Yes -- I think that basically states Apple Inc's position in the matter. They could be 100% in the wrong, but it's worth fighting because it won't cost them much money.
It seems the only reason Apple Corp. still exists is to milk the Beatles songs.
In what way is that illegitimate?
It seems like the "pro-Apple" argument here is that big companies have the right to squat on the trademarks of little companies. At least you guys are being forthright about your approval of bullying.
But how many people pick up a Beatles album and think "oh, this was made by that Apple record company, I really need to buy more music from this record label, oh, I so love this record label"?
Well, Steve Jobs obviously thought something like that... otherwise he wouldn't have copped the "Apple" name.
Remember those big round black disks that had analog music encoded onto them? Some of them came with a big Apple logo in the middle. So, while people might not associate Apple Records with much nowdays, they certainly did back in the 1970s, when Apple Computer was founded. You can't rewrite history with a marketing campaign.
True there was an agreement before but frankly it should have never been signed.
It's never been debatable -- Apple Computers was named in homage to Apple Records. Apple Computer either signed the agreement or they would have had to rename the company.
Also, Apple Records was not some obscure outfit. Every Beatles LP had an Apple logo in the center. Every 1970s kid (aka Steve Jobs) knew who Apple Records was. Just because Apple Inc has outmarketed Apple Records in recent years doesn't change the reality of Apple Computer was named.
Re:When's the new Badfinger album coming out?
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
Aren't trademarks "use it or lose it"? I think eventually you may be able to make a car called Oldsmobile. (I don't know wny you'd want to...) Apple Records might not be signing new bands, but it's still an active trademark used on their back catalog.
Just because Apple Inc spends a lot more money on commercials shouldn't give them the right to steal trademarks.
Assuming Apple went insane and wanted to put a Windows logo on the outside of the Mac, I'm sure Microsoft would be more than willing to let them do so if the machine met the specs.
This is your generic slashdot wishful-thinking post.
The fact is that Joe Average didn't run out and upgrade to XP either. Routine PC turnover happens, and that is always the primary way that the latest preinstalled MS OS gains marketshare. Eventually Vista will have 70% marketshare just like XP does today. It is inevitable.
If there is an upgrade hook for Joe Average, it's probably going to be the Media Center features moreso than the flashy new shell.
> Old machines that won't run Vista well will be phased out with dramatically lowered prices.
Even Dell's $300 machines now come with a "Aero Glass" capable GPU. So, I think it's safe to say that non-Vista machines have already been largely phased out.
> we're finally going to see mainstream laptop manufacturers putting reasonable videocards in laptops.
Only if you consider Intel Extreme 2 to be reasonable -- it has all the features, it's just slow. Half-Life2 is probably not going to be a treat.
Re:When's the new Badfinger album coming out?
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
While all that might be true, it doesn't change the fact there's some sort of contract between the two.
The worst outcome in this case appears to be that Apple Inc will need to remove their logo from the iTunes program and maybe pay some money. It's not going to shut down their music ventures and doesn't seem like something that people should get too worried about.
You're right, Apple was up a little in 05. But even so, their entire 2% marketshare is basically the margin of error when you are talking about Internet Explorer, so I think the point stands.
wow a random apple advertisment moderated to 5 what insight
Apple marketshare has dropped for six years in a row. Since *you* positioned this as a pure percentage game (see subject), you must acknowldege that Apple's market is increasing less important to the big picture. Especially compared the heydays of IE5/Mac. Now, mod me down like good zealots.
Actually IE was part of the "default install" for about three years with very little affect. It wasn't until IE4 came out with Windows 98 that IE started to take off.
Personally, I think the "cutting off the airsupply" deals with ISPs had much larger effect than the default install issue. It wasn't so much the default install but making it more difficult to get Netscape.
Re:Utter Bunk - Compatibility Not That Great
on
Why Windows is Slow
·
· Score: 1
The difference is that you'll need an emulator to run the for-DOS stuff.
An additional emulator is really only needed for games. The vast majority of DOS business applications run directly in the built-in emulator.
And as I said elsewhere, Windows (any version) back-compat for business applications is much better than MacOS (any version). It's great that Monkey Island runs in Classic, but old versions of Excel will not.
Whether or not developers were supposed to assume a 24-bit address space on Macs will be one of the great debates of history.
What is true is that MODE32 was originally a third-party fix, and it took some years (and a certain amount of user complaining) for it to be included in MacOS.
If I want to add full transaction support I could connect it to Postgress, ORACLE, DB2 etc etc. Is that good enough?
J2EE and Microsoft have transactional distributed middleware included.
Sometimes relying only on database transactions is not good enough (eg, in the classic "enterprise" application that has more than one backend system behind it).
Except if you're just going to switch to OpenOffice, then Microsoft certainly doesn't give a rat's ass what you think.
What ODF needs is not OpenOffice Switchers, it needs a big Microsoft Office customer to demand support for it. Otherwise it's obscure and largely useless for it's intended purpose.
I think this would be an excellent idea for Microsoft. Especially because consumer reviews tend to focus on tack-on features like "Dashboard", which could easily be managed independantly of the base OS cycle. They used to do this somewhat with Windows 98, 98SE, and ME.
But, as you point out, MS's "NT" development mentaility doesn't work that way.
It might not have outsold OS/2, but strategically it was a victory because it Microsoft positoned a product both above OS/2 (NT) and below it (3.1). By creating their own "Better Windows Than Windows", Microsoft provided an upgrade path and basically removed the "need" for businesses to migrate to OS/2. People may have chosen Windows 3.1, but having NT around reassured people that Windows was the right choice.
Slashdot Mirror
If this was true, then why isn't it more widely known.
What do you think we're talking about? Obviously you are aware of this license agreement or you wouldn't be here.
Yes -- I think that basically states Apple Inc's position in the matter. They could be 100% in the wrong, but it's worth fighting because it won't cost them much money.
It seems the only reason Apple Corp. still exists is to milk the Beatles songs.
In what way is that illegitimate?
It seems like the "pro-Apple" argument here is that big companies have the right to squat on the trademarks of little companies. At least you guys are being forthright about your approval of bullying.
Apple Computers licensed their name from Apple Records. That's all the proof anyone needs.
Even so, the common folklore story is (or was) that Steve Jobs came up with the Apple name while listening to Beatles records.
But how many people pick up a Beatles album and think "oh, this was made by that Apple record company, I really need to buy more music from this record label, oh, I so love this record label"?
... otherwise he wouldn't have copped the "Apple" name.
Well, Steve Jobs obviously thought something like that
Remember those big round black disks that had analog music encoded onto them? Some of them came with a big Apple logo in the middle. So, while people might not associate Apple Records with much nowdays, they certainly did back in the 1970s, when Apple Computer was founded. You can't rewrite history with a marketing campaign.
True there was an agreement before but frankly it should have never been signed.
It's never been debatable -- Apple Computers was named in homage to Apple Records. Apple Computer either signed the agreement or they would have had to rename the company.
Also, Apple Records was not some obscure outfit. Every Beatles LP had an Apple logo in the center. Every 1970s kid (aka Steve Jobs) knew who Apple Records was. Just because Apple Inc has outmarketed Apple Records in recent years doesn't change the reality of Apple Computer was named.
Aren't trademarks "use it or lose it"? I think eventually you may be able to make a car called Oldsmobile. (I don't know wny you'd want to...) Apple Records might not be signing new bands, but it's still an active trademark used on their back catalog.
Just because Apple Inc spends a lot more money on commercials shouldn't give them the right to steal trademarks.
Well then, maybe Apple Inc shouldn't have "innovated" their company name by copying it off a Beatles record.
Sniff too much paint this morning?
Assuming Apple went insane and wanted to put a Windows logo on the outside of the Mac, I'm sure Microsoft would be more than willing to let them do so if the machine met the specs.
This is your generic slashdot wishful-thinking post.
The fact is that Joe Average didn't run out and upgrade to XP either. Routine PC turnover happens, and that is always the primary way that the latest preinstalled MS OS gains marketshare. Eventually Vista will have 70% marketshare just like XP does today. It is inevitable.
If there is an upgrade hook for Joe Average, it's probably going to be the Media Center features moreso than the flashy new shell.
> Old machines that won't run Vista well will be phased out with dramatically lowered prices.
Even Dell's $300 machines now come with a "Aero Glass" capable GPU. So, I think it's safe to say that non-Vista machines have already been largely phased out.
> we're finally going to see mainstream laptop manufacturers putting reasonable videocards in laptops.
Only if you consider Intel Extreme 2 to be reasonable -- it has all the features, it's just slow. Half-Life2 is probably not going to be a treat.
While all that might be true, it doesn't change the fact there's some sort of contract between the two.
The worst outcome in this case appears to be that Apple Inc will need to remove their logo from the iTunes program and maybe pay some money. It's not going to shut down their music ventures and doesn't seem like something that people should get too worried about.
rior to that, IE3 was the version that came with Windows 95 and it wasn't installed by default
This is wrong. IE was installed by default on nearly every OEM system that shipped with Win95 B/C/D
You're right, Apple was up a little in 05. But even so, their entire 2% marketshare is basically the margin of error when you are talking about Internet Explorer, so I think the point stands.
wow a random apple advertisment moderated to 5 what insight
Apple marketshare has dropped for six years in a row. Since *you* positioned this as a pure percentage game (see subject), you must acknowldege that Apple's market is increasing less important to the big picture. Especially compared the heydays of IE5/Mac. Now, mod me down like good zealots.
Actually IE was part of the "default install" for about three years with very little affect. It wasn't until IE4 came out with Windows 98 that IE started to take off.
Personally, I think the "cutting off the airsupply" deals with ISPs had much larger effect than the default install issue. It wasn't so much the default install but making it more difficult to get Netscape.
The difference is that you'll need an emulator to run the for-DOS stuff.
An additional emulator is really only needed for games. The vast majority of DOS business applications run directly in the built-in emulator.
And as I said elsewhere, Windows (any version) back-compat for business applications is much better than MacOS (any version). It's great that Monkey Island runs in Classic, but old versions of Excel will not.
Whether or not developers were supposed to assume a 24-bit address space on Macs will be one of the great debates of history.
What is true is that MODE32 was originally a third-party fix, and it took some years (and a certain amount of user complaining) for it to be included in MacOS.
If I want to add full transaction support I could connect it to Postgress, ORACLE, DB2 etc etc. Is that good enough?
J2EE and Microsoft have transactional distributed middleware included.
Sometimes relying only on database transactions is not good enough (eg, in the classic "enterprise" application that has more than one backend system behind it).
Except if you're just going to switch to OpenOffice, then Microsoft certainly doesn't give a rat's ass what you think.
What ODF needs is not OpenOffice Switchers, it needs a big Microsoft Office customer to demand support for it. Otherwise it's obscure and largely useless for it's intended purpose.
I think this would be an excellent idea for Microsoft. Especially because consumer reviews tend to focus on tack-on features like "Dashboard", which could easily be managed independantly of the base OS cycle. They used to do this somewhat with Windows 98, 98SE, and ME.
But, as you point out, MS's "NT" development mentaility doesn't work that way.
Yes, please check out all the unfair Apple Zealot moderation.
It might not have outsold OS/2, but strategically it was a victory because it Microsoft positoned a product both above OS/2 (NT) and below it (3.1). By creating their own "Better Windows Than Windows", Microsoft provided an upgrade path and basically removed the "need" for businesses to migrate to OS/2. People may have chosen Windows 3.1, but having NT around reassured people that Windows was the right choice.
Of course, one of those big users of undocumented features was Apple themselves. Remember the "unclean" 24-bit ROMs?
You must be confused, because I was talking about the classic MacOS, which was totally insecure by design.