What do you mean? Apple *invented* the 3.5mm minijack.
I can't believe people are still trotting out this tired old line. Apple licensed Xerox's 1/4 inch jack technology, made a few tweaks and shipped it in a smaller footprint.
said code actually came to Microsoft from Intel, after Intel acquired it from another company that had previously worked on porting Quicktime to Windows for Apple.
So what? It doesn't matter who the fence was - Microsoft knowingly infringed upon trade secrets.
Or do you actually believe Microsoft thought it had the right to use that code?
It's about your example of Sun as the "server market". This is like saying there's no money to be made in Operating Systems and using Apple as your example of an Operating System's vendor.
Growing like iPod sales? Like I said, Apple can make more money elsewhere. I don't know why you're so incensed by that simple fact.
I'm not incensed at all. I even said at the start of this thread: fact. "I take your point that Apple's not trying to pursue the server market" - I was simply taking issue with your example of Sun as the "server market".
Do you actually believe that your snotty attitude supports your position in any way?
See, you misunderstand me. I have no position. I was simply taking issue with you using Sun as the example of "server market". It would be a little like someone saying "Company X has no interest in the Operating System Market, they can make more money than Apple makes selling Operating Systems selling something else".
That woud be the portion of their business which has been declining in profitability since the mid-1980's, which is why they're shifting to services. Thanks for playing, but you're still wrong.
Utterly incorrect. IBM's server revenues and profits are growing. Have been for the last five years. Services are growing faster. Learn the difference.
*ruffles jcrs hair* Run along now sonny, thanks for your questions.
Your example of IBM doesn't support your position, because IBM is in the process of shifting their business from the server market to the body-shop market. Try again.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Incorrect.
I asked you to look at IBM's server revenue, not their entire revenue. Their body-shop (and other) revenue is irrelevant in this context.
My English is quite sufficient
Apparantly not. Off you go to a remedial English class sonny.
The motivation is that they can make more money elsewhere.
Uh huh! More money then Sun, the losers in the server market! Wow!
The implication of your post was that Apple was uninterested in the server market as there was more money to be made elsewhere. However, your example of the server market was Sun, who comprise a 10th of the server market.
If that seems absurd to you, then you need some remedial business courses.
I believe you need some remedial english comprehension courses sonny.
and they can do a lot better selling iPods, iPhones, and iMacs than they can if they were to completely take over Sun's entire market.
I again notice that for your server market example, you used Sun, the current loser (by a long shot) in the server market. Sun's market share is hovering ~10% compared to ~30% for HP & IBM.
I take your point that Apple's not trying to pursue the server market, but your assumption about Apple's motivations for doing so is absurd. Take a look at IBM's server revenue and compare it to Apple's entire revenue.
Steve Jobs spent a lot of time and money trying to get the fortune 500 to use NeXT computers, and I think he just doesn't care much about that market anymore.
I find it hard to believe that a man as intelligent as Jobs would "not care" about the most lucrative market segment.
More likely he realises that space is already too crowded (although considering the iPhone, possibly not).
Yes, I hate when that happens. I spent thousands of dollars on DVDs, and now I want to play them at HD resolution on my BlueRay player, and I can't, I have to go buy all new DVD's because those evil DVD companies won't let me.
Did you read his complaint?
He's complaining (to use your analogy) that his DVD's won't play on his HDTV at all, he's not asking for any better resolution than before.
Uh, because before the transition to Intel Macs, OS X didn't have encrypted binaries. Ignoring the 20+ year history of non-DRM is
Unbelievably fucking stupid. Apple had no reason to use DRM for 20 years. They weren't 1) Selling Music & 2) Selling software that could run on standard PC hardware.
They don't stop legitimate users from doing anything they'd like
Bullshit. Plenty of developers out there would love to legally run os x under vmware (with a properly purchase license).
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean? Apple *invented* the 3.5mm minijack.
I can't believe people are still trotting out this tired old line. Apple licensed Xerox's 1/4 inch jack technology, made a few tweaks and shipped it in a smaller footprint.
As much as I don't want ten replies with links to anatomical Lego designs
Well, let me be the first to link to the brick testament. (NSFW). Bible. Porn. Legos. What else do you need?
For those who want to see some even less SFW lego porn (I mean who wouldn't?), check out drew.corrupt.net.
They did. Apple's lawsuit targeted the third party
Rustle up a link.
If MS are as blameless as you say, Apple shouldn't have been able to get the concessions they did.
No. I am, however, prepared to consider the possibility they didn't know they had been sold a product that had some illegally obtained code in it.
Are you that stupid? That naive? That lacking in knowledge of the ways of the world?
If MS 'bought' code from intel that intel had no rights to sell, Apple would have gone after intel, not MS.
I find the thought of Shills unlikely, so have to conclude that you're unbelievably stupid.
If we ever were really in a war,
WTF? That (MS) blogger is on crack.
Not only was it a war, it's a dirty war that's not over yet.
We've had accusations of corruption for State official's daring to consider ODF, Microsoft paying people for favorable wikipedia edits, Alleged attempts by IBM to influence OOXML standardisation process, etc etc etc.
It's not over yet folks. There's billions of dollars at stake. Of course its a war, of course its a dirty war.
said code actually came to Microsoft from Intel, after Intel acquired it from another company that had previously worked on porting Quicktime to Windows for Apple.
So what? It doesn't matter who the fence was - Microsoft knowingly infringed upon trade secrets.
Or do you actually believe Microsoft thought it had the right to use that code?
what is truly needed is a fully supported Evolution on Windows.
How about an (ABI compatable) Exchange-equivilant for linux?
A Mac commercial doesn't hurt Windows users.
Uh oh, the GP obviously needed to use the sarcasm tag for those to thick in the audience to pick up on it.
Hooray for Government mandated mediocrity.
The government is mandating Microsoft Products?
Don' try to change the issue AGAIN, RIAA lover. Everybody in bed with the RIAA will attack Apple on this issue.
Don't forget the inverse is ALSO TRUE!
Anyone against Apple is OBVIOUSLY A RIAA SHILL!
Your logic is impeccable.
I AGREE with you COMPLETELY!!!!!1!#!!!
Don' try to change the issue, RIAA lover.
You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
Anyone not with Apple is OBVIOUSLY with RIAA. QED.
That you are with the RIAA was clear.
Was it? Who am I with now?
But you proved my post. If I'm not with Apple, I'm with RIAA? Right?
How can anything the music industry wants be good for the consumer?
You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
There is NO MIDDLE GROUND.
You are either on the side of the music industry or Apple.
With us or against us.
You completely missed the point of my post.
It's not about IBM vs Apple, HP vs Apple, etc.
It's about your example of Sun as the "server market". This is like saying there's no money to be made in Operating Systems and using Apple as your example of an Operating System's vendor.
Growing like iPod sales? Like I said, Apple can make more money elsewhere. I don't know why you're so incensed by that simple fact.
I'm not incensed at all. I even said at the start of this thread: fact. "I take your point that Apple's not trying to pursue the server market" - I was simply taking issue with your example of Sun as the "server market".
Do you actually believe that your snotty attitude supports your position in any way?
See, you misunderstand me. I have no position. I was simply taking issue with you using Sun as the example of "server market". It would be a little like someone saying "Company X has no interest in the Operating System Market, they can make more money than Apple makes selling Operating Systems selling something else".
Understand? Run along now.
That woud be the portion of their business which has been declining in profitability since the mid-1980's, which is why they're shifting to services. Thanks for playing, but you're still wrong.
Utterly incorrect. IBM's server revenues and profits are growing. Have been for the last five years. Services are growing faster. Learn the difference.
*ruffles jcrs hair* Run along now sonny, thanks for your questions.
Proof that cowboyneal doesn't read slashdot! (apart from the polls)
Your example of IBM doesn't support your position, because IBM is in the process of shifting their business from the server market to the body-shop market. Try again.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Incorrect.
I asked you to look at IBM's server revenue, not their entire revenue. Their body-shop (and other) revenue is irrelevant in this context.
My English is quite sufficient
Apparantly not. Off you go to a remedial English class sonny.
*ruffles jcr's hair*
The motivation is that they can make more money elsewhere.
Uh huh! More money then Sun, the losers in the server market! Wow!
The implication of your post was that Apple was uninterested in the server market as there was more money to be made elsewhere. However, your example of the server market was Sun, who comprise a 10th of the server market.
If that seems absurd to you, then you need some remedial business courses.
I believe you need some remedial english comprehension courses sonny.
and they can do a lot better selling iPods, iPhones, and iMacs than they can if they were to completely take over Sun's entire market.
I again notice that for your server market example, you used Sun, the current loser (by a long shot) in the server market. Sun's market share is hovering ~10% compared to ~30% for HP & IBM.
I take your point that Apple's not trying to pursue the server market, but your assumption about Apple's motivations for doing so is absurd. Take a look at IBM's server revenue and compare it to Apple's entire revenue.
It's not the most lucrative market segment. Look at Sun's profitability. Look at Apple's.
Sun's profitability? How about comparing IBM & Apple? or HP & Apple? Do you really think Sun is the leader in servicing fortune500 companies?
QED.
Uh huh. Yup, you certainly proved that! Well done.
Steve Jobs spent a lot of time and money trying to get the fortune 500 to use NeXT computers, and I think he just doesn't care much about that market anymore.
I find it hard to believe that a man as intelligent as Jobs would "not care" about the most lucrative market segment.
More likely he realises that space is already too crowded (although considering the iPhone, possibly not).
Yes, I hate when that happens. I spent thousands of dollars on DVDs, and now I want to play them at HD resolution on my BlueRay player, and I can't, I have to go buy all new DVD's because those evil DVD companies won't let me.
Did you read his complaint?
He's complaining (to use your analogy) that his DVD's won't play on his HDTV at all, he's not asking for any better resolution than before.
Your analogy in other words was fucking stupid.
Uh, because before the transition to Intel Macs, OS X didn't have encrypted binaries. Ignoring the 20+ year history of non-DRM is
Unbelievably fucking stupid. Apple had no reason to use DRM for 20 years. They weren't 1) Selling Music & 2) Selling software that could run on standard PC hardware.
They don't stop legitimate users from doing anything they'd like
Bullshit. Plenty of developers out there would love to legally run os x under vmware (with a properly purchase license).
Understanding how Microsoft Zune's DRM works helps to answer a lot of questions:
Exactly right!
Microsoft is the ethical bar that Apple should adhere to.
(Surely you're not serious?)