Why does it seem to me that every time a company tries to protect its intellectual property, many of the posters on/. talk about how evil the company supposedly is? You may not agree with the concepts of patents and companies making money, but the fact is that companies that depend on the trade secrets they have invested money in have the right to ensure that no one is stealing from them. You may see the design of the iMac as simply a translucent ball of plastic, but if another company makes a translucent ball of plastic that looks almost exactly the same and competes with the original TBoP, they are infringing on the company's rights to their original design. The company doesn't just have the right, but an obligation to its shareholders to ensure their property isn't being ripped off.
Notice that the story doesn't mention that Apple _is_ suing FishPC, just that legal action is being considered (nothing more than a rumor, btw). Apple is correct to investigate this product to find out whether they are in fact violating any Apple patents or trademarks. This is regardless of whether or not you personally think that patents as a whole are good.
Allow me to discuss what has been going through my mind lately with/. - Apple stories. While I too think that it would be great if Apple ported Quicktime to Linux, I have grown wary of the typical/. responses to everything Apple does.
At the beginning, the complaint was simply "Macs suck." Then Apple bought NeXT, started bringing itself back from the "dead," etc. The/. response? "They're not Open Source!"
Then Apple Open Sourced Darwin, the basis for Mac OS X. They also brought out related projects, including the Quicktime Streaming Server. This time, the complaint was "The License is Bad!"
So they revised the APSL, satisfying some but not others. So people started complaining that the Quicktime client wasn't available for Linux. And that's where we are right now.
So what's the response going to be if there is a Quicktime for Linux? That it or some of its codecs (which Apple mostly doesn't own) aren't Open Source? That the license still sucks? That [insert rant here]? Will people finally respect the company? Or is the truth that they just don't like the name "Apple?"
There are those who think that complaining will get them far in life. I'm not saying that everyone should just be satisfied and never ask for more than they have (although it is good to count your blessings), but Apple's not the type of company that can be "pushed around." Neither are its customers who are still somewhat defensive after years of being bashed by the rest of the computing world. So tone it down a bit, I have far more respect for a debate than a shouting match.
By the way, I think it's interesting to note that the Quicktime format is the basis for MPEG-4, which like all the other MPEGs is a standard for everyone to adopt. At the very least, MPEG-4 players for Linux won't even be a question.
It's quite a coincidence that this article should appear on/. today (and no, I'm not talking about how late it is). Today, I did a little experiment: I downloaded an Aqua-like theme for Kaliedoscope (a theme switcher for Mac OS) and this program called "Greg's Browser," which is a NeXT/Mac OS X - like file browser. For several hours I used the theme and the file browser as I went about my usual business, just to approximate what it would be like to use the OS X GUI.
My first impression upon activating the theme was the expected "that looks cool," and I also noticed that it was a bit brighter looking than the current "platinum" look of OS 9. Not that it was a bad thing, it wasn't blindingly bright, just a little unfamiliar at first. That soon changed however, as I began to actually use it. The theme isn't the most accurate representation of Aqua, for example it doesn't have the slowly throbbing default buttons, but it did have the same "traffic light" buttons on the windows. Some have expressed concern that the buttons are too close together and that someone could miss and accidently close a window, but that did not happen to me once. I got used to the new setup very quickly (to contrast, I never seem to get used to it when I have to use Windows). In fact, I took a liking to the buttons and that pinstripe background. They aren't noticable while doing work, but when you want them you know exactly where to look.
The other main thing that the theme altered was the icons. Even without Quartz and 128x128 (scalable) icons, the new icons look great! That's not one of the things anyone has really been arguing over though...
Unfortunately, the theme cannot simulate translucency, shadows or the "sheet" dialogs - although from the pictures the sheets look really good. The tranclucency might need some playing with, but again I could not try it in person. So on to the browser...
I found the browser useful for quickly navigating a heirarchy of folders - just move the arrow keys towards where you want to go. On the other hand, it wasn't so great for copying/moving files to other places - in most cases a new browser window must be opened. Of course the limitations of this browser might not be the same as Apple's, and the browser view is just an addition to the traditional icon, list, and button views. I'll probably end up using a combination them all, much like I do now.
Keeping all this in mind, it's imporant to remember that Aqua is still in development. Mac OS X is scheduled to be released this summer (not next year as Tog said, that's when it will be preinstalled on all shipping Macs), so there's still time to make any criticisms you might have heard - that is probably one of the reasons for showing Aqua so far in advance.
Well, I was about to put the URL of the patch to fix this in, but it seems that some people beat me to it (http://asu.info.apple.com/swupdates.nsf/artnum/n1 1559 in case those other posts are below your threashold).
Anyway, I fail to understand why such an obscure bug has propted such heated responses. Bugs happen to everyone - Apple, Microsoft, and even Linux. Unfortunately, they are a fact of life. Programmers are only human after all. What puzzles me is that this story went up within hours of it first being written, while a story that I sent in several weeks ago that was Apple related (the HeaderDoc, Netsprockets announcement) was rejected within minutes only to be posted a while later.
Not that I'm suggesting anyone has a double standard of course, I know it's hard to sift through hundreds of story submissions. Still...
Many people are talking about how Mozilla is the standards-based browser that is "battling" against IE/Microsoft to keep the web open. Well that's all well and good, but what about the fact that very few websites are HTML Compliant? I'd be hard pressed to find webpages that pass W3C's validation test (http://validator.w3.org) - even Slashdot isn't compliant.
My point is, a standards-based browser is only half the battle. The other half is standards-based websites. I think this is something that every webmaster who doesn't pay homage to Lord Redmond should consider.
I first saw this bit several days ago in a rumor column. That's all it is, a rumor. Then, as happens quite often these days, some news agency decided it sounded like a fact and reprinted it. Then Slashdot people saw that story, and now this thread is open.
Am I the only one who is sick and tired of how the media takes rumors as fact (especially those that are Apple-related, it seems)? Now thousands of people believe it's really true because it's been in the news. Let me reiterate, it's only a rumor.
Microsoft is in the right this time, but this should be neither a surprise nor should it arouse suspicions.
As a software company, it is in Microsoft's best interest to be able to reach as many customers as possible and to make as much money as possible. By taxing international software, it would either cost the customer more (and potentially result in fewer customers) or eat into the company's profits. Therefore, it is natural for Microsoft - or any other software company - to oppose such a tariff.
IMHO, it is important to avoid such tariffs. The Internet has been growing very rapidly, and any regulations would slow this growth. Plus, a tax on international transactions would result in a disadvantage to those in need, as software from major companies (abroad) would be more expensive and software from developing countries would have a hard time being sold in developed nations where domestic developers could avoid these taxes when dealing with customers in that country.
Besides, it would be impossible to keep track of every online transaction. Shareware developers are especially able to circumvent these taxes because they aren't necessarily "companies" per se.
With the increasing popularity of broadband connections and cheaper, more friendly computers, does HDTV over I2 really matter anymore? Think about it, instead of having every channel multicasted to every box, why not just make a TV that gets its channels over the Internet? You could select from a menu, perhaps a list of your favorite channels. The TV simply requests that channel, and it is streamed to you via the Internet. And since you already have a small computer in there, it would be easy to add interactivity to those channels. Not to mention that it would circumvent the need for cable or DSS - saving money for both the TV station and the viewer.
So in other words, why should a TV station invest so much in HDTV equipment when they could spend a fraction of the amount on streaming? And if they want higher resolution or 16:9 they can simply get compatible cameras and change resolution settings - only bandwidth limits them (and that could spark a massive acceleration in broadband use and therefore lower cost).
Why do you think Apple, Microsoft, and Real are spending so much on trying to dominate the streaming market?
Firewire is dying, you say? Better tell Sony, Matuashita (or however you spell it), VST, Apple, IBM, Epson, and the TV industry that! Heck, even Microsoft is developing for it (anyone else notice a rift between Intel and MSFT lately?). It's in camcorders, computers, hard drives, HDTVs, need I go on? Peripherals are coming in at a slow pace, but that's hardly dead.
Intel is just blowing smoke. USB 2.0 is just a white paper, and still won't be as fast as Firewire 1.0. They just can't stand the fact that they can't control it.
I think you misunderstood me. I never meant to be the "warden of [your] finances." But the fact is that in the majority of cases, people might upgrade during their computer's "mid-life crisis" and get a new computer when it's time. The fact that someone upgraded does not extend the period between new computer purchases by much. This is in my experiance and in the experiance of pretty much every comptuer user I know. Therefore, any gains by Apple eliminating upgrades are minimal and are far outweighed by the bad PR they must've known they'd get.
Here's an idea, why don't we just see what happens, ok? Like I said originally, there's really no point in this bickering without knowing what is going to happen in the long run. Don't get me wrong, if they don't fix it or provide a damn good explanation why not (unlikely that there is one), then I'll be really angry. But, I'm not at all convinced that is the case. It just doesn't make sense.
Sorry, didn't format the original reply correctly:
>The reason is simple: To get folks to put money in Apple's pocket, not anyone elses.
And to this I keep asking: Would anyone who bought a computer no more than 9 months ago just go out and replace it??? I don't think so. And a few years down the road, it will probably pay to buy a new one as opposed to upgrading anyway.
>No, what it makes obvious is that fact that the machines Apple *wants* to have G4s in them do. These would be ones you buy from them, as opposed to getting the G4 from another vendor.
But if they're the same motherboard, then once the next ROM update comes out for Yose, G3 owners will get the same ROMs are Yose G4 owners!
>And I'd like to suggest that you wake up and smell the coffee? BTW...Do *you* have a Yose G3, or some old assed Mac? Have you recently contributed to the large amount of cash that Apple has sitting in the bank, or are you just blowin' smoke?
Actually, I have a Rev.A iMac, not to mention that I'm a shareholder in the company. So while the issue doesn't effect me directly, I am concerned by it.
>Apple can say any machine is upgradable providing that it is. *That* particular case had to do with them not providing an upgrade they said they would, or that upgrade not working.
But they have to cover their behinds. If some some strange reason nobody makes an upgrade for a particular model computer (VERY unlikely I know) and they say it can be upgraded, they can be sued. The only way it would work is if they say "Well it could theoretically be upgraded if someone made an upgrade" - and that's not a good idea either b/c if some roadblock is encountered (not a ROM thing, some technical glitch) that can't be fixed, the upgrade makers could sue Apple.
>The reason is simple: To get folks to put money in Apple's pocket, not anyone elses. And to this I keep asking: Would anyone who bought a computer no more than 9 months ago just go out and replace it??? I don't think so. And a few years down the road, it will probably pay to buy a new one as opposed to upgrading anyway. >No, what it makes obvious is that fact that the machines Apple *wants* to have G4s in them do. These would be ones you buy from them, as opposed to getting the G4 from another vendor. But if they're the same motherboard, then once the next ROM update comes out for Yose, G3 owners will get the same ROMs are Yose G4 owners! >And I'd like to suggest that you wake up and smell the coffee? BTW...Do *you* have a Yose G3, or some old assed Mac? Have you recently contributed to the large amount of cash that Apple has sitting in the bank, or are you just blowin' smoke? Actually, I have a Rev.A iMac, not to mention that I'm a shareholder in the company. So while the issue doesn't effect me directly, I am concerned by it. >Apple can say any machine is upgradable providing that it is. *That* particular case had to do with them not providing an upgrade they said they would, or that upgrade not working. But they have to cover their behinds. If some some strange reason nobody makes an upgrade for a particular model computer (VERY unlikely I know) and they say it can be upgraded, they can be sued. The only way it would work is if they say "Well it could theoretically be upgraded if someone made an upgrade" - and that's not a good idea either b/c if some roadblock is encountered (not a ROM thing, some technical glitch) that can't be fixed, the upgrade makers could sue Apple.
Actually, I did hear all the rumors a while ago. XLR8 has the first confirmation I've seen, however. XLR8 is NOT the only entity working on a fix - vMac is working on one as well (if I can find the link I'll post it), and says it isn't much of a problem.
I already read what you CP'ed, and it is no indication that Apple will not fix the problem. And, as I pointed out to MrKai, Apple has nothing to gain by doing this. Nobody who just bought a G3 computer will replace it so quickly! Instead, they would only cause the anger that is being displayed now. Apple could figure that out easily.
You said that they did it to be anticompetitive, but you have yet to mention what Apple has to gain by doing it. Think about it, nobody who just bought a several month old G3 is about to replace it just b/c G4s are out! They *might* upgrade if they really need the speed, but that's it. Apple doesn't even make upgrades, they aren't competing with companies like XLR8!
The fact that there is a G4 with a Yose motherboard should make it obvious that a ROM update already exists (or will by the time they start shipping, which wasn't really the day they were announced). And if they don't make that update available to everyone, what will they do when it's time to upgrade the G4 Yose ROMs to stop a G3 owner from using it? Any roadblocks they would put up could be circumvented.
As for the OS 9 ROM requirement, it is not uncommon for Apple to ensure that firmware updates are in place when making an upgrade. This frees them from testing with every single ROM version ever made. G4 issues aside, there's no reason not to have the latest ROMs.
Judging by your user info, I would venture a guess that you're really pissed off at the problem. I will be too - if it isn't fixed. But for now, I'd suggest you calm down.
Btw, Apple _can't_ say that any of their machines are upgradable due to a fiasco involving Performa upgrades a while ago that led to a class action suit.
On the contrary, I think you need to do more careful reading. Have you read the articles that discuss how accelerator companies don't think it would be a difficult task to get around this block? Really, if Apple wanted to block upgrades they could have done a better job than that. And the whole idea isn't even logical! It's not like people who just bought a G3 were going to shell out for a whole new G4 computer to replace it anyway. They would gain no sales by making machines non-upgradable (and why is the processor on a ZIF if it's supposed to be non-upgradable???) Instead, they would only cause the anger that is being shown right now. You think they can't figure that out?
The most "evil" scenario that makes any sense is that they wanted to come out with G4s before anyone else. Otherwise, it's either all FUD or every single person in a leadership position at Apple is insane.
Just one question, has anyone here actually been able to confirm that a G3 can't be upgraded to a G4? And if so, are you certain that there is no technical reason for this or some sort of issue that will be fixed in a future ROM upgrade? If anyone can honestly tell me this, please stand up and say so (and no, rumors sites are not "sources!"). Wait a month or two, if the issue is not resolved then indeed Apple has done a very bad thing. But until then, no one here has the right to flame them.
It is unfortunate that so many readers here are intolerant and so quick to bark at any company that doesn't bow down to the Almighty Penguin. I'll probably get scored down for saying this, but I just can't hold it in any longer. There - much better.:-)
I think some people are misunderstanding the bundled w/G4 thing. It seems that this is the case because they expect limited supplies for the first few months. Eventually the monitor WILL be sold separately.
This post will undoubtedly get lost in the sea of flames from all camps, but here goes... I watched the keynote, and I remember Mr. Jobs saying that they used Intel's benchmarking system instead of ByteMark this time to "try to make it even." Does anyone know anything about this? Not that any benchmark could really measure "true" speed, but I saw the 500MHz G4 run circles around a 600MHz PIII in the real world tests (Photoshop, SETI@Home, scientific apps). Dunno how a multiple PIII or Athalon would fare, but the G4 is also capable of SMP.
As for the display, it's amazing. The only thing is that due to the limited quantities they can make (for now), you can only buy it with a G4 right now.
What many posters here don't realize is that the base of MacOS X, Darwin, is Open Source. Therefore, Apple couldn't do anything to keep it from getting tweaked for these machines if it wanted to (and that's assuming tweaking is even necessary - it might not be).
Remember, Apple is IBM's #1 PowerPC customer by a long shot. They wouldn't do anything to get them angry. It's very possible that this will facilitate the return of cloning on the Mac. This time Apple would have no responsibility to the clone maker - they simply would make a volume licensing deal. They'd say that as long as it conforms to certain guidelines, it will work. And if a cloner wants to deviate from them, like introducing a new kind of data bus for example, they can simply make the necessary patches to Darwin.
Let's see: Amiga will be developing both hardware and software, and the OS will be based on an Open Source system (Linux). Apple develops both hardware and software, and MacOS X will be based on an Open Source system (Mach/BSD). Both companies either are or used to be very popular for media creation. Both have their sights set on information appliances for viewing and interacting with media. Both are hellbent on reclaiming and expanding their marketshare.
I think that some people are missing the point here. It doesn't matter what operating system the computer you donate uses, it doesn't matter how much red tape there is (ok it does, but not for these purposes), all that matters is that there are many unfortunate people out there who need to enter the digital age. If they don't, they will evolve separately from those who are on the Internet (as another post discussed).
Do whatever you can to help out. If someone refuses to take equipment that's "up to spec," then it's their problem. Find someone who will. As far as liability goes, there is none really. If anything, recommend or install software to filter out inappropriate sites. The best regulation of the Internet is self-regulation.
I watched the keynote streamed and saw this myself. It was hilarious, especially when Noah Wyle asked Steve, "Are you still a virgin?" It's nice to see that Steve Jobs is ready to move past his dark side from those days.
Many, even all of Microsoft's competitors are now starting to use Open Source. As these platforms gain mind share and market share, it will become a necessity to support a "one true standard". If MSFT remains proprietary, they'll be the only ones who are. Think about it, how many OSes can you name besides WinXX that aren't unices (traditional MacOS doesn't count 'cause it will be replaced by MacOS X)? How many can't run POSIX applications? How many are totally limited to a single company's resources? It's lonely at the top, huh Bill?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Notice that the story doesn't mention that Apple _is_ suing FishPC, just that legal action is being considered (nothing more than a rumor, btw). Apple is correct to investigate this product to find out whether they are in fact violating any Apple patents or trademarks. This is regardless of whether or not you personally think that patents as a whole are good.
I noticed that the government site with the MS ruling was kida /.ed, so when I finally got a hold of the file, I mirrored it:
http://homepage.mac.com/rafimg/ms-conclusions.pdf
At the beginning, the complaint was simply "Macs suck." Then Apple bought NeXT, started bringing itself back from the "dead," etc. The /. response? "They're not Open Source!"
Then Apple Open Sourced Darwin, the basis for Mac OS X. They also brought out related projects, including the Quicktime Streaming Server. This time, the complaint was "The License is Bad!"
So they revised the APSL, satisfying some but not others. So people started complaining that the Quicktime client wasn't available for Linux. And that's where we are right now.
So what's the response going to be if there is a Quicktime for Linux? That it or some of its codecs (which Apple mostly doesn't own) aren't Open Source? That the license still sucks? That [insert rant here]? Will people finally respect the company? Or is the truth that they just don't like the name "Apple?"
There are those who think that complaining will get them far in life. I'm not saying that everyone should just be satisfied and never ask for more than they have (although it is good to count your blessings), but Apple's not the type of company that can be "pushed around." Neither are its customers who are still somewhat defensive after years of being bashed by the rest of the computing world. So tone it down a bit, I have far more respect for a debate than a shouting match.
By the way, I think it's interesting to note that the Quicktime format is the basis for MPEG-4, which like all the other MPEGs is a standard for everyone to adopt. At the very least, MPEG-4 players for Linux won't even be a question.
My first impression upon activating the theme was the expected "that looks cool," and I also noticed that it was a bit brighter looking than the current "platinum" look of OS 9. Not that it was a bad thing, it wasn't blindingly bright, just a little unfamiliar at first. That soon changed however, as I began to actually use it. The theme isn't the most accurate representation of Aqua, for example it doesn't have the slowly throbbing default buttons, but it did have the same "traffic light" buttons on the windows. Some have expressed concern that the buttons are too close together and that someone could miss and accidently close a window, but that did not happen to me once. I got used to the new setup very quickly (to contrast, I never seem to get used to it when I have to use Windows). In fact, I took a liking to the buttons and that pinstripe background. They aren't noticable while doing work, but when you want them you know exactly where to look.
The other main thing that the theme altered was the icons. Even without Quartz and 128x128 (scalable) icons, the new icons look great! That's not one of the things anyone has really been arguing over though...
Unfortunately, the theme cannot simulate translucency, shadows or the "sheet" dialogs - although from the pictures the sheets look really good. The tranclucency might need some playing with, but again I could not try it in person. So on to the browser...
I found the browser useful for quickly navigating a heirarchy of folders - just move the arrow keys towards where you want to go. On the other hand, it wasn't so great for copying/moving files to other places - in most cases a new browser window must be opened. Of course the limitations of this browser might not be the same as Apple's, and the browser view is just an addition to the traditional icon, list, and button views. I'll probably end up using a combination them all, much like I do now.
Keeping all this in mind, it's imporant to remember that Aqua is still in development. Mac OS X is scheduled to be released this summer (not next year as Tog said, that's when it will be preinstalled on all shipping Macs), so there's still time to make any criticisms you might have heard - that is probably one of the reasons for showing Aqua so far in advance.
Anyway, I fail to understand why such an obscure bug has propted such heated responses. Bugs happen to everyone - Apple, Microsoft, and even Linux. Unfortunately, they are a fact of life. Programmers are only human after all. What puzzles me is that this story went up within hours of it first being written, while a story that I sent in several weeks ago that was Apple related (the HeaderDoc, Netsprockets announcement) was rejected within minutes only to be posted a while later.
Not that I'm suggesting anyone has a double standard of course, I know it's hard to sift through hundreds of story submissions. Still...
My point is, a standards-based browser is only half the battle. The other half is standards-based websites. I think this is something that every webmaster who doesn't pay homage to Lord Redmond should consider.
I first saw this bit several days ago in a rumor column. That's all it is, a rumor. Then, as happens quite often these days, some news agency decided it sounded like a fact and reprinted it. Then Slashdot people saw that story, and now this thread is open.
Am I the only one who is sick and tired of how the media takes rumors as fact (especially those that are Apple-related, it seems)? Now thousands of people believe it's really true because it's been in the news. Let me reiterate, it's only a rumor.
As a software company, it is in Microsoft's best interest to be able to reach as many customers as possible and to make as much money as possible. By taxing international software, it would either cost the customer more (and potentially result in fewer customers) or eat into the company's profits. Therefore, it is natural for Microsoft - or any other software company - to oppose such a tariff.
IMHO, it is important to avoid such tariffs. The Internet has been growing very rapidly, and any regulations would slow this growth. Plus, a tax on international transactions would result in a disadvantage to those in need, as software from major companies (abroad) would be more expensive and software from developing countries would have a hard time being sold in developed nations where domestic developers could avoid these taxes when dealing with customers in that country.
Besides, it would be impossible to keep track of every online transaction. Shareware developers are especially able to circumvent these taxes because they aren't necessarily "companies" per se.
So in other words, why should a TV station invest so much in HDTV equipment when they could spend a fraction of the amount on streaming? And if they want higher resolution or 16:9 they can simply get compatible cameras and change resolution settings - only bandwidth limits them (and that could spark a massive acceleration in broadband use and therefore lower cost).
Why do you think Apple, Microsoft, and Real are spending so much on trying to dominate the streaming market?
-Rafi
I'm happy to report that humans have been creating life for a long time now. Just ask your parents, kiddies. :-)
-Rafi
Intel is just blowing smoke. USB 2.0 is just a white paper, and still won't be as fast as Firewire 1.0. They just can't stand the fact that they can't control it.
-Rafi
I think you misunderstood me. I never meant to be the "warden of [your] finances." But the fact is that in the majority of cases, people might upgrade during their computer's "mid-life crisis" and get a new computer when it's time. The fact that someone upgraded does not extend the period between new computer purchases by much. This is in my experiance and in the experiance of pretty much every comptuer user I know. Therefore, any gains by Apple eliminating upgrades are minimal and are far outweighed by the bad PR they must've known they'd get.
Here's an idea, why don't we just see what happens, ok? Like I said originally, there's really no point in this bickering without knowing what is going to happen in the long run. Don't get me wrong, if they don't fix it or provide a damn good explanation why not (unlikely that there is one), then I'll be really angry. But, I'm not at all convinced that is the case. It just doesn't make sense.
-Rafi
>The reason is simple: To get folks to put money in Apple's pocket, not anyone elses.
And to this I keep asking: Would anyone who bought a computer no more than 9 months ago just go out and replace it??? I don't think so. And a few years down the road, it will probably pay to buy a new one as opposed to upgrading anyway.
>No, what it makes obvious is that fact that the machines Apple *wants* to have G4s in them do. These would be ones you buy from them, as opposed to getting the G4 from another vendor.
But if they're the same motherboard, then once the next ROM update comes out for Yose, G3 owners will get the same ROMs are Yose G4 owners!
>And I'd like to suggest that you wake up and smell the coffee? BTW...Do *you* have a Yose G3, or some old assed Mac? Have you recently contributed to the large amount of cash that Apple has sitting in the bank, or are you just blowin' smoke?
Actually, I have a Rev.A iMac, not to mention that I'm a shareholder in the company. So while the issue doesn't effect me directly, I am concerned by it.
>Apple can say any machine is upgradable providing that it is. *That* particular case had to do with them not providing an upgrade they said they would, or that upgrade not working.
But they have to cover their behinds. If some some strange reason nobody makes an upgrade for a particular model computer (VERY unlikely I know) and they say it can be upgraded, they can be sued. The only way it would work is if they say "Well it could theoretically be upgraded if someone made an upgrade" - and that's not a good idea either b/c if some roadblock is encountered (not a ROM thing, some technical glitch) that can't be fixed, the upgrade makers could sue Apple.
-Rafi
>The reason is simple: To get folks to put money in Apple's pocket, not anyone elses. And to this I keep asking: Would anyone who bought a computer no more than 9 months ago just go out and replace it??? I don't think so. And a few years down the road, it will probably pay to buy a new one as opposed to upgrading anyway. >No, what it makes obvious is that fact that the machines Apple *wants* to have G4s in them do. These would be ones you buy from them, as opposed to getting the G4 from another vendor. But if they're the same motherboard, then once the next ROM update comes out for Yose, G3 owners will get the same ROMs are Yose G4 owners! >And I'd like to suggest that you wake up and smell the coffee? BTW...Do *you* have a Yose G3, or some old assed Mac? Have you recently contributed to the large amount of cash that Apple has sitting in the bank, or are you just blowin' smoke? Actually, I have a Rev.A iMac, not to mention that I'm a shareholder in the company. So while the issue doesn't effect me directly, I am concerned by it. >Apple can say any machine is upgradable providing that it is. *That* particular case had to do with them not providing an upgrade they said they would, or that upgrade not working. But they have to cover their behinds. If some some strange reason nobody makes an upgrade for a particular model computer (VERY unlikely I know) and they say it can be upgraded, they can be sued. The only way it would work is if they say "Well it could theoretically be upgraded if someone made an upgrade" - and that's not a good idea either b/c if some roadblock is encountered (not a ROM thing, some technical glitch) that can't be fixed, the upgrade makers could sue Apple.
-Rafi
I already read what you CP'ed, and it is no indication that Apple will not fix the problem. And, as I pointed out to MrKai, Apple has nothing to gain by doing this. Nobody who just bought a G3 computer will replace it so quickly! Instead, they would only cause the anger that is being displayed now. Apple could figure that out easily.
-Rafi
The fact that there is a G4 with a Yose motherboard should make it obvious that a ROM update already exists (or will by the time they start shipping, which wasn't really the day they were announced). And if they don't make that update available to everyone, what will they do when it's time to upgrade the G4 Yose ROMs to stop a G3 owner from using it? Any roadblocks they would put up could be circumvented.
As for the OS 9 ROM requirement, it is not uncommon for Apple to ensure that firmware updates are in place when making an upgrade. This frees them from testing with every single ROM version ever made. G4 issues aside, there's no reason not to have the latest ROMs.
Judging by your user info, I would venture a guess that you're really pissed off at the problem. I will be too - if it isn't fixed. But for now, I'd suggest you calm down.
Btw, Apple _can't_ say that any of their machines are upgradable due to a fiasco involving Performa upgrades a while ago that led to a class action suit.
-Rafi
The most "evil" scenario that makes any sense is that they wanted to come out with G4s before anyone else. Otherwise, it's either all FUD or every single person in a leadership position at Apple is insane.
-Rafi
It is unfortunate that so many readers here are intolerant and so quick to bark at any company that doesn't bow down to the Almighty Penguin. I'll probably get scored down for saying this, but I just can't hold it in any longer. There - much better. :-)
-Rafi
I think some people are misunderstanding the bundled w/G4 thing. It seems that this is the case because they expect limited supplies for the first few months. Eventually the monitor WILL be sold separately.
-Rafi
As for the display, it's amazing. The only thing is that due to the limited quantities they can make (for now), you can only buy it with a G4 right now.
-Rafi
Remember, Apple is IBM's #1 PowerPC customer by a long shot. They wouldn't do anything to get them angry. It's very possible that this will facilitate the return of cloning on the Mac. This time Apple would have no responsibility to the clone maker - they simply would make a volume licensing deal. They'd say that as long as it conforms to certain guidelines, it will work. And if a cloner wants to deviate from them, like introducing a new kind of data bus for example, they can simply make the necessary patches to Darwin.
Let's see: Amiga will be developing both hardware and software, and the OS will be based on an Open Source system (Linux). Apple develops both hardware and software, and MacOS X will be based on an Open Source system (Mach/BSD). Both companies either are or used to be very popular for media creation. Both have their sights set on information appliances for viewing and interacting with media. Both are hellbent on reclaiming and expanding their marketshare.
Do whatever you can to help out. If someone refuses to take equipment that's "up to spec," then it's their problem. Find someone who will. As far as liability goes, there is none really. If anything, recommend or install software to filter out inappropriate sites. The best regulation of the Internet is self-regulation.
I watched the keynote streamed and saw this myself. It was hilarious, especially when Noah Wyle asked Steve, "Are you still a virgin?" It's nice to see that Steve Jobs is ready to move past his dark side from those days.
Many, even all of Microsoft's competitors are now starting to use Open Source. As these platforms gain mind share and market share, it will become a necessity to support a "one true standard". If MSFT remains proprietary, they'll be the only ones who are. Think about it, how many OSes can you name besides WinXX that aren't unices (traditional MacOS doesn't count 'cause it will be replaced by MacOS X)? How many can't run POSIX applications? How many are totally limited to a single company's resources? It's lonely at the top, huh Bill? :-)