CNN to air "Apple is back" special tonight

20 views
Skip to first unread message

Scott

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to

CNN and Fortune Magazine will air a special "NewStand"
edition tonight on Apple Computer, Inc.'s recent turnaround.
This special, which will air at 10 p.m. EDT, will chronicle
the steps Apple has taken during the past year to transform
from a money-losing company into a dominant force in the
computer industry. A central theme of the show will be
Apple's current appeal to investors. Apple's stock has
nearly tripled since the beginning of the year.

With the launch of the widely acclaimed and
revolutionary iMac all-in-one computer less than three
weeks away, momentum for Apple Computer continues to
build. Find out more about Apple's plans for the future
in this CNN special report.

- Scott

Peter L

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to
I laughed out loud. "A dominant force in the computer industry!?"

John Reder

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to

Isn't that the same program that aired the Viet Nam nerve gas story?

Scott

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to

> Isn't that the same program that aired the Viet Nam nerve gas story?

CNN NewsStand is actually three separate programs, with
different casts, producers, and content partners.

"NewsStand: CNN/Time" aired the Vietnam nerve gas story. This
program airs on Sundays and Mondays, and covers current events
and issues. For those who aren't familiar with the Vietnam
nerve gas story, this was a report broadcast by CNN that claimed
the military had used nerve gas on its own soldiers. This report
was later retracted by CNN and Time Magazine after the network was
unable to substantiate claims made by sources in the story. This
resulted in the firing of several producers and disciplinary
action taken against reporter Peter Arnett. The situation was
a great embarrassment to CNN.

"NewsStand: CNN/Fortune" focuses on the world of business and
money management. This program airs Wednesdays, and will
include a special on Apple Computer tonight at 10 p.m. EDT.

Finally, "NewsStand: CNN/Entertainment Weekly" covers the
world of entertainment and popular culture. It airs on Thursdays.

- Scott

Bobo

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to
Without Apple, who would Microsoft copy?

Peter L wrote:

> I laughed out loud. "A dominant force in the computer industry!?"

Vladimir Kuznetsov

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to

Scott, you must be out of your mind. Who is it that they dominate
with their measly 2% of the market share?

vlad

PS. Are you sure you are not working for Apple?

In article <scott-29079...@cc1001538-a.hwrd1.md.home.com>,


Scott <sc...@SPAMdcski.com> wrote:
>
>the steps Apple has taken during the past year to transform
>from a money-losing company into a dominant force in the

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ha! Ha! Ha!

Scott

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to

Apple has 9.4% market share, according to figures just
released by PC Data. They are the fifth largest computer
manufacturer in the world. They bring in over $6 billion in
revenue per year. Their products have inspired the rest of
the computer industry for over 20 years - and continue to do
so. Apple's stock value has nearly tripled so far this year.
The iMac has generated more excitement than any other
computer launch in history. In some critical markets - such
as education - Apple is not only *a* dominant force but
they are *the* dominant force.

I'm not sure what your definition is of "a dominant force,"
but you don't seem to be up to date with the computer market
if you think Apple has 2% market share. I'd be laughing right
behind you if CNN made that statement a year and a half
ago, but the landscape has changed considerably since then --
suddenly Apple decided to get competitive, and it's starting
to pay off. Watch Apple's product rollouts for the remainder
of the year (not just the iMac) and see what kind of consumer
response they get.

- Scott

P.S. Are you sure you are not working for Compaq?

In article <6po310$8s$1...@shell13.ba.best.com>, vl...@best.com (Vladimir

Arman Afagh

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to
In article <35BF58...@csus.edu>, Peter L <Nospam...@csus.edu> wrote:

>I laughed out loud. "A dominant force in the computer industry!?"

Do say, pray tell, what aspect of the computer industry Apple has *not*
had a significant impact on...

ARman.

--
Arman Afagh NYU School of Medicine - Class of 1999
arman...@med.nyu.edu http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~afagha01

Friends don't let friends buy Windows.

Peter L

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to
Arman Afagh wrote:
>
> In article <35BF58...@csus.edu>, Peter L <Nospam...@csus.edu> wrote:
>
> >I laughed out loud. "A dominant force in the computer industry!?"
>
> Do say, pray tell, what aspect of the computer industry Apple has *not*
> had a significant impact on...
>
> ARman.
>

That's very different from saying Apple is a "dominant force" in the
industry. Was a dominant force, sure. Is a dominant force, I laugh.

JRStern

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 20:06:48 GMT, Bobo <robert...@pss.boeing.com>
wrote:

>Without Apple, who would Microsoft copy?

Everybody else.

J.


JRStern

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:16:24 -0400, John Reder
<000joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> CNN and Fortune Magazine will air a special "NewStand"
>> edition tonight on Apple Computer, Inc.'s recent turnaround.
>
> Isn't that the same program that aired the Viet Nam nerve gas story?

Nerve gas, of course. How else would you explain Apple's problems?

J.


Cuong Nguyen

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
Apple has a 9.4% RETAIL market share. Actually they only have
approximately a 4% total market share. They are not the fifth
largest manufacturer in the world. They are only the fifth
largest retail manufacturer in the nation.

The first quarter they also had approximately a 4% market share
but they only had approx 8% retail market share, so they are
growing in that respect. However, the heavy gains by direct
sellers like Gateway and Dell and fall in sales of retail outfits
like Compaq and IBM explain why this is the case.

Apple shipped somewhere between 600,000-700,000 systems the first quarter.
They did the same the second quarter.

Last year at this time there were over 1 million macs shipped(with clones).
The clones are gone and apple hasn't made up ground yet.

But I'm sure the imac will take care of that.

Scott (sc...@SPAMdcski.com) wrote:

: Apple has 9.4% market share, according to figures just

: - Scott

: > >from a money-losing company into a dominant force in the
: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ha! Ha! Ha!

steve lajoie

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to

Vladimir Kuznetsov <vl...@best.com> wrote in article <6po310$8s$1...@shell13.ba.best.com>...


>
> Scott, you must be out of your mind. Who is it that they dominate
> with their measly 2% of the market share?
>
> vlad

Well, they're claiming more like 9 or 10% for the
current quarter, from market poll sources. But
that's still not "dominate". Microsoft "dominates",
Apple is a minor player.

Watch Scott try to change the subject from what
"dominate" is to your not knowing the current
market share poll. Whenever he pulls a boner,
he changes the subject.

Robert Nicholson

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
When will they repeat it?

Glen Warner

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to

Like who?

--gdw
> J.

--
Remove the 'nyet' from the e-mail address, and you'll be all set.
(%*#$&! spammers ....)

steve lajoie

unread,
Jul 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/31/98
to

Glen Warner <gdwarn...@ricochet.net> wrote in article <gdwarnernyet-3...@mg-20664219-226.ricochet.net>...


> In article <6pofdh$gp8$8...@news-1.news.gte.net>, JRS...@gte.net (JRStern) wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 20:06:48 GMT, Bobo <robert...@pss.boeing.com>
> > wrote:
> > >Without Apple, who would Microsoft copy?
> >
> > Everybody else.
>
> Like who?

Well, they could copy Xerox, that's who Apple copied from.

Redmond Young

unread,
Aug 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/1/98
to


It's a big risk to take an idea from a lab experiment and make it
successful in the marketplace. Apple "bet the company" when it
introduced the Macintosh in 1984. They expended millions and
rewote their own original code for the Mac GUI.

Once a rousing success, THEN and ONLY THEN, will Microsoft enter
the market with a clone. And, they had the Mac OS SOURCE CODE
at their disposal because they were developing Mac Apps. Et Tu ? Bill ?

Microsoft, Compaq, Dell ... not innovators, just cloners.

Glen Warner

unread,
Aug 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/1/98
to
In article <01bdbcc2$68162140$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>, "steve
lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> Glen Warner <gdwarn...@ricochet.net> wrote in article
<gdwarnernyet-3...@mg-20664219-226.ricochet.net>...
> > In article <6pofdh$gp8$8...@news-1.news.gte.net>, JRS...@gte.net
(JRStern) wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 20:06:48 GMT, Bobo <robert...@pss.boeing.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >Without Apple, who would Microsoft copy?
> > >
> > > Everybody else.
> >
> > Like who?
>
> Well, they could copy Xerox, that's who Apple copied from.

.... and unlike Microsoft, Apple paid for the privledge.

Since you brought up Xerox, you should know the dollar amount Apple paid
Xerox. If not, your statement is suspect at best simply because you left
out a significant fact (i.e., that Apple paid Xerox).

--gdw

Pierre A. von Kaenel

unread,
Aug 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/1/98
to
Redmond Young wrote:
>
> It's a big risk to take an idea from a lab experiment and make it
> successful in the marketplace. Apple "bet the company" when it
> introduced the Macintosh in 1984.

Let's not forget Apple"s Lisa!!
--
Pierre A. von Kaenel
Math & Computer Science Dept.
Skidmore College
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866

J Perry Fecteau

unread,
Aug 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/1/98
to
the xerox implementation was shitty and weak... much like microsoft's so you
are correct.

On Fri, 31 Jul 1998 20:33:04 GMT, "steve lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

>Glen Warner <gdwarn...@ricochet.net> wrote in article <gdwarnernyet-3...@mg-20664219-226.ricochet.net>...
>> In article <6pofdh$gp8$8...@news-1.news.gte.net>, JRS...@gte.net (JRStern) wrote:

>> > On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 20:06:48 GMT, Bobo <robert...@pss.boeing.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >Without Apple, who would Microsoft copy?
>> >
>> > Everybody else.

>> Like who?

>Well, they could copy Xerox, that's who Apple copied from.

-------------------- http://w3.nai.net/~perfecto -------------------------
The Internet Portal to Success.
-------------------- http://w3.nai.net/~perfecto -------------------------

Pierre A. von Kaenel

unread,
Aug 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/1/98
to
I know Apple copied the concept of the GUI interface and the use of a
mouse - I don't recall their paying anything for that. In fact, didn't
Xerox once sue Apple (many years after Apple took these ideas and made a
success of them) only to have the courts turn them away since it had
been so long?

Steven S. Bishop

unread,
Aug 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/1/98
to
Yes I remember Apple acquiring technology from Xerox but I don't remember
the terms. Recently however, I heard that Apple dropped it's suite against
Microsoft. Apple had alleged Microsoft copied their GUI. But does any of
this have much to do with their stock values. Both MS and APPL are doing
very well.

Pierre A. von Kaenel wrote in message <35C35AC3...@skidmore.edu>...

Scott

unread,
Aug 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/2/98
to
In article <35216...@newsprime.tidalwave.net>, "Steven S. Bishop"
<sbi...@tidalwave.net> wrote:

> Yes I remember Apple acquiring technology from Xerox but I don't remember
> the terms.

The biggest acquisition Apple made from Xerox was the acquisition
of the most of the researchers at Xerox that did pioneering work in
graphical user interface design. But their best work occurred
once they were at Apple, where they received complete support
and encouragement and funding from their management - something
they didn't get at Xerox.

A lot of people say "yeah, Microsoft copied Apple, but Apple
copied Xerox." Researchers at Xerox first developed the concept
of using a graphical interface exclusively, instead of having
separate text/graphical modes, as most computers did at the
time. Xerox also developed the idea of moveable windows,
popup menus, and the use of a mouse as an input device.

That was about it. These were very powerful concepts, of
course, but they did not add up to a fluid product. Each
concept was essentially a research paper.

The problem was, the management at Xerox didn't "get it."
The Xerox researchers were very excited about their technology,
and showed it off to managers, but the managers didn't think
it was marketable and didn't encourage its further development.

Then, Steve Jobs and a team of Apple researchers visited
Xerox. The Xerox engineers - thrilled that someone was showing
an interest in their work (something that had never happened
before), enthusiastically showed the Apple team their work.
Apple's team "got it" immediately, and began to envision a
graphical user interface metaphor that could be used as the
basis of an entire computer. There was an instant synergy
between the two teams, and shortly thereafter, many of
the top Xerox researchers switched employers and became
pioneering members on the Lisa - and/or Macintosh - teams.

Once the seeds were planted at Apple, they began to
grow into an entire operating system. And many of the
"GUI" concepts that are commonplace today were born at
Apple, not Xerox. Apple invented and refined the concept
of a "desktop metaphor" - where, for example, graphical
folder icons would represent directories, and users could
navigate a file system simply by double-clicking folders
and dragging documents around, much as users would do
in real life with paper documents and file cabinets.

The trash can was an Apple invention, along with the
ever-present menu bar. Other programs such as HyperCard
(which was an inspiration to the developers of the
World-Wide-Web) also broke new ground, offering
hypertext and a simple programming language. There
are so many GUI concepts we take for granted today
that originated at Apple, by brilliant people like
Bill Atkinson. Xerox was definitely the inspiration,
but Xerox hadn't gotten very far with their GUI work -
and without Apple, their work would have been discontinued
because Xerox management was ready to pull the plug.
Apple took these concepts, added a whole bunch of new
ones, and incorporated everything into a beautiful
machine that was "plug and play." From a software
engineer's perspective, the Mac was also incredibly
innovative. For example, Apple developed a "Toolbox"
of routines that could be used by all Macintosh
programmers, and all programs used the same Toolbox,
resulting in programs that shared the same look and
feel and took up less space. This is something that
hadn't been done by anyone prior.

A few years ago, Apple started a "look and feel"
law suit against Microsoft, and Xerox also sued Apple
on some minor points. In both cases, agreements had been
made between the two companies (Apple/Xerox, and
Apple/Microsoft), allowing the use of certain technologies,
and basically it was a lot of whining. For example, Apple
management had made a foolish decision years ago to allow
Microsoft to use Apple GUI concepts in their products (remember,
Microsoft has always been a big developer of Macintosh
applications and is largely responsible for the Mac's
success in the first place; without Microsoft Excel
and Word, the Mac may never have taken off.) Microsoft
interpreted this "permission" liberally, putting a lot
of Apple's GUI concepts into their Windows OS. Apple
didn't say anything until around Windows 3.1, when it
became clear that Windows had a chance of competing
against the Mac OS. So a long court battle ensued,
but was ultimately settled last summer after Microsoft
agreed to pay Apple "undisclosed" licensing fees on
an ongoing basis (a fact that, interestingly, has not
received much attention from people). The Xerox suit
was thrown out.

And the Mac also did not take off overnight. Apple's
Lisa was the first computer to feature a GUI, but at
$10,000, few people bought the Lisa. The Mac, with its
lower price, was more appealing, but there were very
few applications available for it initially, and the
first Mac did not have a sufficient amount of memory.
A few key programs - such as Microsoft Excel - along
with an updated Mac with more memory - served as the
real catalyst to the Mac's success. But that didn't
happen until around 1985.

That's some background information, but it doesn't
have much to do with investing. With software and OS
technologies such as QuickTime 3.0 and the upcoming
Mac OS 8.5 (due in late September/early October), you
will begin to see a lot of GUI innovations eminating
from Apple again. Apple is acting more like a startup
these days (just a very well-funded one), and that's
resulting in a lot of unique technologies hitting the
market quickly. Don't take my word for it (and I know
many of you won't); just watch over the next 6 months
to see what new technologies Apple introduces in their
hardware and software products, and the impact these
technologies have on the market. I'm particularly
excited about Mac OS 8.5 because it offers some really
cool features that aren't available on other platforms
yet. (For most of the 90's, Apple let Mac OS 7 sit
and rust!)

- Scott

Pierre A. von Kaenel

unread,
Aug 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/2/98
to
This is nice historical background on the development of the Mac. It
does appear that Apple is trying to regain innovation points - time will
tell if they can reach critical mass. But whatever they do that results
in new concepts will be good for the whole industry (we certainly know
MS will take any good ideas and use it in their products).

Greg Teets

unread,
Aug 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/3/98
to
>. Don't take my word for it (and I know
>many of you won't); just watch over the next 6 months
>to see what new technologies Apple introduces in their
>hardware and software products, and the impact these
>technologies have on the market. I'm particularly
>excited about Mac OS 8.5 because it offers some really
>cool features that aren't available on other platforms
>yet. (For most of the 90's, Apple let Mac OS 7 sit
>and rust!)
>
>- Scott

What are some of these "cool features" you're mentioning.

Thanks,
Greg Teets

Cincinnati, OH

Scott

unread,
Aug 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/3/98
to

> >. Don't take my word for it (and I know
> >many of you won't); just watch over the next 6 months
> >to see what new technologies Apple introduces in their
> >hardware and software products, and the impact these
> >technologies have on the market. I'm particularly
> >excited about Mac OS 8.5 because it offers some really
> >cool features that aren't available on other platforms
> >yet. (For most of the 90's, Apple let Mac OS 7 sit
> >and rust!)
> >
> >- Scott
>

> What are some of these "cool features" you're mentioning.

Hi Greg,

You can read about some of Mac OS 8.5's new features at:

http://www.macnn.com/reality/allegro.shtml

(Note that Mac OS 8.5 is codenamed "Allegro.")

There's a lot of features I'm excited about, but in
particular, the new "Find" command is really compelling.
It expands the current "Find" command's capabilities by
letting you search the Internet or doing a content/context-
based search on a mounted file system. It can even summarize
the results of a search, or save search parameters for
later. It shows results ranked by how strongly they
matched, complete with bar graphs, and you can select some
of the results and re-submit them to fine-tune the search.
The improvements to AppleScript are also awesome.
Few people have realized the power of AppleScript, but
it's starting to come into the light. For example, say
I'm designing a web site - working on the pages on my
local Mac, and uploading the pages to a UNIX server
when they're done. With AppleScript, I can have the
Mac OS automatically upload a file to an FTP server
anytime I drop a modified file into a folder. (It can
do this instantly, or at some regular time of the day,
much like a cron job on UNIX.) Or I can create a complex
Internet search using the new Find command, and save this
search as an AppleScript file. Anytime I double-click this
file, it will perform the search (and, also using AppleScript,
might format the search results in my word processor document
and then e-mail it to a list of people.) The sky is the limit
with AppleScript. I'd be happy to describe it in more
detail if anyone wants to hear about it; you might also
check out http://applescript.apple.com.

I've listed two features; there's dozens more that I'm
really excited to see, but I won't bore you further. Just
check that first reference I gave you for the 8.5 report
on MacNN.

- Scott

steve lajoie

unread,
Aug 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/3/98
to

Pierre A. von Kaenel <pv...@skidmore.edu> wrote in article <35C35AC3...@skidmore.edu>...


> I know Apple copied the concept of the GUI interface and the use of a
> mouse - I don't recall their paying anything for that. In fact, didn't
> Xerox once sue Apple (many years after Apple took these ideas and made a
> success of them) only to have the courts turn them away since it had
> been so long?

Yes, exactly. I remember the irony of Xerox suing Apple for
doing what Apple was suing Microsoft for - taking the GUI, ICON,
and mouse. It made me think of all the Apple advocates who
claim Apple is an innovative company when really they steal
ideas just like Microsoft, they just aren't as successful at
it.

steve lajoie

unread,
Aug 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/3/98
to

Redmond Young <re...@topspeed.corp.sun.com> wrote in article <6pu1jd$i8e$1...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>...

[snip]


> It's a big risk to take an idea from a lab experiment and make it
> successful in the marketplace. Apple "bet the company" when it

> introduced the Macintosh in 1984. They expended millions and
> rewote their own original code for the Mac GUI.

When Apple sued Microsoft, I think it was Xerox who sued Apple.
Apple charged that Microsoft stole their GUI and Mouse. Xerox
said the same thing about Apple. Apple's successful defense was
not that they didn't do it, but that Xerox waited too long to
sue.

This cornerstone of Apple innovation was, oddly enough,
stolen fair and square, apparently, from someone else. :-)



> Once a rousing success, THEN and ONLY THEN, will Microsoft enter
> the market with a clone. And, they had the Mac OS SOURCE CODE
> at their disposal because they were developing Mac Apps. Et Tu ? Bill ?

Well, since part of the quarter billion Microsoft gave Apple
was to settle all the lawsuit claims Apple had against Microsoft,
it would seem to be history and bringing it up just sour grapes.

> Microsoft, Compaq, Dell ... not innovators, just cloners.

Successful, profitable cloners, the kind we like to hear
about in misc.invest.stocks. Take the rest to comp.apple.advocacy.


Scott

unread,
Aug 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/3/98
to
In article <01bdbf0f$b1752120$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>, "steve
lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> Redmond Young <re...@topspeed.corp.sun.com> wrote in article
<6pu1jd$i8e$1...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > It's a big risk to take an idea from a lab experiment and make it
> > successful in the marketplace. Apple "bet the company" when it
> > introduced the Macintosh in 1984. They expended millions and
> > rewote their own original code for the Mac GUI.
>
> When Apple sued Microsoft, I think it was Xerox who sued Apple.
> Apple charged that Microsoft stole their GUI and Mouse. Xerox

^^^^^ ???


> said the same thing about Apple. Apple's successful defense was
> not that they didn't do it, but that Xerox waited too long to
> sue.

The suit against Microsoft was very specific, listing specific
GUI features (such as the trash can, to list but one of many
examples) that Apple believed Microsoft had unfairly copied.
GUI concepts originally invented at Xerox were not part of Apple's
law suit. In a separate message (perhaps you should read it?)
in this thread, I clearly outlined the limited GUI features
invented at Xerox and the notable additions Apple made - such
as using a "desktop" metaphor to represent a file system, etc.
I also pointed out that the researchers from Xerox almost
unanimously changed employers to Apple, where they continued
to refine their ideas for many years under an incredibly
supportive management (something that was in complete contrast
to the situation at Xerox). It's this team that deserves praise,
not Xerox or Apple.

A mouse was not part of the suit at all -- I got a great laugh out
of that one. Since you don't seem to be very familiar with the case,
you might want to research it a bit more if you're going to insist
on making ludicrous statements like that.

(For what it's worth, I thought the lawsuit was awfully
silly. Rather than wasting time whining that their ideas had
been stolen, Apple should have shut up and just continued
innovating, being more careful to specifically patent ideas
that they wanted to retain in the future, as they do now.
But some features are so fundamental that it would hurt
the industry to patent them.)

> This cornerstone of Apple innovation was, oddly enough,
> stolen fair and square, apparently, from someone else. :-)
>
> > Once a rousing success, THEN and ONLY THEN, will Microsoft enter
> > the market with a clone. And, they had the Mac OS SOURCE CODE
> > at their disposal because they were developing Mac Apps. Et Tu ? Bill ?
>
> Well, since part of the quarter billion Microsoft gave Apple
> was to settle all the lawsuit claims Apple had against Microsoft,
> it would seem to be history and bringing it up just sour grapes.

You're the one that brought it up in the first place, Steve.

Glen Warner

unread,
Aug 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/4/98
to
In article <01bdbf10$92cc81e0$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>, "steve
lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

I think it's quite amazing how you can make these ridiculous assertions
without putting a smilie at the end of your post to indicate that you are
kidding (you are kidding, right?).

Scott explained *twice* exactly what happened with the Xerox lawsuit (no
mouse involved, etc.), and I explained that Apple PAID XEROX FOR THE
PRIVLEDGE of using some of their GUI elements ($100K in stock, if I recall
correctly) and still you persist in spreading this 'bovine scatology' (as
General Schwartzkopf (?sp) once said). Why is this?

steve lajoie

unread,
Aug 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/4/98
to

Glen Warner <gdwarn...@ricochet.net> wrote in article <gdwarnernyet-0...@mg-20664222-90.ricochet.net>...


> In article <01bdbf10$92cc81e0$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>, "steve
> lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> > Pierre A. von Kaenel <pv...@skidmore.edu> wrote in article
> <35C35AC3...@skidmore.edu>...
> > > I know Apple copied the concept of the GUI interface and the use of a
> > > mouse - I don't recall their paying anything for that. In fact, didn't
> > > Xerox once sue Apple (many years after Apple took these ideas and made a
> > > success of them) only to have the courts turn them away since it had
> > > been so long?
> >
> > Yes, exactly. I remember the irony of Xerox suing Apple for
> > doing what Apple was suing Microsoft for - taking the GUI, ICON,
> > and mouse. It made me think of all the Apple advocates who
> > claim Apple is an innovative company when really they steal
> > ideas just like Microsoft, they just aren't as successful at
> > it.
>
> I think it's quite amazing how you can make these ridiculous assertions
> without putting a smilie at the end of your post to indicate that you are
> kidding (you are kidding, right?).

Seems some of us remember things differently. We don't
need the Apple Advocates Revisionist version of history.



> Scott explained *twice* exactly what happened with the Xerox lawsuit

Scott tends to make things up as he goes along. We've already established
he's not a reputable source in another thread.

> (no mouse involved, etc.),

Maybe not, NPR isn't THE most reputable source, and that's
where I heard the mouse originated at Xerox. Since we had
secretaries using that word processing system and it used a
mouse, I didn't think much of it at the time. But you know, I
tend to believe what I saw of the system and NPR more than
you Apple Advocates.

You might be right. But you're such a passionate bunch that
I just tend to write you off as a bunch of geeks who get all
worked up over trivial details.

> and I explained that Apple PAID XEROX FOR THE
> PRIVLEDGE

You're not high on my list of credible sources either.
I regard you people as eccentrics more interested in
Apple advocacy than stocks. I guess you got tired of
preaching to the choir in your own news group and decided
to infest others like misc.invest.stocks.

:-)
We're sure glad we have people like you guys here to
play Apple trivia and to revise the glorious history
of the Apple Computer Company.
:-)

Not.

Scott

unread,
Aug 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/5/98
to
In article <01bdbfb7$c9c9ae00$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>, "steve
lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> > Scott explained *twice* exactly what happened with the Xerox lawsuit
>
> Scott tends to make things up as he goes along. We've already established
> he's not a reputable source in another thread.

Scott here: I guess I must have missed that thread. I
do seem to recall pointing out numerous blunders on your part,
which you completely ignore, or just keep repeating. (I still
remember your insistence that Apple had killed all of the
technologies in Rhapsody, an argument that was very
perplexing then and now. At best, Apple changed the name
of their future operating system. That hardly seems to be
of consequence from an investor's point of view.)

To be honest, one has to really question your motives.
You complain about "Mac people" posting on misc.invest.stocks,
calling us "geeks," but seem obliged to reply to every single
message that is Apple Computer related. Of course, you
never have anything positive to say, and regularly spew out
deception. You've established that you do not own or use
a Macintosh, and have little knowledge or interest in the
Mac platform, yet feel compelled to constantly post messages
about Apple, calling people like me -- a long-time Macintosh
user and software developer - a non-reputable source. In
case you haven't noticed, I point out the good and bad.
People who think other people are unobjective often are
revealing their own unobjectivity.

So what is it, Steve? Why do you keep posting about Apple
Computer? You're the one that seems to be on a religious
crusade, not us. We're Apple investors and would like to
candidly discuss happenings related to Apple and what effects
these might have on Apple's stock and future prospects as an
investment. I didn't invest in Apple because I like the
company; I invested in Apple to make money. There are a few
voices of reason on this newsgroup; you most definitely are
not one of them.

> > (no mouse involved, etc.),
>
> Maybe not, NPR isn't THE most reputable source, and that's
> where I heard the mouse originated at Xerox. Since we had
> secretaries using that word processing system and it used a
> mouse, I didn't think much of it at the time. But you know, I
> tend to believe what I saw of the system and NPR more than
> you Apple Advocates.

Thank you for another example.

It's interesting how *you* constantly revise history.
NO ONE is debating the fact that the mouse was invented by
Xerox. Not a single "Apple Advocate" made that claim.

You made the statement that Xerox was suing Apple because
they "copied" the mouse, when in fact, the mouse was never
part of the lawsuit. (Just to refresh your memory, here
was your exact statement:)

Steve said:

> When Apple sued Microsoft, I think it was Xerox who sued Apple.
> Apple charged that Microsoft stole their GUI and Mouse. Xerox

> said the same thing about Apple.

That's what people found so funny. I was quite familiar
with intimate aspects of the law suit, and I can assure you,
a peripheral device such as a mouse was never even remotely
part of the suit (be it Apple's suit against Microsoft, or
Xerox's suit against Apple.)

It's odd that you're now trying to vehemently argue that
Xerox invented the mouse, something that was never contested.
I guess you always have to be arguing something. Which,
again, leads me to question your motives. I'm not sure how
to have a useful discussion or debate with you when your
reasoning is so abritrary.

- Scott

Glen Warner

unread,
Aug 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/5/98
to
In article <01bdbfb7$c9c9ae00$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>, "steve
lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> > In article <01bdbf10$92cc81e0$641b...@e829029.ca.boeing.com>, "steve
> > lajoie" <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

(*snip*)

> >
> > I think it's quite amazing how you can make these ridiculous assertions
> > without putting a smilie at the end of your post to indicate that you are
> > kidding (you are kidding, right?).
>
> Seems some of us remember things differently. We don't
> need the Apple Advocates Revisionist version of history.

I think the idea of history is that you write stuff down so that people
later can read what happened and repeat it as it actually happened.
Ideally, that would keep people from making stuff up.

Ideally.

> > Scott explained *twice* exactly what happened with the Xerox lawsuit
>
> Scott tends to make things up as he goes along. We've already established
> he's not a reputable source in another thread.

Guess I missed that thread. I think, though, that I would be more inclined
to take the word of a Mac developer who provides links to back up his
claims as opposed to a guy who's never used a Mac and tends to 'make
things up as he goes along', to coin a phrase.



> > (no mouse involved, etc.),
>
> Maybe not, NPR isn't THE most reputable source, and that's
> where I heard the mouse originated at Xerox. Since we had
> secretaries using that word processing system and it used a
> mouse, I didn't think much of it at the time. But you know, I
> tend to believe what I saw of the system and NPR more than
> you Apple Advocates.
>

> You might be right. But you're such a passionate bunch that
> I just tend to write you off as a bunch of geeks who get all
> worked up over trivial details.

Didn't John Dvorak say something similar a few weeks back?

> > and I explained that Apple PAID XEROX FOR THE
> > PRIVLEDGE
>
> You're not high on my list of credible sources either.

Thanks. You can probably imagine where you are on my list of creditible
sources. If not, let me put it this way: chances are good that the guy
next to you on that list wants some ice water ... which he won't get.

> I regard you people as eccentrics more interested in
> Apple advocacy than stocks. I guess you got tired of
> preaching to the choir in your own news group and decided
> to infest others like misc.invest.stocks.

Actually, we have a *lot* of people just like you in
comp.sys.mac.advocacy. They apparently get tired of troubleshooting their
systems in comp.os.windows.advocacy and post "Macs Suck!! PCs RULE!!"
messages in c.s.m.a.

Must be that amazing Windows multitasking ....


>
> :-)
> We're sure glad we have people like you guys here to
> play Apple trivia and to revise the glorious history
> of the Apple Computer Company.
> :-)
>
> Not.

So don't read or respond to the posts. Doesn't your newsreader (Microsoft
Internet News 4.blah blah blah) have a killfile? Feel free to put me in
it.

Alex

unread,
Aug 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/8/98
to

Scott heeft geschreven in bericht ...

>In article <35216...@newsprime.tidalwave.net>, "Steven S. Bishop"
><sbi...@tidalwave.net> wrote:
>
> That's some background information, but it doesn't
>have much to do with investing.

Maybe it does...

>With software and OS
>technologies such as QuickTime 3.0 and the upcoming
>Mac OS 8.5 (due in late September/early October), you
>will begin to see a lot of GUI innovations eminating
>from Apple again. Apple is acting more like a startup
>these days (just a very well-funded one), and that's
>resulting in a lot of unique technologies hitting the
>market quickly. Don't take my word for it (and I know
>many of you won't); just watch over the next 6 months
>to see what new technologies Apple introduces in their
>hardware and software products, and the impact these
>technologies have on the market. I'm particularly
>excited about Mac OS 8.5 because it offers some really
>cool features that aren't available on other platforms
>yet. (For most of the 90's, Apple let Mac OS 7 sit
>and rust!)
>
>- Scott

I came to computing via the old Commodore 64
and then the Amiga 600 (both cheap little machines).
The Amiga has in common with the AppleMac that it
ran on Motorola (68000) chips (also Lisa, Denise etc.).

The thing with the Amiga was that it used very little memory
to play games or do anything, really. The OS worked with
a *1MB* memory chip (this PC I'm using now needs 32!) and
you could still play stuff like Gunship 2000 or A-10 Tankkiller
(whopping 3 and 2 MB sized games). Now you need at least
50 MB diskspace.
I read somewhere that the IBM/Intel based PC is a whole lot less efficient
than these old Motorola based machines.
It just makes you wonder what computing could have looked like if
Amiga and Apple had had the cheap peripherals, low price and
compatability of IBM computers.
I also read that the people who made the Amiga were ex Apple people.

What killed them both is that they never really got the prices of fully
functional machines down. For the Amiga, upgrading it from a
smooth running *7 Mhz* machine to a whopping 25 Mhz still today costs
as much as the computer itself did (second hand). 1MB of memory,
so you can run on 2 MB still costs $85,-.

But to slightly offset that (and the reason why so many stuck with them
for so long, including me) is that there is a huge, generous community
of programmers out there. Hacked games were cheap, there's lots
of _real_ freeware, etc. The Amiga had a rational Libraries structure
(need a new library: just download it a drop it in Libs:.

What do you think will happen with the Power PC project? Will
it give a new lease on life to the Mac?


Alex

Paul Durrant

unread,
Aug 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/14/98
to
In article <6qijq2$2fq$2...@news2.xs4all.nl>,
"Alex" <avde...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> What do you think will happen with the Power PC project? Will
> it give a new lease on life to the Mac?

Um... it sounds like you're a little out of date. The 680x0 to PPC
transition happened several years ago (1994 IIRC).

If Apple hadn't made the switch, and done it so smoothly and successfully
they'd now be gone.

Paul Durrant

Nigel HAMLIN

unread,
Sep 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/10/98
to
steve lajoie wrote:
: You're not high on my list of credible sources either. I

regard you people as
: eccentrics more interested in Apple advocacy than stocks. I
guess you got
: tired of preaching to the choir in your own news group and
decided to infest
: others like misc.invest.stocks.
: :-) We're sure glad we have people like you guys here to play

Apple trivia and
: to revise the glorious history of the Apple Computer Company.
: :-)
: Not.

It occurs to me that it could be "investors" and other
associated "city" or "Wall Street analysts" (give me strength!)
who
have
the sort of attitude that you displayed here, steve (yeah, I
note that you don't even capitalise your own name), who are
responsible for all those "forecasts" that turn out to be so
outrageously incorrect. But they still influence the market so
much, mainly because its so full of all the other dunderheads
who swallow all that sort of BS so gullibly!

What really frightens me is that people like you are also
allowed to vote. But it doesn't frighten me too much, because you
don't get to vote in my country!!!

Nigel HAMLIN
Director
Innovatique Limited

The biggest single improvement that could be made in online
conferences would be for everyone to avoid stating their
personal opinions or preferences as facts. By all means express
your opinion, but avoid phrases like "Everyone agrees....."
or "Most people ......". Remember the opinion is yours and its
not correct to try to speak for everyone else!


http://messages.cnet.com Your information exchange place.
http://messages.cnet.com/news/ Join Now!

Glen Warner

unread,
Sep 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/11/98
to
In article <dnf.news._____K.___...@messages.cnet.com>,
nig...@pobox.com (Nigel HAMLIN) wrote:

> steve lajoie wrote:
> : You're not high on my list of credible sources either. I
> : regard you people as eccentrics more interested in Apple advocacy than
> : stocks. I guess you got tired of preaching to the choir in your own news
> : group and decided to infest others like misc.invest.stocks.
> : :-) We're sure glad we have people like you guys here to play
> : Apple trivia and to revise the glorious history of the Apple Computer
> : Company.
> : :-)
> : Not.

> It occurs to me that it could be "investors" and other
> associated "city" or "Wall Street analysts" (give me strength!)
> who have the sort of attitude that you displayed here, steve (yeah, I
> note that you don't even capitalise your own name), who are
> responsible for all those "forecasts" that turn out to be so
> outrageously incorrect. But they still influence the market so
> much, mainly because its so full of all the other dunderheads
> who swallow all that sort of BS so gullibly!

"You can fool some of the people some of the time ....", as the saying
goes. Ol' Steve used to routinely cast aspersions on Apple as an
investment and its hardware. He also rewrote history and, when called on
it by Scott or myself, would ignore the correction and post the same
misinformation in another Apple-related thread a few days later. When
called on his 'tactics', he simply stopped posting ... because everything
Scott pointed out about him was correct: he didn't use Macs, didn't own a
Mac, constantly .... well, you get the idea. Suffice it to say, he's
stopped posting. Never answered Scott's questions, either.

Interesting that the folks who said the iMac would fail got hit today with
the headlines about the iMac being the #1 seller this month ... despite
only having been around for *half* a month ......

.... and don't get me started on thos companies that make "iPCs" all of
the sudden.



> What really frightens me is that people like you are also
> allowed to vote. But it doesn't frighten me too much, because you
> don't get to vote in my country!!!

I was going to make a comment about reproduction here, but I'll spare you ....

--gdw
>
> Nigel HAMLIN

(verbose .sig *snipped*)

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/16/98
to
Nigel HAMLIN wrote:
>
> steve lajoie wrote:
> : You're not high on my list of credible sources either. I
> regard you people as
> : eccentrics more interested in Apple advocacy than stocks. I
> guess you got
> : tired of preaching to the choir in your own news group and
> decided to infest
> : others like misc.invest.stocks.
> : :-) We're sure glad we have people like you guys here to play
> Apple trivia and
> : to revise the glorious history of the Apple Computer Company.
> : :-)
> : Not.
>
> It occurs to me that it could be "investors" and other
> associated "city" or "Wall Street analysts" (give me strength!)
> who
> have
> the sort of attitude that you displayed here, steve (yeah, I
> note that you don't even capitalise your own name), who are
> responsible for all those "forecasts" that turn out to be so
> outrageously incorrect.

I responded to a post that was pure Apple advocacy. It
didn't belong here.

> But they still influence the market so
> much, mainly because its so full of all the other dunderheads
> who swallow all that sort of BS so gullibly!

I admit to having a fundamental approach to investing,
rather than the current incredibly popular speculative
approach.

Nope, I didn't see Apple going from 13 to 38, and I should
have because of the very low price to sales ratio. And if
you read back far enough, I predicted Apple would show a
profit IF they cut R&D and G&A enough. I said this would
just be another route to the company's death.

The Price to sales ratio of Apple computer is very good.
Lots of people pointed that out to me a long time ago,
and I foolishly ignored it because other financial data
going on in the company were positively sick.

I predict that they will have revenue growth, and maybe
another modest profit. I see Apple to 50 - 60 range by
late January. High risk, but worth an investment. Buy now
because by the end of the month, Job's will be shooting his
mouth off with half truths again which will trigger large
buying demand. I figure 50 by late October.

Long term, this company is doomed. But then, what company
isn't?

> What really frightens me is that people like you are also
> allowed to vote. But it doesn't frighten me too much, because you
> don't get to vote in my country!!!

Well, I don't make idiot post to the usenet groups like
misc.invest.stocks that are nothing more than 20/20 hind
sight and childish insults.


> Nigel HAMLIN
> Director
> Innovatique Limited
>
> The biggest single improvement that could be made in online
> conferences would be for everyone to avoid stating their
> personal opinions or preferences as facts.

Well, that explains why you come here spouting
bs and have no facts at all.

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/16/98
to
Glen Warner wrote:


> "You can fool some of the people some of the time ....", as the saying
> goes. Ol' Steve used to routinely cast aspersions on Apple as an
> investment and its hardware.

As an investment, yes, I said it sucked. As to the hardware, no,
if you go back and look you'll see that I called the actual hardware
"elegant" and well designed, as compared to the PC which I said
was a series of kluges to make it compatible with an operating system
it was never compatible with.

So, you're half right. You go down from here.

> He also rewrote history and, when called on
> it by Scott or myself, would ignore the correction and post the same
> misinformation in another Apple-related thread a few days later.

You pointed to a number of web sites as references to "correct"
me, and many of them either were too vague or supported my
position.

> When
> called on his 'tactics', he simply stopped posting ... because everything
> Scott pointed out about him was correct: he didn't use Macs, didn't own a
> Mac, constantly .... well, you get the idea.

I sit 15 feet from a mac. It's turned off. I stopped responding
because you guys would go off on fantastic tangents and distortions
and totally lose sight of what I am here for, to make money.
I don't give a damn about your mac advocacy.

> Suffice it to say, he's stopped posting.

Well, wrong again.

>Never answered Scott's questions, either.

Never saw 'em. Besides, Scott doesn't ask questions, he
"advocates". Since he thinks he knows everything, he has
no need to ask.


> Interesting that the folks who said the iMac would fail got hit today with
> the headlines about the iMac being the #1 seller this month ... despite
> only having been around for *half* a month ......

Define "fail". My concerns about the iMac are that it's
a low margin product and competes with the G3s. Most of
the iMac sales are people with older Macs seeking to
upgrade - these people would have eventually have bought
a G3. But even Apple knows that once this Mac advocate
market segment is saturated, sales are going to be
greatly reduced.

It's also too danged expensive.


> .... and don't get me started on thos companies that make "iPCs" all of
> the sudden.
>

> > What really frightens me is that people like you are also
> > allowed to vote. But it doesn't frighten me too much, because you
> > don't get to vote in my country!!!
>

> I was going to make a comment about reproduction here, but I'll spare you ....

Hum. I didn't see any content in your message about the
prospects of Apple stock. Insults, some lies, but nothing
about stocks. Have a nice day.

P.S. without me, you Apple advocates would have very,
very short and repetitious threads. Lets face it, you
love me because I give you a devil's advocate on which
to further argue for your nearly extinct religion.

Namara

unread,
Sep 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/18/98
to

I didn't see it. I missed it. And
WELCOME BACK MAC !!!!!!!


Namara <----could of been a contender!


Glen Warner

unread,
Sep 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/20/98
to
In article <36000BED...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:

> Glen Warner wrote:
>
>
> > "You can fool some of the people some of the time ....", as the saying
> > goes. Ol' Steve used to routinely cast aspersions on Apple as an
> > investment and its hardware.
>
> As an investment, yes, I said it sucked. As to the hardware, no,
> if you go back and look you'll see that I called the actual hardware
> "elegant" and well designed, as compared to the PC which I said
> was a series of kluges to make it compatible with an operating system
> it was never compatible with.

I must have missed that thread.

> So, you're half right. You go down from here.


>
> > He also rewrote history and, when called on it by Scott or
> > myself, would ignore the correction and post the same misinformation
> > in another Apple-related thread a few days later.
>
> You pointed to a number of web sites as references to "correct"
> me, and many of them either were too vague or supported my
> position.

I didn't point out any web sites. That was Scott.

> > When called on his 'tactics', he simply stopped posting ... because
> > everything Scott pointed out about him was correct: he didn't use Macs,
> > didn't own a Mac, constantly .... well, you get the idea.
>
> I sit 15 feet from a mac. It's turned off.

Um ... they seem to work better if ... oh, never mind.

> I stopped responding because you guys would go off on fantastic tangents and
> distortions and totally lose sight of what I am here for, to make money.
> I don't give a damn about your mac advocacy.

As Scott said in the message you "missed": so don't answer the posts.

There is a lot of really bad information out there on Macs, most of it
from journalists who reportedly know how to do research ... which they
seem to forget how to do when they're writing about the Mac. This means
that would-be customer 'A' would read an article by one of these
'journalists' which says, say "Wow, Apple stole the mouse from Xerox?!"
(or whatever misinformation is in the article) and then buy something
else. Scott's posts actually are informative to non-Mac users that don't
read the Mac news websites, and as a result don't know that Apple is
planning on releasing project 'ABC' during month 'X', and that this would
be an opportunity for them to make some money.

In this newsgroup, you make up things or distort any Apple-related news
and repeat it like it's true. When Mac-users correct you, you complain,
call us names, etc. Scott asked you some questions which you claim you
never saw ... and yet you mysteriously stopped posting.

Is there a statistician in the house?

> > Suffice it to say, he's stopped posting.
>
> Well, wrong again.

Really? Please allow me to quote you ... amazingly enough, from this very
message:

> I stopped responding because you guys would go off on fantastic tangents

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ !


> and distortions and totally lose sight of what I am here for, to make
> money. I don't give a damn about your mac advocacy.

Now ... who's wrong?

> >Never answered Scott's questions, either.
>
> Never saw 'em. Besides, Scott doesn't ask questions, he "advocates".

In this particular instance, he asked questions. Questions like "If you
don't like Apple, why do you respond to each and every Apple-related
thread?" (not an exact quote, but close enough.)

Also, as I pointed out once before: if it came down to making an
investment decision based on the word of Scott, an Apple developer, or
you, a guy who can't bring himself to turn on the Mac in his office, then
the choice is obvious.

> Since he thinks he knows everything, he has no need to ask.

Okay ... let's test *your* knowledge.

You have a PowerBook 3400c sitting on your desk. You have an iMac sitting
next to it. Both systems are powered up and ready to go. How can you
transfer your files from your PowerBook to the iMac? (You've also left
your PowerBook's floppy drive at home.)

> > Interesting that the folks who said the iMac would fail got hit today with
> > the headlines about the iMac being the #1 seller this month ... despite
> > only having been around for *half* a month ......
>
> Define "fail".

In this instance, I wasn't discussing your predictions; rather those of
the folks in the press who moaned about there being no floppy, etc., etc.
Some of these people said Apple would be unable to move the iMac at all
... and, in this instance, "Fail" is defined as 'a dud'. A 'non-seller'. A
serious 'don't wanter'.

> My concerns about the iMac are that it's a low margin product and competes
> with the G3s.

Unfortunately, the folks at Market Intelligence don't seem to agree with
you. The G3's are selling quite well, thank you. Here's a URL which
defends my position:

http://www.ci.infobeads.com/InfoBeads/Pages/Main/Main.asp?module=insider&topic=Consumer_Market&story=iMac_0916

Now, I've shown you mine. Show me yours.

> Most of the iMac sales are people with older Macs seeking to upgrade - these
> people would have eventually have bought a G3.

Really? Check out the picture --

http://www.jollyroj.com

-- and see what a Mac-user discovered on his neighbors' curb one morning. :o)

> But even Apple knows that once this Mac advocate market segment is saturated,
> sales are going to be greatly reduced.

Steve Jobs promised "a suprise every 90 days" when he "took" the job as
kinda-sorta CEO ... look for an iMac with a bigger monitor coming Real
Soon Now ... probably around Christmas time.

> It's also too danged expensive.

So wait until Christmas. The iMac should drop to $999. Besides ... the
iMac isn't for you; you are not a first-time computer buyer.

Did you hear about the Compaq rep that bought an iMac so his techs could
take it apart and study it? They apparently had concerns about heat, the
translucent casing ("Where are the support ribs?"), etc. ... and wanted to
see how Apple solved these problems ... without losing money on each
machine.

> > .... and don't get me started on those companies that make "iPCs" all of


> > the sudden.
> >
> > > What really frightens me is that people like you are also
> > > allowed to vote. But it doesn't frighten me too much, because you
> > > don't get to vote in my country!!!
> >
> > I was going to make a comment about reproduction here, but I'll spare
you ....
>
> Hum. I didn't see any content in your message about the prospects of
> Apple stock. Insults, some lies, but nothing about stocks. Have a nice day.

Thanks. Since I was responding to someone else's post that also neglected
to have any such content, of course there wasn't anything like that in
there. But, if you insist ... Apple is going up. Quarterly results are due
out next month, all indications are it will be in the $70 million dollar
range again. Also on tap for next month is the release of System 8.5.
Coming up in January is Macworld SF ... and the possible introduction of a
new consumer portable ... which (if the rumors and whispers are true) will
satisfy the owners of current E-Mates and Newtons ... as well as PowerBook
owners.

> P.S. without me, you Apple advocates would have very, very short and
> repetitious threads. Lets face it, you love me because I give
> you a devil's advocate on which to further argue for your nearly
> extinct religion.

I think you meant to say "Ancient weapons and hokey religions are no match
for a good blaster at your side." Sure sounds like it.

Either way, my response is the same: Yeah, yeah. Whatever.

--gdw

Stephen La Joie

unread,
Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98
to

Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, you're not
objective and the journalist may have a point? This "Apple
gets bad press" line is getting really old. Apple gets it's
share of good press, even in the Wall Street Journal.

It's just a knee jerk reaction to kill the messenger.



> In this newsgroup, you make up things or distort any Apple-related news
> and repeat it like it's true. When Mac-users correct you, you complain,
> call us names, etc.

I've been very patient. Go count how many names were called
on each side.

It's simply not true that I've distorted or made up
facts. Go check it out. The only error I recall making
was using the 10-Q for the old quarter when the 10-Q for
the current quarter came out at about the same time I posted.
I called the old 10-Q the "last" one.

Other than that, the general complaint as been I've
not been a spin doctor for the Apple Computer company.

> Scott asked you some questions which you claim you
> never saw ... and yet you mysteriously stopped posting.

Scott's post are long winded, to be kind.



> Is there a statistician in the house?
>
> > > Suffice it to say, he's stopped posting.
> >
> > Well, wrong again.
>
> Really? Please allow me to quote you ... amazingly enough, from this very
> message:
>
> > I stopped responding because you guys would go off on fantastic tangents
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ !
> > and distortions and totally lose sight of what I am here for, to make
> > money. I don't give a damn about your mac advocacy.
>
> Now ... who's wrong?

I stopped responding to fantastic tangents and distortions
that lose sight of what we're here for. That's not the same
as not posting.

> > >Never answered Scott's questions, either.
> >
> > Never saw 'em. Besides, Scott doesn't ask questions, he "advocates".
>
> In this particular instance, he asked questions.

He advocates.

> Questions like "If you
> don't like Apple, why do you respond to each and every Apple-related
> thread?" (not an exact quote, but close enough.)

1) Who the hell are you or Scott to question what I can or cannot
post to? Who appointed you net god?

2) Some of the rosy optimistic things Apple advocates post
are just plain old misleading and incredibly one sided. This
newsgroup is not the Apple advocacy group, it's a stock group
and both sides of the risk reward equation need to be pointed
out, and if YOU people can't see the risk, then I do a service
by pointing out the risks and drawbacks of buying Apple
stock.



> Also, as I pointed out once before: if it came down to making an
> investment decision based on the word of Scott, an Apple developer, or
> you, a guy who can't bring himself to turn on the Mac in his office, then
> the choice is obvious.

For the average Apple advocate, I suppose it wouldn't matter
what I say and your choice is obvious.



> > Since he thinks he knows everything, he has no need to ask.
>
> Okay ... let's test *your* knowledge.
>
> You have a PowerBook 3400c sitting on your desk. You have an iMac sitting
> next to it. Both systems are powered up and ready to go. How can you
> transfer your files from your PowerBook to the iMac? (You've also left
> your PowerBook's floppy drive at home.)

Macs come equipped and ready to go with Apple's proprietary
network, and have for years. It's just a cable with a funny
connector on end. Plug it in and set up one to be a service
and there you go.

I actually find your post to be rather insulting and off topic.



> > > Interesting that the folks who said the iMac would fail got hit today with
> > > the headlines about the iMac being the #1 seller this month ... despite
> > > only having been around for *half* a month ......
> >
> > Define "fail".
>
> In this instance, I wasn't discussing your predictions; rather those of
> the folks in the press who moaned about there being no floppy, etc., etc.
> Some of these people said Apple would be unable to move the iMac at all
> ... and, in this instance, "Fail" is defined as 'a dud'. A 'non-seller'. A
> serious 'don't wanter'.

You flame me because of something the press said?

I think I questioned the wisdom of the low margin iMac overlapping
the market of the high margin G3. I questioned new customer acceptance
of the iMac.

But I don't think I said it wouldn't sell. G3 sales were impressive,
but lots of Mac users were waiting for a cheaper alternative to the
G3 since the clones were killed.


> > My concerns about the iMac are that it's a low margin product and competes
> > with the G3s.
>
> Unfortunately, the folks at Market Intelligence don't seem to agree with
> you. The G3's are selling quite well, thank you. Here's a URL which
> defends my position:
>
> http://www.ci.infobeads.com/InfoBeads/Pages/Main/Main.asp?module=insider&topic=Consumer_Market&story=iMac_0916
>
> Now, I've shown you mine. Show me yours.

Yours doesn't work. It dumps you at a page that asks for your
password. Very funny.



> > Most of the iMac sales are people with older Macs seeking to upgrade - these
> > people would have eventually have bought a G3.
>
> Really? Check out the picture --
>
> http://www.jollyroj.com
>
> -- and see what a Mac-user discovered on his neighbors' curb one morning. :o)

Wow. Two empty iMac boxes found by some extremist Apple Advocate.

/*Sarcasm Mode On */
Well, >I< certainly am willing to bet the farm on Apple now that
I know that!
/*Sarcasm Mode off*/

This is exactly the kind of worthless stuff that I stopped
responding to. How long did it take to find that one?

> > But even Apple knows that once this Mac advocate market segment is saturated,
> > sales are going to be greatly reduced.
>
> Steve Jobs promised "a suprise every 90 days" when he "took" the job as
> kinda-sorta CEO ... look for an iMac with a bigger monitor coming Real
> Soon Now ... probably around Christmas time.

So?



> > It's also too danged expensive.
>
> So wait until Christmas. The iMac should drop to $999. Besides ... the
> iMac isn't for you; you are not a first-time computer buyer.

I was told that I underestimated the iMac appeal to first time
computer buyers. Maybe so. I seem to recall that the majority
of buyers own older Macs. The iMac is the first non clone
upgrade option anywhere near a reasonable price in a long time.


> Did you hear about the Compaq rep that bought an iMac so his techs could
> take it apart and study it? They apparently had concerns about heat, the
> translucent casing ("Where are the support ribs?"), etc. ... and wanted to
> see how Apple solved these problems ... without losing money on each
> machine.

Motorola chips don't run as hot as Intel chips. They're looking
in the wrong place to solve their problems, and this is totally
irrelevant and why did you bring it up.



> > > .... and don't get me started on those companies that make "iPCs" all of
> > > the sudden.
> > >
> > > > What really frightens me is that people like you are also
> > > > allowed to vote. But it doesn't frighten me too much, because you
> > > > don't get to vote in my country!!!
> > >
> > > I was going to make a comment about reproduction here, but I'll spare
> you ....
> >
> > Hum. I didn't see any content in your message about the prospects of
> > Apple stock. Insults, some lies, but nothing about stocks. Have a nice day.
>
> Thanks. Since I was responding to someone else's post that also neglected
> to have any such content, of course there wasn't anything like that in
> there.

So, why the insult then?

> But, if you insist ... Apple is going up. Quarterly results are due
> out next month, all indications are it will be in the $70 million dollar
> range again.

I wouldn't be surprised. And how was this inconsistent with
what I said? I think Apple stock will at least go to 50.
I once overestimated the Apple investor and thought that
he wouldn't be fooled by fiddling with the numbers. I'm not
going to overestimate the Apple investor again. Another good
quarter of profits will send Apple stock up, regardless of
what Apple cuts within the company to get that profit.

[snip]

> > P.S. without me, you Apple advocates would have very, very short and
> > repetitious threads. Lets face it, you love me because I give
> > you a devil's advocate on which to further argue for your nearly
> > extinct religion.
>
> I think you meant to say "Ancient weapons and hokey religions are no match
> for a good blaster at your side." Sure sounds like it.

Oh, goody. Now we're quoting star wars.

Scott

unread,
Sep 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/22/98