The reality is that it's not nearly as clear cut as you believe. There are individuals with chimerism, in which their bodies contain cells of more than one genotype, i.e., two distinct sets of DNA. See the case of Lydia Fairchild, who was accused of welfare fraud, and prosecutors recommended that her two children be taken into care because testing determined that they weren't related to her, even though she had given birth to them. As she was pregnant with her third child, the judge ordered a witness be present at birth and blood samples taken from mother and child. DNA testing revealed that the child was not hers. Incredibly, it was a member of the prosecution team who recalled a similar case in Boston, and contacted her defense team with the information.
And that's only chimerism. Then there are the truly strange cases of individuals with more than two sex chromosomes, such as XXY and XXXY genotypes among others. Genetically speaking, gender should be considered to be a spectrum, with XX at one extreme and XY at the other, with shadings in between.
Marco Arment has an "obvious grudge" against OS X? That is the exact opposite of the truth. He has long been an unabashed Apple booster, although he has never been afraid to call them out when they do things he doesn't agree with, and it strains credulity to hear him labeled as having a grudge of any kind against them.
And his review of Siracusa's review was funny; brilliantly so in fact. To suggest that Arment doesn't know about Reader is utterly ridiculous: as the creator of the extremely popular Instapaper, he was concerned about its future when Apple first announced Reader in Safari, which replicates Instapaper's functionality, but has subsequently stated that he has seen no obvious diminution in sales. Arment probably knows a hell of a lot more about Reader than the vast majority of Mac users, seeing as how it's a direct competitor to Instapaper.
I guess you just don't recognize satire when you see it. Siracusa's superbly detailed reviews of the various versions of OS X are considered the definitive word on the subject by Apple watchers and enthusiasts, Arment included,
You find the term "nerds" offensive? Then did you do the right thing and call out Slashdot for the "News for nerds" tagline? If not, then you and all those who modded you up are a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
Apple just does not want ANY competitive technology to shine on iOS. They dropped Flash not due to "performance and battery" issues, but simply put that Flash would eat away at Apple's walled garden.
Really? Then why did Adobe themselves give up on a mobile version of Flash? Flash has severe performance, battery, and security issues, and Adobe had been unable to produce an acceptable mobile version after years of trying. As Jobs put it in his infamous "Thoughts on Flash" piece, Apple had been waiting for years for Adobe to produce a version with acceptable performance, and was no longer willing to wait after all their promises came to naught.
And it's not about competition. It's about control. Apple makes no bones about being loath to rely on any critical technology they don't control themselves. Apple's memory is long, and they remember how many years it took Adobe to release an OS X-native version of Photoshop, one of the flagship applications for Macintosh, and as Jobs said, it was unacceptable for Apple to have to depend on the update schedule of a third party in order to add features to their own products. It's about control of the vertical stack in order to deliver an experience they deem acceptable, not competition. Locking out potential competitors isn't their major focus; it's just icing on the cake.
When Apple announced the terms for Newsstand, the 30% cut was not the major bone of contention between the magazine publishers and Apple. It was the fact that Apple refused to pass on subscriber information automatically. Instead, subscribers had to click an "Allow" button in a dialog box asking if they wanted their personal information sent along to the publishers. The publishers were outraged that Apple made the process opt-in, dramatically reducing the treasure trove of information they could sell to advertisers.
I have no idea if Apple made concessions to Time on the issue of subscriber privacy, but knowing them I think it's unlikely. As far as Apple is concerned, folks with iTunes accounts are Apple's customers, and subscriptions through Newsstand are just some of the services that they offer. I'm actually with Apple on this one. The terms for Newsstand make it clear that subscribers should have a choice about the disposition of their personal information, while the publishers treat it as something to which they are automatically entitled.
In 2008 it came to light that the American Family Association's OneNewsNow website had a filter to automatically replace the word "gay" with the word "homosexual". Hilarity ensued when they reported on Tyson Gay's victory in the 100 meters at the U.S. Olympic Trials that June:
Tyson Homosexual was a blur in blue, sprinting 100 meters faster than anyone ever has.
His time of 9.68 seconds at the U.S. Olympic trials Sunday doesn't count as a world record, because it was run with the help of a too-strong tailwind. Here's what does matter: Homosexual qualified for his first Summer Games team and served notice he's certainly someone to watch in Beijing.
"It means a lot to me," the 25-year-old Homosexual said. "I'm glad my body could do it, because now I know I have it in me."
I other words they are guilty of price-fixing what other stores may sell the ebooks for
Apple hasn't been shown to be guilty of anything. They've been accused of price fixing, they've vigorously denied it, and their guilt or innocence have yet to be adjudicated. Obviously you've made up your mind as to the facts of the case, never mind the actual facts.
PLUS anticompetitive behaviors such as blocking amazon from target. Guilty guilty guilty.
Except that Apple had nothing to do with it. The decision to yank the Kindle was Target's, and they said so explicitly in a statement. Target was pissed at Amazon for encouraging shoppers to compare prices in physical stores, and said in their statement that they refuse to become showrooms for Amazon.
But nice to hear you venting your hatred by snapping at any anti-Apple sentiment, however untrue. And "Mcirosucks"? Really? It's way beyond stale to refer to Microsoft as "Microsucks", not to mention childish, but you couldn't even spell it right. Pathetic.
People buy your products because they are original, innovative and useful. Litigation for profit is not original. Litigation for profit is not innovative. Litigation for profit is not useful.
You and so many others here just don't get it. Apple isn't interested in making money off Android. They want to kill it. The revenues from potential patent licenses, while nice, would be a rounding error on their P and L. Microsoft's motive may be partly for the profit (it's likely that their revenue from licensing patents to Android manufacturers exceeds their revenues from Windows Phone), but Apple is most assuredly not interested. Apple's motive is to chill Android's ascent, or preferably, kill the platform outright. There is apparently genuine anger inside Apple that is directed at Google because of Android; Apple feels that Google blatantly capitalized on Apple's hard work in birthing the iPhone and they're prepared to go to the mattresses to right the perceived wrong.
By making Android handsets more expensive to produce, Apple and Microsoft are adding friction to the adoption of Android, and both companies have large war chests they can use to open more fronts in their war against Google, the true enemy of both. Companies contemplating using Android will think twice before facing the two titans.
And a few days ago Googlighting shows up to spread fear and uncertainty about Google Docs.
The only fear and uncertainty I experienced on watching that embarrassingly cheesy video was the fear that Microsoft would make another one like it, and the uncertainty that they'd ever hire a decent agency to do the job instead of the audio/video nerds from the local community college. Surely that wasn't the work of professionals, was it?
Considering that most of the judge from the 21st century are, at most, 12, and not even lawyers, let alone judges, yet kinda makes this tough.
I salute you sir; nicely done. Although the disturbing thought did occur to me that perhaps the GP was in fact calling for the reinstatement of nineteenth century judges to adjudicate these newfangled matters.
As this excellent piece by Thomas Friedman points out, manufacturing is rapidly becoming a global commodity. The real value resides with the creators of a product, the designers, engineers, marketers, etc. Factories are just big machines into which you plug your designs, and they can be swapped in and out of your logistics chains if necessary.
The "big machine" analogy is even more apt as manufacturing eventually shifts more and more to automation. How many workers does a robotic factory need? If you've ever seen videos of the Lego factory in Denmark, the answer could be as few as none, and it operates 24/7, 364 days a year (down one day for maintenance). Jobs was right to tell Obama that manufacturing jobs aren't coming back to the U.S.
Apple is merely acknowledging the fact that the "Designed in" sticker is coming to mean a hell of a lot more than the "Made in" sticker.
It's a pleasant surprise that Intel is offering this option at all, and you're calling them assholes because they're not offering it for all CPU's? I bet you're also pissed that this optional protection plan isn't free either. You arrogant, entitled jackass.
Apple recently patented "methods of extracting monetary compensation by engaging in litigation over patent rights."
That's closer to the truth than you think, except that I personally don't believe that they have the slightest interrest in monetary compensation. The feeling I get is that Apple started the patent litigation ball rolling for the express purpose of doing as much damage to Android as possible, not for the potential of licensing fees or financial relief.
By raising the specter of lawsuits among hardware manufacturers, with the attendant legal costs, as well as the massive wastes of time and resources, Apple may well be gambling that a lot of manufacturers, especially smaller ones with limited resources, wouldn't be willing to take on the huge headaches of tackling a well-funded, utterly ruthless titan like Apple. Apple seems to me to be far more interested in chilling, or better yet killing, the adoption of Android than collecting money, a la Microsoft.
I agree with you completely, and it could get much, much worse for the people who have to defend against these weapons if they are deployed from the launch tubes of attack submarines. Then defenders will be faced with a hypersonic weapon that suddenly pops up thousands of miles closer to an intended target than expected than if they were land based. The warning window will be much smaller, and the direction of attack may be completely unexpected.
Interestingly, the political value of this weapon system may far outweigh its military utility. Just knowing that the US has these weapons, especially sub-launched versions, will force potential adversaries to rethink their entire defensive strategy, possibly futilely. They'd have to extend their radar coverage and air defenses to all possible avenues of approach to lucrative targets, or relocate those high-value assets, or both, along with the necessary extensions of command and control infrastructure, and swallow the concomitant expense associated with any of those decisions. The very existence of such a system could force an adversary to the realization that a viable defense against it is neither militarily nor economically feasible.
When Page took over as CEO from Eric Schmidt, he asked Steve Jobs for advice. After initial reservations, given the competitive animosity between Apple and Google, Jobs told him in so many words that Google's product strategy was all over the place, and they needed to stop releasing half-baked products and to concentrate on just five. He said that Google needed to focus on just a few things, and to polish them into world-beaters before releasing them.
And Jobs was absolutely correct. Google's "throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks" strategy is causing serious damage to their brand, and by killing off products which don't gain traction immediately they're sending the message that they weren't too committed to their success in the first place.
Jobs was many things, a significant number of which were downright despicable, but the one quality of his I really admired was his ability to say no to the multitudes of ideas percolating up to him, and to focus on just a few that he felt could be brought to fruition in a reasonable time frame. Google's attitude appears to be the diametrical opposite: the impression I get, and it's just an impression, is that Google treats all good ideas with equal priority, which ensures that the ones that actually have a chance of succeeding don't get the attention they need. They need to get out of the "engineer's playground" mentality and focus on a rational and sustainable product philosophy.
Incidentally, all of the items you list -- those aren't patent violations, at best they're trademark issues.
Agreed. Those are trademark, not patent issues, but the core of Apple's complaint against Samsung cites the latter's "slavish copying" of Apple's designs, and those two examples do nothing to deflect the criticism. It may have been nothing more than oversights by the graphics department, but Apple's counsels could argue that they demonstrate a pattern on Samsung's part. The stakes for Samsung are extremely high, and one would have thought they would have been much more circumspect. They appear to be doing the best they can to undermine their own defense.
Are they in effect admitting that their previous Android phones were ignoring Apple's patents? Samsung has not been doing themselves any favors recently, what with the "app wall" in their store display in Rome featuring icons from iOS, and the webpage for the Galaxy Player 50 (since removed) that showed a 2008 screenshot of the iPhone's Maps app.
Thanks for the correction. I know he had demanded they be removed, but I don't know why I was under the impression that they had been given tot the Computer History Museum.
Apple is breathtakingly ruthless about killing off what it sees as legacy technologies, and I've always had the impression that they have no desire to be shackled to the backward compatibility train as Microsoft has been. Jobs was well known for being totally unsentimental, almost contemptuous, of the past, and when he became CEO of Apple in 1997, not only did he kill off a number of product lines and projects, he also donated Apple's large collection of historic products to the Computer History Museum.
As Apple demonstrated with the then-new version of iMovie, when they decide to go in a new direction they simply make the leap, and devil take the hindmost. They infuriated untold numbers of iMovie fans when all of a sudden all their projects wouldn't work with the new version, but Apple's rationale was that the new iMovie provided the basis for an improved way of doing things, and they refused to hobble it by making it backward compatible. They gambled that it would lure enough users to their point of view that the discontent would blow over, which it eventually did.
They took a similar gamble with Final Cut X. They were fully aware that it would probably alienate the entire professional editing community, not only because their projects wouldn't work with it, but because so many features they depend on were absent at launch, and worst of all, their years-long investment in polishing their workflow and expertise was suddenly out the window, and they'd have to start again from scratch. I'm still amazed that angry mobs of video editors didn't storm 1 Infinite Loop with torches and pitchforks.
That being said, some professional reviewers were of the opinion that despite the fact that they couldn't and wouldn't recommend it for production because it was clearly unfinished, Final Cut X really was a huge leap forward and some of the features already present would lead to greater productivity. One reviewer (forgive me; I can't recall the link) predicted that while it would certainly alienate current professionals, it would eventually attract and give rise to a new generation of professional video editors, especially those familiar with iMovie, and that it would only be a matter of time before Final Cut X was once again the industry standard.
To revisit the premise of this story, Apple made a conscious decision to potentially push away the current generation of professionals, because they're gambling that they can spur the rise of a new, larger generation. It's a bold, incredibly arrogant move on their part, but frankly I think they're going to pull it off.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hug a chicken"? "Huggy pajamas"? "Digital lollipop"?
I've read some disturbing things on Slashdot, but this turns it up to eleven.
XX = Woman XY = Man
The reality is that it's not nearly as clear cut as you believe. There are individuals with chimerism, in which their bodies contain cells of more than one genotype, i.e., two distinct sets of DNA. See the case of Lydia Fairchild, who was accused of welfare fraud, and prosecutors recommended that her two children be taken into care because testing determined that they weren't related to her, even though she had given birth to them. As she was pregnant with her third child, the judge ordered a witness be present at birth and blood samples taken from mother and child. DNA testing revealed that the child was not hers. Incredibly, it was a member of the prosecution team who recalled a similar case in Boston, and contacted her defense team with the information.
And that's only chimerism. Then there are the truly strange cases of individuals with more than two sex chromosomes, such as XXY and XXXY genotypes among others. Genetically speaking, gender should be considered to be a spectrum, with XX at one extreme and XY at the other, with shadings in between.
Very very well said. Kudos to you.
Marco Arment has an "obvious grudge" against OS X? That is the exact opposite of the truth. He has long been an unabashed Apple booster, although he has never been afraid to call them out when they do things he doesn't agree with, and it strains credulity to hear him labeled as having a grudge of any kind against them.
And his review of Siracusa's review was funny; brilliantly so in fact. To suggest that Arment doesn't know about Reader is utterly ridiculous: as the creator of the extremely popular Instapaper, he was concerned about its future when Apple first announced Reader in Safari, which replicates Instapaper's functionality, but has subsequently stated that he has seen no obvious diminution in sales. Arment probably knows a hell of a lot more about Reader than the vast majority of Mac users, seeing as how it's a direct competitor to Instapaper.
I guess you just don't recognize satire when you see it. Siracusa's superbly detailed reviews of the various versions of OS X are considered the definitive word on the subject by Apple watchers and enthusiasts, Arment included,
You find the term "nerds" offensive? Then did you do the right thing and call out Slashdot for the "News for nerds" tagline? If not, then you and all those who modded you up are a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
"The difference between a cult and a religion is the amount of real estate they own." — Frank Zappa
Apple just does not want ANY competitive technology to shine on iOS. They dropped Flash not due to "performance and battery" issues, but simply put that Flash would eat away at Apple's walled garden.
Really? Then why did Adobe themselves give up on a mobile version of Flash? Flash has severe performance, battery, and security issues, and Adobe had been unable to produce an acceptable mobile version after years of trying. As Jobs put it in his infamous "Thoughts on Flash" piece, Apple had been waiting for years for Adobe to produce a version with acceptable performance, and was no longer willing to wait after all their promises came to naught.
And it's not about competition. It's about control. Apple makes no bones about being loath to rely on any critical technology they don't control themselves. Apple's memory is long, and they remember how many years it took Adobe to release an OS X-native version of Photoshop, one of the flagship applications for Macintosh, and as Jobs said, it was unacceptable for Apple to have to depend on the update schedule of a third party in order to add features to their own products. It's about control of the vertical stack in order to deliver an experience they deem acceptable, not competition. Locking out potential competitors isn't their major focus; it's just icing on the cake.
When Apple announced the terms for Newsstand, the 30% cut was not the major bone of contention between the magazine publishers and Apple. It was the fact that Apple refused to pass on subscriber information automatically. Instead, subscribers had to click an "Allow" button in a dialog box asking if they wanted their personal information sent along to the publishers. The publishers were outraged that Apple made the process opt-in, dramatically reducing the treasure trove of information they could sell to advertisers.
I have no idea if Apple made concessions to Time on the issue of subscriber privacy, but knowing them I think it's unlikely. As far as Apple is concerned, folks with iTunes accounts are Apple's customers, and subscriptions through Newsstand are just some of the services that they offer. I'm actually with Apple on this one. The terms for Newsstand make it clear that subscribers should have a choice about the disposition of their personal information, while the publishers treat it as something to which they are automatically entitled.
I other words they are guilty of price-fixing what other stores may sell the ebooks for
Apple hasn't been shown to be guilty of anything. They've been accused of price fixing, they've vigorously denied it, and their guilt or innocence have yet to be adjudicated. Obviously you've made up your mind as to the facts of the case, never mind the actual facts.
PLUS anticompetitive behaviors such as blocking amazon from target. Guilty guilty guilty.
Except that Apple had nothing to do with it. The decision to yank the Kindle was Target's, and they said so explicitly in a statement. Target was pissed at Amazon for encouraging shoppers to compare prices in physical stores, and said in their statement that they refuse to become showrooms for Amazon.
But nice to hear you venting your hatred by snapping at any anti-Apple sentiment, however untrue. And "Mcirosucks"? Really? It's way beyond stale to refer to Microsoft as "Microsucks", not to mention childish, but you couldn't even spell it right. Pathetic.
It's the Marie-san Celeste
I think you mean the "Maru Celeste".
People buy your products because they are original, innovative and useful. Litigation for profit is not original. Litigation for profit is not innovative. Litigation for profit is not useful.
You and so many others here just don't get it. Apple isn't interested in making money off Android. They want to kill it. The revenues from potential patent licenses, while nice, would be a rounding error on their P and L. Microsoft's motive may be partly for the profit (it's likely that their revenue from licensing patents to Android manufacturers exceeds their revenues from Windows Phone), but Apple is most assuredly not interested. Apple's motive is to chill Android's ascent, or preferably, kill the platform outright. There is apparently genuine anger inside Apple that is directed at Google because of Android; Apple feels that Google blatantly capitalized on Apple's hard work in birthing the iPhone and they're prepared to go to the mattresses to right the perceived wrong.
By making Android handsets more expensive to produce, Apple and Microsoft are adding friction to the adoption of Android, and both companies have large war chests they can use to open more fronts in their war against Google, the true enemy of both. Companies contemplating using Android will think twice before facing the two titans.
And a few days ago Googlighting shows up to spread fear and uncertainty about Google Docs.
The only fear and uncertainty I experienced on watching that embarrassingly cheesy video was the fear that Microsoft would make another one like it, and the uncertainty that they'd ever hire a decent agency to do the job instead of the audio/video nerds from the local community college. Surely that wasn't the work of professionals, was it?
Considering that most of the judge from the 21st century are, at most, 12, and not even lawyers, let alone judges, yet kinda makes this tough.
I salute you sir; nicely done. Although the disturbing thought did occur to me that perhaps the GP was in fact calling for the reinstatement of nineteenth century judges to adjudicate these newfangled matters.
As this excellent piece by Thomas Friedman points out, manufacturing is rapidly becoming a global commodity. The real value resides with the creators of a product, the designers, engineers, marketers, etc. Factories are just big machines into which you plug your designs, and they can be swapped in and out of your logistics chains if necessary.
The "big machine" analogy is even more apt as manufacturing eventually shifts more and more to automation. How many workers does a robotic factory need? If you've ever seen videos of the Lego factory in Denmark, the answer could be as few as none, and it operates 24/7, 364 days a year (down one day for maintenance). Jobs was right to tell Obama that manufacturing jobs aren't coming back to the U.S.
Apple is merely acknowledging the fact that the "Designed in" sticker is coming to mean a hell of a lot more than the "Made in" sticker.
It's a pleasant surprise that Intel is offering this option at all, and you're calling them assholes because they're not offering it for all CPU's? I bet you're also pissed that this optional protection plan isn't free either. You arrogant, entitled jackass.
Apple recently patented "methods of extracting monetary compensation by engaging in litigation over patent rights."
That's closer to the truth than you think, except that I personally don't believe that they have the slightest interrest in monetary compensation. The feeling I get is that Apple started the patent litigation ball rolling for the express purpose of doing as much damage to Android as possible, not for the potential of licensing fees or financial relief.
By raising the specter of lawsuits among hardware manufacturers, with the attendant legal costs, as well as the massive wastes of time and resources, Apple may well be gambling that a lot of manufacturers, especially smaller ones with limited resources, wouldn't be willing to take on the huge headaches of tackling a well-funded, utterly ruthless titan like Apple. Apple seems to me to be far more interested in chilling, or better yet killing, the adoption of Android than collecting money, a la Microsoft.
I agree with you completely, and it could get much, much worse for the people who have to defend against these weapons if they are deployed from the launch tubes of attack submarines. Then defenders will be faced with a hypersonic weapon that suddenly pops up thousands of miles closer to an intended target than expected than if they were land based. The warning window will be much smaller, and the direction of attack may be completely unexpected.
Interestingly, the political value of this weapon system may far outweigh its military utility. Just knowing that the US has these weapons, especially sub-launched versions, will force potential adversaries to rethink their entire defensive strategy, possibly futilely. They'd have to extend their radar coverage and air defenses to all possible avenues of approach to lucrative targets, or relocate those high-value assets, or both, along with the necessary extensions of command and control infrastructure, and swallow the concomitant expense associated with any of those decisions. The very existence of such a system could force an adversary to the realization that a viable defense against it is neither militarily nor economically feasible.
When Page took over as CEO from Eric Schmidt, he asked Steve Jobs for advice. After initial reservations, given the competitive animosity between Apple and Google, Jobs told him in so many words that Google's product strategy was all over the place, and they needed to stop releasing half-baked products and to concentrate on just five. He said that Google needed to focus on just a few things, and to polish them into world-beaters before releasing them.
And Jobs was absolutely correct. Google's "throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks" strategy is causing serious damage to their brand, and by killing off products which don't gain traction immediately they're sending the message that they weren't too committed to their success in the first place.
Jobs was many things, a significant number of which were downright despicable, but the one quality of his I really admired was his ability to say no to the multitudes of ideas percolating up to him, and to focus on just a few that he felt could be brought to fruition in a reasonable time frame. Google's attitude appears to be the diametrical opposite: the impression I get, and it's just an impression, is that Google treats all good ideas with equal priority, which ensures that the ones that actually have a chance of succeeding don't get the attention they need. They need to get out of the "engineer's playground" mentality and focus on a rational and sustainable product philosophy.
And right now, with Apple fighting the other tablet makers that are also its suppliers Apple is feeding the hand it is scratching at the same time.
The only possible explanation for that statement is that it was posted by Iris.
Dammit! Where are my mod points?
Incidentally, all of the items you list -- those aren't patent violations, at best they're trademark issues.
Agreed. Those are trademark, not patent issues, but the core of Apple's complaint against Samsung cites the latter's "slavish copying" of Apple's designs, and those two examples do nothing to deflect the criticism. It may have been nothing more than oversights by the graphics department, but Apple's counsels could argue that they demonstrate a pattern on Samsung's part. The stakes for Samsung are extremely high, and one would have thought they would have been much more circumspect. They appear to be doing the best they can to undermine their own defense.
Are they in effect admitting that their previous Android phones were ignoring Apple's patents? Samsung has not been doing themselves any favors recently, what with the "app wall" in their store display in Rome featuring icons from iOS, and the webpage for the Galaxy Player 50 (since removed) that showed a 2008 screenshot of the iPhone's Maps app.
Thanks for the correction. I know he had demanded they be removed, but I don't know why I was under the impression that they had been given tot the Computer History Museum.
Apple is breathtakingly ruthless about killing off what it sees as legacy technologies, and I've always had the impression that they have no desire to be shackled to the backward compatibility train as Microsoft has been. Jobs was well known for being totally unsentimental, almost contemptuous, of the past, and when he became CEO of Apple in 1997, not only did he kill off a number of product lines and projects, he also donated Apple's large collection of historic products to the Computer History Museum.
As Apple demonstrated with the then-new version of iMovie, when they decide to go in a new direction they simply make the leap, and devil take the hindmost. They infuriated untold numbers of iMovie fans when all of a sudden all their projects wouldn't work with the new version, but Apple's rationale was that the new iMovie provided the basis for an improved way of doing things, and they refused to hobble it by making it backward compatible. They gambled that it would lure enough users to their point of view that the discontent would blow over, which it eventually did.
They took a similar gamble with Final Cut X. They were fully aware that it would probably alienate the entire professional editing community, not only because their projects wouldn't work with it, but because so many features they depend on were absent at launch, and worst of all, their years-long investment in polishing their workflow and expertise was suddenly out the window, and they'd have to start again from scratch. I'm still amazed that angry mobs of video editors didn't storm 1 Infinite Loop with torches and pitchforks.
That being said, some professional reviewers were of the opinion that despite the fact that they couldn't and wouldn't recommend it for production because it was clearly unfinished, Final Cut X really was a huge leap forward and some of the features already present would lead to greater productivity. One reviewer (forgive me; I can't recall the link) predicted that while it would certainly alienate current professionals, it would eventually attract and give rise to a new generation of professional video editors, especially those familiar with iMovie, and that it would only be a matter of time before Final Cut X was once again the industry standard.
To revisit the premise of this story, Apple made a conscious decision to potentially push away the current generation of professionals, because they're gambling that they can spur the rise of a new, larger generation. It's a bold, incredibly arrogant move on their part, but frankly I think they're going to pull it off.