The Commodore PET was released in 1977, just like the Apple II. The Commodore 64 broke new ground, not in functionality, but in price, which is why it became the best selling personal computer of all times. The development of the Commodore Amiga was started in 1982 and at its release in 1985 many years ahead of Macintosh.
The technologies that Commodore and Apple had in common were technologies that both companies ripped off from others.
Commodore (and Atari) were far more innovative companies than Apple. Unfortunately, innovation doesn't pay in this market, which is why Microsoft and Apple survived.
Yeah, but it's a platform-specific Java knock-off, and that's what Microsoft customers wanted and needed. So, Microsoft's initial decision was correct, but they couldn't leave "good enough" alone and they managed to bloat and break faster than any other product.
Vista is a [...] OSX knock-off
Just like OSX is a UNIX knock-off; Apple is as unoriginal as Microsoft, they simply package it better.
MS senior execs are lying through their teeth when they talk about innovation.
So do Apple execs (for a recent example, just look at Jobs's lies about iPhone patents and innovation). It's what execs in the business do.
Well, it's pretty clear that the company is full of smart people. The trouble simply seems to be that they simply can't work together in order to produce a decent product.
this discussion was not exactly the smoking gun you guys would like it to be.
And, in fact, they were completely right, since Sun had failed at turning Java into a widely-used cross-platform environment in the way they originally promised long before Microsoft released.NET (Java has survived as a cross-platform server-side environment, but that's not the same).
Allchin's analysis of Windows seems correct. And Sridharan's analysis of Java seems correct, too: in 1997, Java was positioned to be a cross-platform desktop environment with web-delivered applications, and it has utterly failed at becoming a significant force in that area. Java, instead, has moved into the niche of corporate server side applications.
Apple's handling of USB mass storage devices sucks: you can't even unplug an inactive iPod from a Macintosh without it telling you that you have done something bad.
Vista caching or whatever may exacerbate the problem by making it really not safe to remove the device, but ultimately, Apple needs to make both their iPods and OS X more robust against device removal. Popping up dialog boxes is simply not acceptable.
Yeah, but think of the billions of dollars the administration can funnel to its buddies in industry before the project gets killed. And since the project isn't going to work anyway, the companies getting the money aren't going to be held accountable for what they did with the money and they can spend it on whatever they like. It's brilliant.
Consultants on the project include individuals from Caterpillar, Norcat, Boeing, and other manufacturing concerns.
In different words, the US government is taking away most of the money flowing to scientifically valuable projects and instead handing it out to big corporations with no experience. This is kind of like the administration's picks for "experts" and service companies in Iraq.
Wars and space exploration, together with outsourcing and privatization, are a great pretext for corporate welfare and pork.
I'd prefer to see the space program killed altogether and NASA disbanded instead of having taxpayer money wasted on moon colonies and manned trips to Mars.
They're a corporation. Cynical, calculating, and arrogant is baked into their genes, lock, stock, and SEC regulations.
OK, so Apple doesn't "think different", they "think just like Microsoft" if not worse.
On the other hand, Cisco didn't even bother putting an iPhone label on their product WHILE they were in negotiations with Apple. What do you call that?
I'd call it reasonable and in good faith. After all, they had the trademark registered, they were talking about selling the trademark to Apple, why would they start shipping a product under that name?
Isn't the point to the article is that Cisco was apparently not using the name before the Apple announcement.
My point is that even if that were true, it doesn't matter, since Apple still isn't using the trademark; all Apple has is an "announcement" and a non-existent product. Why should a company that is not shipping a product and that has never owned the trademark get priority over a company that is shipping a product and has, in fact, owned the trademark (even if they were to have lost it temporarily in between)?
You seem to assume that Apple owns this trademark by default, but I see no reason why.
Since this falsified extension prevented any other company from reasonably being able to know the trademark was in fact available to use, it only stands to reason Cisco will lose its claim to the trademark during pending litigation.
Cisco owned the trademark, they registered it, they have been using it in the past, and they are using it now. The only claim Apple has on the trademark is some similarity to other names they are using and a premature product announcement. Even if Cisco did in fact lose the trademark, what reason on earth would there be for Apple to get it? Apple has absolutely nothing on the trademark other than a lot of arrogance.
For Blackboard to even have applied for these patents is evil and possibly fraudulent. Their pledge provides no security to anyone, and more looks like an attempt to give them some legal and PR breathing room. I hope they'll get sued into oblivion.
You can do good science; research labs are always looking for good software developers, and if you join one in that capacity, you can start contributing to research, co-author papers, and move up.
But don't expect a regular scientific career--competition is extremely tough, accomplishments are cumulative and carefully cataloged, and scientific careers span 50 years and never stabilize. You can become a doctor at 40 and catch up with your peers, but you can't do it in the sciences.
The only thing I can think of is its some kind of publicity strategy to get the Cisco phones some press.
It was entirely Apple's choice to release their product under the name "iPhone", even though they knew that Cisco was claiming the trademark and had been in talks with Cisco about licensing. How can that be "a strategy to get the Cisco phones some press"?
Quite to the contrary. Apple knew that Cisco claimed the trademark, and they were in negotiations when they announced the iPhone. Not only is the lawsuit not a problem for them, it's giving them free publicity and they were counting on it.
If they win and the courts decide that placing an i in front of phone is not trademarkable, then they run the risk of losing the ability to protect their own iPhone mark and trying to control the use of i-word marks in the electronics industry
They don't have that right to begin with, since tehre are already plenty of other i-something products, even for the Macintosh. But perhaps they are trying to establish it through their behavior.
On the whole, I find Apple's behavior in regards to iPhone to be cynical, calculating, and arrogant.
Yes, and Apple isn't using the trademark at all yet, since no iPhones are actually shipping.
So, even if Cisco just starts using the trademark now, they are still months ahead of Apple.
Of course, Apple knew that the iPhone trademark was claimed by Cisco since they were negotiating with them long before they released their iPhone. Looks to me like Apple is just trying to strong-arm the trademark away from Cisco by whatever means they can.
So, Cisco is shipping a product under the iPhone name now. They've also had the trademark for a decade and have shipped products under than name previously. Apple knew that and they were negotiating with Cisco.
What product exactly is Apple shipping under the iPhone name?
I have given Windows a chance for more than 10 years, but every time a new version comes out and Microsoft promises that this time, it's really gonna work, there are still many serious problems that just keep me from getting work done. So, I stick with UNIX and Linux for work and use Windows for the occasional game.
"Daniel Giersch, a German-born 32-year old entrepreneur, has just announced that his company received a positive ruling last week from the Harmonization Office supporting his claim that "Gmail" and his own "G-mail" are confusingly similar.
So when his rather stupid venture tanks (several people have tried his kind of service before), he can at least get some money for the domain name.
In the early days, Apple used to put special identifiers in their own SCSI disk drives that they'd query, and their disk formatting software would only work with their own drives. I think people pretty quickly found ways to work around it, but it's the thought that counts in this context.
A lot of people have cited Microsoft wrongdoing as part of their motivation to purchase a Macintosh. As this is basically an ignorant, knee-jerk reaction given Apple's own history,
The difference between Microsoft and Apple is that Apple doesn't even come close to having a monopoly. If Apple gets, say, a 25% marketshare, that's good for all of us, no matter how evil Apple may be. And no matter what Apple does or doesn't do for open source, the fact that they use many UNIX APIs means that when Apple sells a Mac, that helps Linux more than when Microsoft sells a Vista machine.
Does it seem like every day, Apple is seeming less like the good guy
Apple makes nice products, but the notion that they are "the good guy" is a fiction created by their marketing.
For example, in the 80's, they legally threatened many people over GUIs and they deliberately broke standards like SCSI. They have done more for establishing DRM than Microsoft. They keep ripping off ideas from other companies and open source, and they don't give a damn about stepping on other people's trademarks or open source project names.
Overall, Apple's record is decidedly mixed.
My question is: what changed?
Only your perception, really.
If anything, Apple has actually become significantly nicer over the last couple of decades, and their products have improved as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Commodore ripped off Apple
The Commodore PET was released in 1977, just like the Apple II. The Commodore 64 broke new ground, not in functionality, but in price, which is why it became the best selling personal computer of all times. The development of the Commodore Amiga was started in 1982 and at its release in 1985 many years ahead of Macintosh.
The technologies that Commodore and Apple had in common were technologies that both companies ripped off from others.
Commodore (and Atari) were far more innovative companies than Apple. Unfortunately, innovation doesn't pay in this market, which is why Microsoft and Apple survived.
NET is a java knock-off
Yeah, but it's a platform-specific Java knock-off, and that's what Microsoft customers wanted and needed. So, Microsoft's initial decision was correct, but they couldn't leave "good enough" alone and they managed to bloat and break faster than any other product.
Vista is a [...] OSX knock-off
Just like OSX is a UNIX knock-off; Apple is as unoriginal as Microsoft, they simply package it better.
MS senior execs are lying through their teeth when they talk about innovation.
So do Apple execs (for a recent example, just look at Jobs's lies about iPhone patents and innovation). It's what execs in the business do.
Well, it's pretty clear that the company is full of smart people. The trouble simply seems to be that they simply can't work together in order to produce a decent product.
this discussion was not exactly the smoking gun you guys would like it to be.
.NET (Java has survived as a cross-platform server-side environment, but that's not the same).
And, in fact, they were completely right, since Sun had failed at turning Java into a widely-used cross-platform environment in the way they originally promised long before Microsoft released
Allchin's analysis of Windows seems correct. And Sridharan's analysis of Java seems correct, too: in 1997, Java was positioned to be a cross-platform desktop environment with web-delivered applications, and it has utterly failed at becoming a significant force in that area. Java, instead, has moved into the niche of corporate server side applications.
Apple's handling of USB mass storage devices sucks: you can't even unplug an inactive iPod from a Macintosh without it telling you that you have done something bad.
Vista caching or whatever may exacerbate the problem by making it really not safe to remove the device, but ultimately, Apple needs to make both their iPods and OS X more robust against device removal. Popping up dialog boxes is simply not acceptable.
Don't worry, they'll come in later and build the schools and hospitals for the native moon people.
Yeah, but think of the billions of dollars the administration can funnel to its buddies in industry before the project gets killed. And since the project isn't going to work anyway, the companies getting the money aren't going to be held accountable for what they did with the money and they can spend it on whatever they like. It's brilliant.
Consultants on the project include individuals from Caterpillar, Norcat, Boeing, and other manufacturing concerns.
In different words, the US government is taking away most of the money flowing to scientifically valuable projects and instead handing it out to big corporations with no experience. This is kind of like the administration's picks for "experts" and service companies in Iraq.
Wars and space exploration, together with outsourcing and privatization, are a great pretext for corporate welfare and pork.
I'd prefer to see the space program killed altogether and NASA disbanded instead of having taxpayer money wasted on moon colonies and manned trips to Mars.
They're a corporation. Cynical, calculating, and arrogant is baked into their genes, lock, stock, and SEC regulations.
OK, so Apple doesn't "think different", they "think just like Microsoft" if not worse.
On the other hand, Cisco didn't even bother putting an iPhone label on their product WHILE they were in negotiations with Apple. What do you call that?
I'd call it reasonable and in good faith. After all, they had the trademark registered, they were talking about selling the trademark to Apple, why would they start shipping a product under that name?
Isn't the point to the article is that Cisco was apparently not using the name before the Apple announcement.
My point is that even if that were true, it doesn't matter, since Apple still isn't using the trademark; all Apple has is an "announcement" and a non-existent product. Why should a company that is not shipping a product and that has never owned the trademark get priority over a company that is shipping a product and has, in fact, owned the trademark (even if they were to have lost it temporarily in between)?
You seem to assume that Apple owns this trademark by default, but I see no reason why.
Since this falsified extension prevented any other company from reasonably being able to know the trademark was in fact available to use, it only stands to reason Cisco will lose its claim to the trademark during pending litigation.
Cisco owned the trademark, they registered it, they have been using it in the past, and they are using it now. The only claim Apple has on the trademark is some similarity to other names they are using and a premature product announcement. Even if Cisco did in fact lose the trademark, what reason on earth would there be for Apple to get it? Apple has absolutely nothing on the trademark other than a lot of arrogance.
For Blackboard to even have applied for these patents is evil and possibly fraudulent. Their pledge provides no security to anyone, and more looks like an attempt to give them some legal and PR breathing room. I hope they'll get sued into oblivion.
You can do good science; research labs are always looking for good software developers, and if you join one in that capacity, you can start contributing to research, co-author papers, and move up.
But don't expect a regular scientific career--competition is extremely tough, accomplishments are cumulative and carefully cataloged, and scientific careers span 50 years and never stabilize. You can become a doctor at 40 and catch up with your peers, but you can't do it in the sciences.
The only thing I can think of is its some kind of publicity strategy to get the Cisco phones some press.
It was entirely Apple's choice to release their product under the name "iPhone", even though they knew that Cisco was claiming the trademark and had been in talks with Cisco about licensing. How can that be "a strategy to get the Cisco phones some press"?
no win situation
Quite to the contrary. Apple knew that Cisco claimed the trademark, and they were in negotiations when they announced the iPhone. Not only is the lawsuit not a problem for them, it's giving them free publicity and they were counting on it.
If they win and the courts decide that placing an i in front of phone is not trademarkable, then they run the risk of losing the ability to protect their own iPhone mark and trying to control the use of i-word marks in the electronics industry
They don't have that right to begin with, since tehre are already plenty of other i-something products, even for the Macintosh. But perhaps they are trying to establish it through their behavior.
On the whole, I find Apple's behavior in regards to iPhone to be cynical, calculating, and arrogant.
Apple is currently advertising the iPhone, so they are using the trademark. http://www.apple.com/iphone/
So has Cisco, and apparently before the Apple announcement.
In any case, a trademark is "in use" only once a product has actually been sold under that name.
Yes, and Apple isn't using the trademark at all yet, since no iPhones are actually shipping.
So, even if Cisco just starts using the trademark now, they are still months ahead of Apple.
Of course, Apple knew that the iPhone trademark was claimed by Cisco since they were negotiating with them long before they released their iPhone. Looks to me like Apple is just trying to strong-arm the trademark away from Cisco by whatever means they can.
So, Cisco is shipping a product under the iPhone name now. They've also had the trademark for a decade and have shipped products under than name previously. Apple knew that and they were negotiating with Cisco.
What product exactly is Apple shipping under the iPhone name?
This is like one of the most obvious exploits imaginable! How could they possibly have missed that?
I have given Windows a chance for more than 10 years, but every time a new version comes out and Microsoft promises that this time, it's really gonna work, there are still many serious problems that just keep me from getting work done. So, I stick with UNIX and Linux for work and use Windows for the occasional game.
"Daniel Giersch, a German-born 32-year old entrepreneur, has just announced that his company received a positive ruling last week from the Harmonization Office supporting his claim that "Gmail" and his own "G-mail" are confusingly similar.
So when his rather stupid venture tanks (several people have tried his kind of service before), he can at least get some money for the domain name.
In the early days, Apple used to put special identifiers in their own SCSI disk drives that they'd query, and their disk formatting software would only work with their own drives. I think people pretty quickly found ways to work around it, but it's the thought that counts in this context.
A lot of people have cited Microsoft wrongdoing as part of their motivation to purchase a Macintosh. As this is basically an ignorant, knee-jerk reaction given Apple's own history,
The difference between Microsoft and Apple is that Apple doesn't even come close to having a monopoly. If Apple gets, say, a 25% marketshare, that's good for all of us, no matter how evil Apple may be. And no matter what Apple does or doesn't do for open source, the fact that they use many UNIX APIs means that when Apple sells a Mac, that helps Linux more than when Microsoft sells a Vista machine.
Does it seem like every day, Apple is seeming less like the good guy
Apple makes nice products, but the notion that they are "the good guy" is a fiction created by their marketing.
For example, in the 80's, they legally threatened many people over GUIs and they deliberately broke standards like SCSI. They have done more for establishing DRM than Microsoft. They keep ripping off ideas from other companies and open source, and they don't give a damn about stepping on other people's trademarks or open source project names.
Overall, Apple's record is decidedly mixed.
My question is: what changed?
Only your perception, really.
If anything, Apple has actually become significantly nicer over the last couple of decades, and their products have improved as well.