventhough one can get the eclipse IDE for free.
No, the biggest argument against this is industry politics -- MS controls the system APIs on Windows, and trying to challenge them is foolhardy if you depend on them elsewhere (MS Office:Mac).
Plus I also question how competitive Apple's tools are. NeXT was state of the art 10 years ago, but the competition has gotten a lot better. Cocoa/ObjC For Windows would be mainly of interest to Mac developers -- Windows devs would likely stick with Visual Studio.
First of all, there's no such thing as a 64-bit PC BIOS. BIOS is 16-bit Real Mode -- on Macs too.
Second, using a CSM is just an implementation detail -- it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck.
> Don't knock it until you've used it (for a significant period of time).
I've used Apple laptops for decades and they've seen a ton of my money. Therefore I have the right to say it sucks.
> Apple keyboards do have all the standard keys except for pause and scroll lock, which nobody uses anyway.
Apparently you've never looked at an Apple Extended Keyboard -- Page Up, Page Down, Forward Delete, Home, End. (And please don't tell about FN keys. They suck!)
Honestly, my heart really wants to buy this MacBook Pro. But frankly, I don't use my PowerBooks as much as I would like to because the keyboard & mouse is such a pain-in-the-ass. Maybe lusers and one-mouse-button droolers really like this keyboard, but it is singularly forcing me to send my money to Levano.
I prefer to run Mac OS X with PgUp/PgDn and DEL and not crappy FN-key substututes. My Mac SE had these keys!
As for the standard macboy "You don't need it" argument, I don't need a Mac either. It's a luxury.
Have you typed for any length of time on a MacBook Pro's keyboard where you can honestly make this assertion or is your assertion simply based on speculation and presumption?
I have a late-model Powerbook G4, and it's basically the same (bad) keyboard. Can't Apple blame this POS on Micheal Spindler and move on?!
> Macs aren't just about the hardware: they have a unique selling point, which is OS X and its applications.
While that's true, this "unique selling point" has basically left them treading water in terms of marketshare -- As long as Apple maintains the status quo, they're going to remain at 2% marketshare indefinately. Macs are profitable, but without a change in strategy, Apple is basically stuck playing defense forever.
Apple's shiny hardware and industrial design is also a huge USP -- and one they could easily use to attack Dell/Sony/Alienware in the high-end wintel market. Unlike the old Mac-only strategy, this would put Apple on the offensive and they would sell a ton of machines that they otherwise would not have. 1% of the Wintel market @ 25% margin = Huge Profits.
Apple's not going to go down the Windows rathole.
File this next to:
+ Apple will never ship Intel x86 CISC
+ Apple will never ship an obsolete BIOS
It's high time that people stop thinking of Apple's Mac Strategy in terms of 2004 and earlier. At this point it's a basic Occam's Razor issue -- why would Apple create a Windows boot environment, if they weren't planning on selling it.
> I'm sure that's why iWork was started, and I'm just as sure that the iWork crew are hard at work on replacing every part of MS Office
I'm sure that Apple will do everything within their power to keep Microsoft Office on Mac OS X. It's the highest selling software package for their platform, and absolutely critical to their corporate customers. Steve Jobs himself made that absolutely clear. I know the Appleheads hate to acknowledge it, but Apple and MS are buddies.
So, in conclusion, your message is standard MacZealot-talk, and MacZealots have a horrible track record predicting Apple's next move over the last year.
And is the MacBook Pro the perfect laptop?
Obviously it has the look, and it's got great specs. But it's also hobbled by a terrible keyboard that's missing a lot of standard keys and a single mouse button. And there's no docking station available. Bottom line is that it's kick-ass laptop with a totally luser-style keyboard/mouse setup (for no reason other than that's what Apple came up with 10 years ago). Hard thing to over look for my $two grand.
But that's all personal choice, which is the key here. Apple only offers a handful of laptops, and they're all limited in one way or another, and fairly pricey to boot. Which might be fine for *some people*, but if you can't find an Apple model that you want to buy, you really have no choice but to not run OS X. Which is why people want "OSX on Dell" -- because Dell and the rest of the PC world offers a lot more choice in terms of size/feature/price than Apple does.
(Personally, I want "OS X on ThinkPad" -- but I know I'll probably never get it legally.)
The eternal question about Apple is if they're a software company or a hardware company ... and when it comes down to it, I think they'll choose hardware.
The release of the Bootcamp Beta opens the door for Apple becoming a Windows OEM and shipping dualboot systems with Windows and OS X. Apple still has decent margins on their hardware, and can make plenty of money selling to customers that just want a stylish Wintel box. Plus it gives people a low-risk opportunity to try OS X.
Apple has also had a very strong relationship with Microsoft in recent years, and I don't see them competiting head-to-head for Dell's sales.
It's bullshit because Microsoft lumps Mac software into their "Consumer" division, so you have no idea relatively how profitable it is or isn't. And your list ignores several major units like Dev Tools and MBS.
bad news for Microsoft, since MacBU is on of the very few profitable divisions.
Where did you get that (mis)information? Mac products are small potatos compared to even things like MS SQL Server, much less Office for Windows.
That sounds like a migration plan FROM the Mac not TO the Mac. The programs Windows users have already run fine without Cocoa. So, Cocoa for Windows would function as a life-raft for Mac developers more than anything.
It's really funny watching your peabrain grapple with the irrelvant difference between a "trademark agreement" and a "trademark license", but ultimately it doesn't matter -- Apple Computer can only use the "Apple" trademark according to their agreements with Apple Records. Fact.
And the story about Steve Jobs naming Apple while listening to Beatles records has been repeated in numerous of histories of the company. Even if it is "Baloney", Apple Records was still a widely known brandname in the 1970s, one that Steve Jobs was certainly aware of. And even if he wasn't, Apple Records was still there first. And that's why Apple Computer paid money for use of the term "Apple".
I love how you pointed out the agreements are "confidential" and then proceed to bullshit about exactly what they contained.
We do know this -- Apple Computer paid millions of dollars so that they could use the word "Apple" in certain, specific ways. That's either an explicit trademark license or effectively the same thing as a trademark license.
They paid a lump sum for partial rights.
Which is pretty much the definition of a license.
(Please don't make any more points about words you don't understand.)
Maybe Photoshop is not the best example, because like Firefox and OpenOffice, it's carries it's own standalone bloat with a cross-platform toolkit. But I think a fair amount of software will use the advanced display features in Vista (especially because they will also be backported to XP).
Well, it's not that simple. When the OS provides more services, it makes it easier to write software for it, and the more software it has, the more likely you are to use it. DOS is a lightweight OS, but you aren't going to run Photoshop on it.
Obviously there's been decades of "spin" around the issue, so at this point there's plenty of folklore to go around. But, Apple Computer has been licencing their trademark from Apple Records since 1981 (long before they had a sound chip even), so if you follow the money, it's pretty obvious why.
It doesn't matter -- you are expending a ton of effort to make a moot point.
Would you ever argue that Apple Computer deserves to lose their trademarks because they "rehashed" the same "old, tired" operating system for the entire 1990s? Of course not -- Apple can do next to nothing and still own "MacOS(tm)" as long as they are still around. It's a ridiclous position to take.
What does matter is that (1) Apple Records was there first, (2) Apple Records is not defunct, and (3) Apple Inc has licenced the trademark for certain fields of endevor from Apple Records.
As someone else pointed out, Apple Records released some "new" Beatles material that hit #1 in the charts a couple years ago. No use pretending that Apple Records is not an active concern, it's obviously untrue.
That Apple Inc spends more money on advertising is not debatable, but I'm not sure if that should affect who is right or wrong.
Yeah -- and that's exactly the same thing people said about 500Mhz PCs and XP, and they were wrong!
Turns out that the massive decrease in PC prices over the last few years have actually increased the turnover rate rather than decreased it. The only people who plan to hold onto machines for 5 years nowdays are Mac users. Personally I think the $100 PC is only a couple years away, and the more disposible things get the faster Vista will get out there.
Apple Computer paid millions of dollars for the right to use the "Apple" name in certain fields. Please explain how that's not a license agrement.
I don't see how an agreement struck in 1991 proves that Apple Computers took the idea from a Beatles record.
I didn't say it did -- only that it was a commonly repeated folklore story in the 1980s. Besides, what do any of us know about what Jobs/Woz may have admitted to under deposition? They may well have fessed up to it!