If Apple went down the tubes
Strattosphere
users to want an upgrade but there wouldn't be one would there?
What would PC users (like myself) do if Microsoft ceased trading? I wouldn't
really care. If someone else didn't start releasing music software for
another PC platform I'd just switch to the Mac and use the same software I
use now. How many Mac users would say they'd switch to the PC if they had
to?
flip
"Strattosphere" <tall...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Almost 100%.
What do you expect people to do? Go back to pencil and paper?
Heywood Mogroot
> What would Mac users do if Apple ceased trading? It would take a while for
> users to want an upgrade but there wouldn't be one would there?
Obviously holding onto a dead platform like BeOS, OS/2, and the Amiga
is counter-productive.
> What would PC users (like myself) do if Microsoft ceased trading? I wouldn't
> really care. If someone else didn't start releasing music software for
> another PC platform I'd just switch to the Mac and use the same software I
> use now. How many Mac users would say they'd switch to the PC if they had
> to?
Most Mac people on this group already have PC's too; I've most likely
got a "better" PC than you.
This "switch" campaign was stupid for Apple. It's possible for a
Wintel person to buy an Mac and not have to switch over completely.
=Heywood=
C Lund
"Strattosphere" <tall...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If Apple closed it's doors tomorrow, I'd hang on to my current mac as
long as possible, and then I'd switch to Linux or some similar system
(maybe Red Flag Linux just to piss off faux). I would certainly *not*
switch to Windows. I'll stop using computers all together before I use
Windows (for a home computer).
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Chrisr
Even if Apple went out of business, which in itself is unlikely in the
near (say 1-5 years) future, some company would pick up the Mac-OS. I
would say, that you are probably looking at at least a 10 year time
frame before no updates or new hardware specs or x86 compatability and
during that time, personal computers are going to change drastically.
I am guessing that something is going to be done about the MS
monopoly. If say through a magical wish of bill gates Apple suddenly
poofed out of thin air, much like an icon being removed from the dock,
people would begin to discover other alternitives. For one, there is
Linux which is much more mature in it's current state than it was a
few years ago. Linux comes with good software for just about any
standard computing task. I was very impressed with the latest Yellow
dog and Redhat distributions. There is software for everything right
out of the box. Then there is the Amiga, which is making a comeback
of sorts with an all new G3-G4 specifications and a new OS, neither of
which is vaporware (check www.softhut.com ). Last, but not least,
someone would step in to fill the gap left by Apple in a post apple
world.
Chris
If life seems jolly rotten
There's something you've forgotten,
and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!
Chrisr
wrote:
>"Strattosphere" <tall...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f166f47$0$15039$ed9e...@reading.news.pipex.net>...
>> What would Mac users do if Apple ceased trading? It would take a while for
>> users to want an upgrade but there wouldn't be one would there?
>
>Obviously holding onto a dead platform like BeOS, OS/2, and the Amiga
>is counter-productive.
I think the Amiga one has a chance of succeding as a small niche
market (say 1/3 to 1/2 that of Apple), especially overseas where the
original enjoyed much more success than here in the states
>
>> What would PC users (like myself) do if Microsoft ceased trading? I wouldn't
>> really care. If someone else didn't start releasing music software for
>> another PC platform I'd just switch to the Mac and use the same software I
>> use now. How many Mac users would say they'd switch to the PC if they had
>> to?
>
>Most Mac people on this group already have PC's too; I've most likely
>got a "better" PC than you.
>
>This "switch" campaign was stupid for Apple. It's possible for a
>Wintel person to buy an Mac and not have to switch over completely.
>
>=Heywood=
I don't think most people want a mac and a pc. Many cannot even
afford to do so. I do, and have both. My main computer is a PC (win
2k), but my emac is coming on strong. And now that I've gotten used
to it, mt-newswatcher is better than Agent. I just really wish that
Apple would fix usability problems with OS X, like the finder that
doesn't respect the dock. Plus quite a few others. Whats worse, is
that you have to pay for each update.
Seeker1
> Most Mac people on this group already have PC's too; I've most likely
> got a "better" PC than you.
>
> This "switch" campaign was stupid for Apple. It's possible for a
> Wintel person to buy an Mac and not have to switch over completely.
>
> =Heywood=
I agree. Considering the growing number of 2+ computer households in
this country, a more logical campaign might have been "Get a Mac to use
along with your PC!" For most people, it might not be so much a "switch"
as adding something new to the mix. They really didn't want people so
much to "switch" as to "try". But maybe the "Try" campaign just didn't
work, slogan-wise. ;-P
BTW, I bet a large number of so-called "switchers" are really what I
call "switchbacks". They used Macs in the early to mid-90s, stopped
using them, and are now coming back again.
I may be a Mac advocate, but if you have the space and the means, having
both types of machines in your house could offer a great deal of
advantages. You have a box where you can run the most bleeding-edge
Linux (I agree PPC Linux lags in some areas). You can run some Windows
stuff without needing to resort to VPC. And you can get all the latest
games, right when they come out, even if they're not made by Blizzard.
Right now I don't - but I might go your route at some point.
Andrew J. Brehm
> > Most Mac people on this group already have PC's too; I've most likely
> > got a "better" PC than you.
> >
> > This "switch" campaign was stupid for Apple. It's possible for a
> > Wintel person to buy an Mac and not have to switch over completely.
> >
> > =Heywood=
>
> I agree. Considering the growing number of 2+ computer households in
> this country, a more logical campaign might have been "Get a Mac to use
> along with your PC!" For most people, it might not be so much a "switch"
> as adding something new to the mix. They really didn't want people so
> much to "switch" as to "try". But maybe the "Try" campaign just didn't
> work, slogan-wise. ;-P
>
How would that have been "more logical"?
Apple needs market presence. Apple don't invest into Mac software if
Apple implies that they should have a PC too. What we need is people who
use Macs _instead_ of a Windows PC.
The binary strategy has already failed for OS/2 and BeOS. The new
AmigaOS doesn't even try it that way.
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
Seeker1
> How would that have been "more logical"?
>
> Apple needs market presence. Apple don't invest into Mac software if
> Apple implies that they should have a PC too. What we need is people who
> use Macs _instead_ of a Windows PC.
>
> The binary strategy has already failed for OS/2 and BeOS. The new
> AmigaOS doesn't even try it that way.
If they were not concerned with co-existence, Andrew, they would not
have put all the features into OS X that they did which enabled it. The
reality is, Macs are now more Windows co-compatible than ever. That
suggests to me that while they're saying "Switch", they're actually
promoting "Coexist".
StormDrain
Seeker1 <see...@mac.com> wrote:
Apple's just making it easier for the few companies that still use
windows to include Mac's in their migration toward stable, secure
systems.
SD
George Graves
"Strattosphere" <tall...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What would Mac users do if Apple ceased trading? It would take a while for
> users to want an upgrade but there wouldn't be one would there?
When I could no longer get the work I need done on my Mac, I'd just walk
away from computers altogether.
--
George Graves
Andrew J. Brehm
> > How would that have been "more logical"?
> >
> > Apple needs market presence. Apple don't invest into Mac software if
> > Apple implies that they should have a PC too. What we need is people who
> > use Macs _instead_ of a Windows PC.
> >
> > The binary strategy has already failed for OS/2 and BeOS. The new
> > AmigaOS doesn't even try it that way.
>
> If they were not concerned with co-existence, Andrew, they would not have
> put all the features into OS X that they did which enabled it.
I don't see how any of the features in OS X exist specifically for users
of both Macs and Windows.
> The reality is, Macs are now more Windows co-compatible than ever.
Which has nothing to do with our argument.
> That suggests to me that while they're saying "Switch", they're actually
> promoting "Coexist".
But you are talking about two different meanings of "coexist".
There is "coexist" as in "some people use Macs, others use Windows" and
"coexist" as in "one person uses both".
Features like Samba are needed for the first meaning. The second is not
specifically supported.
flip
and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> Seeker1 <see...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > How would that have been "more logical"?
> > >
> > > Apple needs market presence. Apple don't invest into Mac software if
> > > Apple implies that they should have a PC too. What we need is people who
> > > use Macs _instead_ of a Windows PC.
> > >
> > > The binary strategy has already failed for OS/2 and BeOS. The new
> > > AmigaOS doesn't even try it that way.
> >
> > If they were not concerned with co-existence, Andrew, they would not have
> > put all the features into OS X that they did which enabled it.
>
> I don't see how any of the features in OS X exist specifically for users
> of both Macs and Windows.
Ability to connect directly with SAMBA servers?
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <1fyajws.51lihiu4a9u0N%and...@netneurotic.de>,
> and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
>
> > Seeker1 <see...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > How would that have been "more logical"?
> > > >
> > > > Apple needs market presence. Apple don't invest into Mac software if
> > > > Apple implies that they should have a PC too. What we need is people who
> > > > use Macs _instead_ of a Windows PC.
> > > >
> > > > The binary strategy has already failed for OS/2 and BeOS. The new
> > > > AmigaOS doesn't even try it that way.
> > >
> > > If they were not concerned with co-existence, Andrew, they would not have
> > > put all the features into OS X that they did which enabled it.
> >
> > I don't see how any of the features in OS X exist specifically for users
> > of both Macs and Windows.
>
> Ability to connect directly with SAMBA servers?
Read the last three paragraphs of my posting.
> >
> > > The reality is, Macs are now more Windows co-compatible than ever.
> >
> > Which has nothing to do with our argument.
> >
> > > That suggests to me that while they're saying "Switch", they're actually
> > > promoting "Coexist".
> >
> > But you are talking about two different meanings of "coexist".
> >
> > There is "coexist" as in "some people use Macs, others use Windows" and
> > "coexist" as in "one person uses both".
> >
> > Features like Samba are needed for the first meaning. The second is not
> > specifically supported.
Seeker1
> I don't see how any of the features in OS X exist specifically for users
> of both Macs and Windows.
1. It used to be that to network Macs and Wintel PCs together, you
needed DAVE and/or PC MACLAN. Now, most of that functionality is in
Jaguar.
2. Macs now handle the three-letter file extensions of Windows files
properly (which was a consistent problem in OS 9).
2a. In point of fact, I have heard Apple techs tell me that one of the
reasons they began removing binary forks and type/creator codes from the
filesystem was to increase Windows compatibility.
3. I would concede that the ability to read/write Windows/FAT32 disks
was already in OS 9, so it's not a new OS X feature. It's gotten better,
though. You may notice the default CD burn format is now ISO-9660
Hybrid, NOT HFS+...
4. Macs are noe better able to access printers and other devices
attached to Wintel machines.
> > The reality is, Macs are now more Windows co-compatible than ever.
>
> Which has nothing to do with our argument.
It shows Apple recognizing that until they have 100% of the market - and
I can't even believe the most zealous think that's possible - they're
going to have to market, even if quietly, the fact that their machines
work with the other 90%, because even people wanting to switch over
completely may still have to do it one machine at a time.
> But you are talking about two different meanings of "coexist".
>
> There is "coexist" as in "some people use Macs, others use Windows" and
> "coexist" as in "one person uses both".
>
> Features like Samba are needed for the first meaning. The second is not
> specifically supported.
I believe some of the features I mentioned above make it easy for
families who have both Windows and Mac computers to use them in
conjunction with each other. That may not be precisely what Apple is
saying in the "Switch" ads. But, if you read the "Switch" page, that is
what they discuss.
Andrew J. Brehm
> > I don't see how any of the features in OS X exist specifically for users
> > of both Macs and Windows.
>
> 1. It used to be that to network Macs and Wintel PCs together, you
> needed DAVE and/or PC MACLAN. Now, most of that functionality is in
> Jaguar.
And?
That is clearly a feature needed for hetereogenous networks rather than
for a single user using both platforms.
> 2. Macs now handle the three-letter file extensions of Windows files
> properly (which was a consistent problem in OS 9).
That is simply a feature to make the Mac OS more compatible to
everything. I don't see what it has specifically to do with individual
users of two platforms.
> 2a. In point of fact, I have heard Apple techs tell me that one of the
> reasons they began removing binary forks and type/creator codes from the
> filesystem was to increase Windows compatibility.
No doubt. But I don't see why this is a feature specific to users of
both platforms. I think it is rather for data exchange between different
users of different platforms.
> 3. I would concede that the ability to read/write Windows/FAT32 disks
> was already in OS 9, so it's not a new OS X feature. It's gotten better,
> though. You may notice the default CD burn format is now ISO-9660
> Hybrid, NOT HFS+...
I'm not sure you understood my point correctly. Perhaps I wasn't clear
enough.
I do not doubt that Mac OS X offers a lot of Windows compatibility. What
I do doubt is that any of that was introduced specifically to support
users that do not _switch_ from Windows to Mac OS X but use both
platforms at the same time.
> 4. Macs are now better able to access printers and other devices
> attached to Wintel machines.
Which is something that a single user with two computers might not worry
about at all. When I used one printer for an OS/2 box and a Mac OS box I
simply used the printer's parallel port for the OS/2 box and the
printer's serial port for the Mac OS box. I wouldn't have switched on
both computers just to be able to print from the Mac to a printer
connected only to the other computer.
This is very clearly a feature that guarantees interoperatibility in
Mac/Windows networks and doesn't have much to do with users of both
platforms.
> > > The reality is, Macs are now more Windows co-compatible than ever.
> >
> > Which has nothing to do with our argument.
>
> It shows Apple recognizing that until they have 100% of the market - and I
> can't even believe the most zealous think that's possible - they're going
> to have to market, even if quietly, the fact that their machines work with
> the other 90%, because even people wanting to switch over completely may
> still have to do it one machine at a time.
I think it shows Apple recognizing that in order for people to switch
from A to B, B must offer some of the features of A.
I don't see how any of that would have been introduced specifically for
dual-platform users.
> > But you are talking about two different meanings of "coexist".
> >
> > There is "coexist" as in "some people use Macs, others use Windows" and
> > "coexist" as in "one person uses both".
> >
> > Features like Samba are needed for the first meaning. The second is not
> > specifically supported.
>
> I believe some of the features I mentioned above make it easy for families
> who have both Windows and Mac computers to use them in conjunction with
> each other.
But now you have changed your position. You have apparently started with
"one user, both platforms" and now arrived at "several users, both
platforms", which is the "some people use Macs, others use Windows"
meaning, which I have argued was the reason for Mac OS X's Windows
compatibility features.
> That may not be precisely what Apple is saying in the "Switch" ads. But,
> if you read the "Switch" page, that is what they discuss.
When too many of the new Mac users discover that Mac OS X and Windows
interoperate well, they will use that to their advantage and use both
Windows and Mac boxen.
When software vendors figure out that a large number of Mac users also
have easy and constant access to Windows, they will calculate that
developing only a Windows version of their product will be more
efficient than developing both a Windows and a Mac version.
Thus, less software for the Mac.
Thus, better arguments against using a Mac.
Finally, no switchers.
This is what killed OS/2 and BeOS and I cannot see Apple making the same
mistake.
a) Being compatible with Windows regarding networking etc. is a plus for
switchers and the Macintosh market.
b) Making it easy for switchers to become dual-platform users rather
than real switchers is a plus only for the switchers but not for the
Macintosh market.
And none of the features you describe are better tailored to b) than to
a). So apparently Apple know.
Apple has so far been protected from Windows because Mac OS runs on
different hardware. This always meant that Mac users had no easy access
to Windows and software vendors had to take that into account, thus
creating Mac OS versions of their software. This is also why even
Microsoft develops Mac software. They know Apple is not a danger for
their own market share (since they cannot easily do what IBM did with
OS/2) but they want some control over the platform. Thus Microsoft
creates good software for the Mac in order to be present.
OS/2 made that mistake with regard to Windows. And BeOS made that
mistake with regard to Windows and Mac OS.
We can complain about the evils of Microsoft all day long but it doesn't
change the fact that an individual user makes his own individual
decision for an operating system based on application availability.
ISVs didn't develop for OS/2 but for Windows for three reasons:
1. More people used Windows.
2. OS/2 users could easily boot Windows.
3. OS/2 was even Windows compatible at first.
This means than an ISV who made Windows software got customers from
among the Windows users and the OS/2 users. If OS/2 didn't upport
Windows 3.1 programs, ISVs would have had to create OS/2 versions of
their applications in order to profit from the OS/2 user base.
And ISVs didn't develop for BeOS but for Windows or Mac OS for two
reasons:
1. More people used Windows and Mac OS.
2. BeOS users could easily reboot into Windows or Mac OS.
Same logic. And that was it for BeOS.
I sure hope Apple don't make the same mistake.
I would consider these the golden rules:
Replace Windows features but DO NOT make it easier for users to use
Windows and your own platform. (Windows' ability to connect to SMB
servers and to be an SMB server is a Windows feature that must be
replaced by one that does EXACTLY THE SAME.) (This one got BeOS.)
Make it possible to open documents created on Windows but DO NOT try and
make your platform run Windows programs. (Microsoft Office X has solved
this problem for the most part. It also makes sure that Microsoft have
some control over Apple, which is very probably why Microsoft still
support Mac OS X and will do so in the future.) (This one got OS/2.)
DO NOT attempt to make Windows obselete. (Otherwise Microsoft will
attack you with all their might.) (This one got Netscape.)
Steve Jobs seems to know these three rules well.
Mac users can connect to Windows servers but it is easier to connect to
Mac servers. Mac users can open Windows documents but cannot (easily and
efficiently) run Windows programs (Virtual PC is no danger). Mac OS X
does not attempt to make Windows obselete but is always advertised as an
alternative that is better for some people but does not attempt to
replace Windows.
You know what I would write on OS/2's and BeOS' tombstone?
"OS/2. A better Windows than Windows."
"BeOS. A specialty OS to run alongside a general purpose OS."
This not only summarizes their histories but also the cause of their
death. (Or, in OS/2's case, the coming of the undead.)
Flip
It isn't? You mean that a person who uses both Macs and Windows can't
use Samba?
foo
>4. Macs are noe better able to access printers and other devices
>attached to Wintel machines.
Hmm...interesting. Without going thru LPR, and assuming a
non-postscript printer, and without installing internal redirection
software and/or Ghostscript, how would you do this?
Seeker1
>
> That is clearly a feature needed for hetereogenous networks rather than
> for a single user using both platforms.
But now you're mis-stating *my* position: I recognize many computer
geeks live alone.
However, many live in families where the *family unit* has more than 1
computer.
My point was, many may, say, own 3 PC's, and then decide to replace ONE
machine with a Mac - not all of them. So they're not so much "switching"
as "adding to the mix".
You do know about the growing trend in home networking, right?
My point was, although the "Switch" campaign seems to suggest to users
to replace *all* their Winboxen with Macboxen, the actual "Switch" site
recognizes that many won't, and tells them how to incorporate the new
"member of the family" into the existing heterogenous mix.
> > 2a. In point of fact, I have heard Apple techs tell me that one of the
> > reasons they began removing binary forks and type/creator codes from the
> > filesystem was to increase Windows compatibility.
>
> No doubt. But I don't see why this is a feature specific to users of
> both platforms. I think it is rather for data exchange between different
> users of different platforms.
And this is a feature that could, also, enable a person to use both
machines, or a family to use both types of machines, or a single person
to use one type of machine at work, and one type of machine at home, or
even vice versa. That's my point.
There's certainly nothing that means it only has to enable one type of
scenario (Mac user in work environment on heterogenous network).
> But now you have changed your position. You have apparently started with
> "one user, both platforms" and now arrived at "several users, both
> platforms",
I don't see anything in the "Switch" campaign in which it was suggested
that the audience was only single people, living alone. Although each
commercial features one person, I notice most of them lived in families.
In most families I know, family members often have their own computer,
but don't forbid other family members from using it.
So: husband has Mac. Wife has Wintel PC. Junior has Wintel PC. Husband
may still want to send things to wife and junior, or even from time to
time use wifey's or junior's machine. Or vice versa. So: one user, using
two platforms.
> When software vendors figure out that a large number of Mac users also
> have easy and constant access to Windows, they will calculate that
> developing only a Windows version of their product will be more
> efficient than developing both a Windows and a Mac version.
I know, I know - I've seen this argument from you before. My only point
is, many of the people Apple thinks are "Switchers" (as in, we have 3
PC's, and replaced them with 3 Macs) are really "Adders/Tryers" (as in,
we have 3 PC's, and now added a 4th Mac)... they know it. Maybe you're
right they can't say it too publicly, lest your disaster scenario
emerge; I just say they're recognizing this *fact*, quietly.
> This is what killed OS/2 and BeOS and I cannot see Apple making the same
> mistake.
I know and I agree with at least one of your points - even if completely
perfect and transparent Windows application running suddenly became
possible on the Mac platform, Apple shouldn't embrace it.
> b) Making it easy for switchers to become dual-platform users rather
> than real switchers is a plus only for the switchers but not for the
> Macintosh market.
Whether or not that's the case, I incidentally don't think it's a good
argument for CRIPPLING Mac-Windows interoperability. Plus, Apple must
know that even if they decide to keep it hard, somebody like DAVE will
step in to try and make it easy. The demand for interoperability will be
out there, and somebody will provide it if the ISV's don't.
Seeker1
> >attached to Wintel machines.
>
> Hmm...interesting. Without going thru LPR, and assuming a
> non-postscript printer, and without installing internal redirection
> software and/or Ghostscript, how would you do this?
>
>
foo
Seeker1
foo <f...@bar.com> wrote:
I always answer most questions like that with a question.
Why's it important to you not to go through LPR?
foo
Please detail how to go through LPR for a non-postscript printer.
Here's one way:
http://iharder.sourceforge.net/macosx/winmacprinter/#step2
It's an amazing PITA to get a simple printer to work, but it will
work. Got any better ideas?
Ari Ukkonen
imout...@mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:
I have virtually switched over completely. I only have a PC for some old
games I already bought and as a TV. When I get my G5, my PC is going to
a local Goodwill.
Maybe they should try "Think Greedy" "Have both". :)
> =Heywood=
--
Ari Ukkonen
Ari Ukkonen
"Strattosphere" <tall...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What would Mac users do if Apple ceased trading? It would take a while for
> users to want an upgrade but there wouldn't be one would there?
I would use my Mac as long as I could and maybe think about getting out
of computers all together 'cause it would become too boring without
Apple to give MS ideas to steal. :)
--
Ari Ukkonen
Andrew J. Brehm
> > > > But you are talking about two different meanings of "coexist".
> > > >
> > > > There is "coexist" as in "some people use Macs, others use Windows" and
> > > > "coexist" as in "one person uses both".
> > > >
> > > > Features like Samba are needed for the first meaning. The second is not
> > > > specifically supported.
>
>
> It isn't? You mean that a person who uses both Macs and Windows can't
> use Samba?
I am curious.
Imagine two cities A and B, with a little village named C in between,
very close to A.
Imagine a railroad is built to connect A and B, going through C.
Imagine three stops are built, one in A, one in B, and one in C.
Imagine the trains stop at C on their way to A or B.
Imagine somebody said the railraod was built because a connection
between A and B was needed and that the connection to C was not the
specific goal of the railroad company.
Would you now ask whether this person had claimed that people living in
C could not use the train?
Sandman
Seeker1 <see...@mac.com> wrote:
> > I don't see how any of the features in OS X exist specifically for users
> > of both Macs and Windows.
>
> 1. It used to be that to network Macs and Wintel PCs together, you
> needed DAVE and/or PC MACLAN. Now, most of that functionality is in
> Jaguar.
This is primarly for macs to coexist in Windows networks, not for users that
have both Macs and Windows PCs.
I have macs and pcs at home, bu I would never urn on file sharing on my windows
boxes, I use sftp for my file transfers, which ironically means I have to add
sofware to the PC.
> 2. Macs now handle the three-letter file extensions of Windows files
> properly (which was a consistent problem in OS 9).
OSX 'handles' those exacly like OS9 did. You need to tell OSX what application
the extension should be mapped to, just like in OS9, but with a different
interface. The only difference between 9 and X in this regard is that X is
itself starting to use extensions for what 9 uses type/creators. dot3 has
become a 'standard' in many ways, not only limited to Windows. Macs are now
also using that standard.
> 2a. In point of fact, I have heard Apple techs tell me that one of the
> reasons they began removing binary forks and type/creator codes from the
> filesystem was to increase Windows compatibility.
Compaibility, not co-existance. Lots of iles on the net are .txt, .jpg and .doc
- OS9 needed to be told what apps they belonged to, but OSX has a default set
and apps can register their preference aswell.
> 3. I would concede that the ability to read/write Windows/FAT32 disks
> was already in OS 9, so it's not a new OS X feature. It's gotten better,
> though. You may notice the default CD burn format is now ISO-9660
> Hybrid, NOT HFS+...
Which I put down as a nod to standards, not Windows.
> 4. Macs are noe better able to access printers and other devices
> attached to Wintel machines.
(which is an effect of samba)
> > > The reality is, Macs are now more Windows co-compatible than ever.
> >
> > Which has nothing to do with our argument.
>
> It shows Apple recognizing that until they have 100% of the market - and
> I can't even believe the most zealous think that's possible - they're
> going to have to market, even if quietly, the fact that their machines
> work with the other 90%, because even people wanting to switch over
> completely may still have to do it one machine at a time.
IIf you ever were around a switcher, I hink you'd notice that their problems
rarely deal with "How is my nw Mac going to work together with my old PC?" but
rather "How will my new mac apps work together with the files of my old PC
apps?" and "Where are all the games?" <g>
People switching to macs generally just want to move all their files, such as
music, bookmarks, emails and such to the mac. And the easiest way to do that is
via CD burning.
> > But you are talking about two different meanings of "coexist".
> >
> > There is "coexist" as in "some people use Macs, others use Windows" and
> > "coexist" as in "one person uses both".
> >
> > Features like Samba are needed for the first meaning. The second is not
> > specifically supported.
>
> I believe some of the features I mentioned above make it easy for
> families who have both Windows and Mac computers to use them in
> conjunction with each other. That may not be precisely what Apple is
> saying in the "Switch" ads. But, if you read the "Switch" page, that is
> what they discuss.
Ironically, their "How to switch" guide doesn't talk about networking your Mac
with your PC in order to switch, they advocate burning CDs or using iDisk. :P
--
Sandman[.net]
flip
and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
I see you trimmed out the entire context.
Someone claimed that Apple wasn't making it easier to coexist with
Windows and was concentrating on getting people to switch.
You asked for examples of where they were making it easier to coexist.
They added Samba support. That makes it easier to coexist.
Seeker1
> > needed DAVE and/or PC MACLAN. Now, most of that functionality is in
> > Jaguar.
>
> This is primarly for macs to coexist in Windows networks, not for users that
> have both Macs and Windows PCs.
Sandman, I know many families that have a mix of Macs and Wintels in
their homes. Ergo, this feature is for Macs to coexist in Windows HOME
networks as well. This feature makes their life easier - and Apple knows
that, even if it doesn't trumpet it.
Grok what I'm saying: if you make Macs and Wintels as
non-cross-compatible as possible, then families who own multiple Wintel
PC's are given a stark choice. Either "switch" all machines at once -
which few can afford to do - or don't get a Mac at all. OTOH, if you
make the machines cross-compatible, then the family can comfortably
replace one at a time. So, even if their goal is to "switch" completely,
they can start out by "adding".
You and Andrew don't get my point, which is that many families ARE doing
this, Apple knows it, and whether or not this in the official campaign,
they want to make it possible.
> IIf you ever were around a switcher, I hink you'd notice that their problems
> rarely deal with "How is my nw Mac going to work together with my old PC?"
> but rather "How will my new mac apps work together with the files of my old PC
> apps?" and "Where are all the games?" <g>
I've been around them. I know some. And some of the "switchers" I know
are actually "tryers" or "adders" adding Macs to a mix of Wintels, one
at a time. They might not have done this before, when it was much harder
for Wintels and Macs to mix freely. Meaning, they never would have
bought a Mac at all. Apple would have lost their sale. Grok this point.
Please.
> People switching to macs generally just want to move all their files, such as
> music, bookmarks, emails and such to the mac. And the easiest way to do that
> is via CD burning.
If you want to move 650MB at a time, sure. But that's not my point.
> Ironically, their "How to switch" guide doesn't talk about networking your
> Mac with your PC in order to switch, they advocate burning CDs or using iDisk. :P
http://www.apple.com/switch/questions/
>6. Can I run a Mac on a PC network?
>
> Macs have been doing this for years, connecting to PC networks via modem,
> Ethernet and (more recently) industry-standard 802.11b-based AirPort wireless
> networking. The only difference is that now it零 a lot faster and easier with
> Mac OS X. UNIX-based and built with the networking technologies that do the
> heavy lifting on the Internet, Mac OS X lets you connect to PC networks and
> share files and printers with Windows-based PCs on those networks.
> Learn how to connect to a PC network .
Waitasecond: the "Switch" guide is written for consumers/families.
According to you and Andrew, nobody uses Macs on Windows networks in
such situations. So who is this written for?
Ohmigosh, they even tell you how to do it... they even direct people to
MacWindows.com to find out more information.
Proving my point.
Incidentally, there is also a most definite affirmative answer to the
question "Can I use a 2-button mouse" on this page. Meaning, they must
recognize some "switchers/adders" might want to use one.
Sandman
Seeker1 <see...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > 1. It used to be that to network Macs and Wintel PCs together, you
> > > needed DAVE and/or PC MACLAN. Now, most of that functionality is in
> > > Jaguar.
> >
> > This is primarly for macs to coexist in Windows networks, not for users
> > that have both Macs and Windows PCs.
>
> Sandman, I know many families that have a mix of Macs and Wintels in their
> homes. Ergo, this feature is for Macs to coexist in Windows HOME networks as
> well. This feature makes their life easier - and Apple knows that, even if
> it doesn't trumpet it.
Yes, but I think this all began when you said Apple had made efforts towards
the co-existance of Macs for a single user, which means that he or she wouldn't
have switched at all. If one family member buys a Mac and his kid sister gets
his PC, he has effectively switched.
> Grok what I'm saying: if you make Macs and Wintels as non-cross-compatible
> as possible, then families who own multiple Wintel PC's are given a stark
> choice. Either "switch" all machines at once - which few can afford to do -
> or don't get a Mac at all. OTOH, if you make the machines cross-compatible,
> then the family can comfortably replace one at a time. So, even if their
> goal is to "switch" completely, they can start out by "adding".
Let's say a family household consists of the teenagers PC, the kid sisters PC
and the fathers work PC. When you say 'add', are you seeing a scenario where
all these three are being kept? Which one has two computers on his or hers desk
and why? I think it's far more likely for one of the PC being switched for a
Mac, not a Mac added to the mix. There would be no point. Perhaps the kid
sister gets a iMac? Her old PC is being sold to a friend and she has switched.
> You and Andrew don't get my point, which is that many families ARE doing
> this, Apple knows it, and whether or not this in the official campaign, they
> want to make it possible.
We get it, we just don't call it a "non-switch" in the end.
> > IIf you ever were around a switcher, I hink you'd notice that their
> > problems rarely deal with "How is my nw Mac going to work together with my
> > old PC?" but rather "How will my new mac apps work together with the files
> > of my old PC apps?" and "Where are all the games?" <g>
>
> I've been around them. I know some. And some of the "switchers" I know are
> actually "tryers" or "adders" adding Macs to a mix of Wintels, one at a
> time. They might not have done this before, when it was much harder for
> Wintels and Macs to mix freely. Meaning, they never would have bought a Mac
> at all. Apple would have lost their sale. Grok this point. Please.
I have never NOT understood your point. It's crystal clear. But I think the
'adders' are in minority.
> > People switching to macs generally just want to move all their files, such
> > as music, bookmarks, emails and such to the mac. And the easiest way to do
> > that is via CD burning.
>
> If you want to move 650MB at a time, sure. But that's not my point.
>
> > Ironically, their "How to switch" guide doesn't talk about networking your
> > Mac with your PC in order to switch, they advocate burning CDs or using
> > iDisk. :P
>
> http://www.apple.com/switch/questions/
Eh? That's a FAQ about Macs and PCs, not how to switch.
http://www.apple.com/switch/howto/
"This guide assumes that you have a PC running Windows 95 or later with a drive
that can burn CDs. If you have an external USB or FireWire hard disk, that
will work, too. Another convenient solution is iDisk "
> Waitasecond: the "Switch" guide is written for consumers/families. According
> to you and Andrew, nobody uses Macs on Windows networks in such situations.
> So who is this written for?
It seems you are not groking OUR point. PLENTY of people are runnign Macs and
Windows in their homes, but it's FAR more likely to be between two different
person with a Mac and PC respectively than between a Mac and a PC owned by one
person. In tthe former, there is a switcher (or a original mac user) and in the
latter is your case.
> Ohmigosh, they even tell you how to do it... they even direct people to
> MacWindows.com to find out more information.
>
> Proving my point.
>
> Incidentally, there is also a most definite affirmative answer to the
> question "Can I use a 2-button mouse" on this page. Meaning, they must
> recognize some "switchers/adders" might want to use one.
Of course they might.
--
Sandman[.net]
Andrew J. Brehm
Because my experiment above doesn't require a context.
> Someone claimed that Apple wasn't making it easier to coexist with
> Windows and was concentrating on getting people to switch.
No. Someone (me, actually), claimed that Apple _was_ making it easier
for Macs to coexist with Windows boxen but was _not_ concetrating on
making people live with two computers rather than switch from one to the
other.
> You asked for examples of where they were making it easier to coexist.
No. I asked for examples of where they were making it easier for people
to use both systems but NOT for Macs and Windows boxen to generally
coexist.
> They added Samba support. That makes it easier to coexist.
Yes. That supports my position.
Let me summarize the two positions:
Mine: making Macs and Windows coexist, make people switch from Windows
to Macs.
The other: making it easy for people to use both platforms rather than
switch.
The question is whether Apple tries to get people to actually _switch_
(what I think they are and should be doing) or whether Apple
specifically supports people who use both platforms at the same time
(where I think that all the support that exists is merely a side-effect
of supporting the general coexistance between the systems).
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <seeker1-68D2A0...@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
> Seeker1 <see...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't see how any of the features in OS X exist specifically for users
> > > of both Macs and Windows.
> >
> > 1. It used to be that to network Macs and Wintel PCs together, you
> > needed DAVE and/or PC MACLAN. Now, most of that functionality is in
> > Jaguar.
>
> This is primarly for macs to coexist in Windows networks, not for users that
> have both Macs and Windows PCs.
Exactly.
> > I believe some of the features I mentioned above make it easy for
> > families who have both Windows and Mac computers to use them in
> > conjunction with each other. That may not be precisely what Apple is
> > saying in the "Switch" ads. But, if you read the "Switch" page, that is
> > what they discuss.
>
> Ironically, their "How to switch" guide doesn't talk about networking your
> Mac with your PC in order to switch, they advocate burning CDs or using
> iDisk. :P
Yes. This is exactly what made me think that Apple is going for "switch"
rather than "use both".
Woofbert
It's not an either-or question. Apple is doing both things.
Apple supports those who want to switch and abandon their PCs:
Move2Mac is software and a USB cable that lets a PC transfer its files
to a Mac. http://www.apple.com/switch/howto/move2mac/
Apple supports those who want to use Macs on a network with Windows
computers: http://www.apple.com/macosx/jaguar/compatibility.html
--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <1fym8jk.120mvf9ysa8rmN%and...@netneurotic.de>,
> and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
>
> > Let me summarize the two positions:
> >
> > Mine: making Macs and Windows coexist, make people switch from Windows
> > to Macs.
> >
> > The other: making it easy for people to use both platforms rather than
> > switch.
> >
> > The question is whether Apple tries to get people to actually _switch_
> > (what I think they are and should be doing) or whether Apple
> > specifically supports people who use both platforms at the same time
> > (where I think that all the support that exists is merely a side-effect
> > of supporting the general coexistance between the systems).
>
> It's not an either-or question. Apple is doing both things.
I don't think so.
> Apple supports those who want to switch and abandon their PCs:
> Move2Mac is software and a USB cable that lets a PC transfer its files
> to a Mac. http://www.apple.com/switch/howto/move2mac/
Yes.
> Apple supports those who want to use Macs on a network with Windows
> computers: http://www.apple.com/macosx/jaguar/compatibility.html
No doubt. But now you are leaving the argument or rather arguing
something which is not under dispute. Nobody claimed that Apple doesn't
support those who want to use Macs on a network with Windows computers.
In fact, I used that as an argument for my "switch rather than use both"
theory.
What was under dispute was whether Apple want people to switch rather
than use both platforms.
And my position was and is that Apple do want people to switch rather
than use both platforms.
The fact that Macs interact with Windows well fits into that strategy
because it makes a switch easier.
What I don't see Apple doing is doing anything to support those who want
to use both platforms _specifically_.
What I don't see is Apple supporting a "one user both platforms"
scenario rather than "one user one platform".
OS/2 and BeOS went the "one user both platforms" way and disappeared.
Apple has chosen the "one user one platform" way and rightly so.
And _that_ was what the dispute about, not whether Macs can network with
Windows computers or not.
Flip
It also makes it easier for people to use both platforms.
>
> What I don't see Apple doing is doing anything to support those who want
> to use both platforms _specifically_.
No, but SAMBA support makes it easier for people who use both.
>
> What I don't see is Apple supporting a "one user both platforms"
> scenario rather than "one user one platform".
Then why are they supporting so much cross-platform technology? Why
bother with Quicktime for Windows?
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <1fymh2v.xij07d1jnc84aN%and...@netneurotic.de>,
> and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
>
> > What was under dispute was whether Apple want people to switch rather
> > than use both platforms.
> >
> > And my position was and is that Apple do want people to switch rather
> > than use both platforms.
> >
> > The fact that Macs interact with Windows well fits into that strategy
> > because it makes a switch easier.
>
> It also makes it easier for people to use both platforms.
Which was not under dispute.
> >
> > What I don't see Apple doing is doing anything to support those who want
> > to use both platforms _specifically_.
>
> No, but SAMBA support makes it easier for people who use both.
Which was not under dispute.
> >
> > What I don't see is Apple supporting a "one user both platforms"
> > scenario rather than "one user one platform".
>
> Then why are they supporting so much cross-platform technology? Why bother
> with Quicktime for Windows?
They try to make sure that Mac users are not isolated.
flip
and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> Flip <fl...@flippo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1fymh2v.xij07d1jnc84aN%and...@netneurotic.de>,
> > and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> >
> > > What was under dispute was whether Apple want people to switch rather
> > > than use both platforms.
> > >
> > > And my position was and is that Apple do want people to switch rather
> > > than use both platforms.
> > >
> > > The fact that Macs interact with Windows well fits into that strategy
> > > because it makes a switch easier.
> >
> > It also makes it easier for people to use both platforms.
>
> Which was not under dispute.
>
> > >
> > > What I don't see Apple doing is doing anything to support those who want
> > > to use both platforms _specifically_.
> >
> > No, but SAMBA support makes it easier for people who use both.
>
> Which was not under dispute.
>
Then you're taking a silly position.
Of course Apple would rather have people switch outright. But they're
doing everything they can to support _both_ switchers and coexisters.
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <1fyml42.1d99mgwa52kucN%and...@netneurotic.de>,
> and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
>
> > Flip <fl...@flippo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1fymh2v.xij07d1jnc84aN%and...@netneurotic.de>,
> > > and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> > >
> > > > What was under dispute was whether Apple want people to switch rather
> > > > than use both platforms.
> > > >
> > > > And my position was and is that Apple do want people to switch rather
> > > > than use both platforms.
> > > >
> > > > The fact that Macs interact with Windows well fits into that strategy
> > > > because it makes a switch easier.
> > >
> > > It also makes it easier for people to use both platforms.
> >
> > Which was not under dispute.
> >
> > > >
> > > > What I don't see Apple doing is doing anything to support those who want
> > > > to use both platforms _specifically_.
> > >
> > > No, but SAMBA support makes it easier for people who use both.
> >
> > Which was not under dispute.
> >
>
> Then you're taking a silly position.
How?
> Of course Apple would rather have people switch outright. But they're
> doing everything they can to support _both_ switchers and coexisters.
No.
They are doing everything to support switchers.
There is nothing in OS X that specifically supports "coexisters"
(assuming by "coexisters" you mean "users of both platforms" rather than
what I would call "coexisters", namely people who use one platform and
exchange data with users of other platforms).
flip
What could they possibly do that would support coexisters and not
switchers? You're asking them to do something that doesn't even make
sense.
ANYTHING that they could possibly do to support coexisters would _also_
support switchers - so you'll just dismiss it by saying that they
really, truly did it for switchers.
The technologies support both. Apple is well aware that not everyone is
going to switch 100% of their computers to Macs. That implies that
they're supporting coexisters, too.
Let's talk about SAMBA.
If Apple intended this to be targeted at switchers, it's a silly way to
do it. If the person is going to simply copy all their files to the Mac
-one time- and then do all their work on the Mac from then on, why not
just bundle a file copying utility? Why do you need Samba?
Samba is clearly more useful for someone who's going to continue to work
in a mixed environment than for someone who's going to copy their files
and throw away all their PCs.
Sandman
flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > No, but SAMBA support makes it easier for people who use both.
> >
> > Which was not under dispute.
>
> Then you're taking a silly position.
>
> Of course Apple would rather have people switch outright. But they're
> doing everything they can to support _both_ switchers and coexisters.
What Andrew (and me) is trying to say is that there is nothing in Mac OS X that
was specifically put there to address situations where one person (let's call
him Phil) has both a Mac and a Windows box on his desk (which we'll call 'dual
systems' in this post).
Phil will, of course, benefit from the 'coexistance' support in OSX, such as
Samba. When Andrew and I say "coexistance" we mean scenarios where Macs are
used in Windows networks for example.
It's important to remember that this all started when someone said that Apple
is including software with MacOS that promotes "dual systems" rather than
switch/coexist - and we claimed that was wrong. The benefits of a dual system
users are really just effects of OSX coexistance support.
So, there isn't just two scenarios, but rather three:
1. Switchers
Users that switched from Windows to OSX. They benefit from some Windows
compatibility in the way that OSX reads windows CD's, which means they can
easily move their files.
2. Co-existance
One person has switched, but he is sitting in an environment of Windows
computers (at work or at home) - this is the reason for most of OSX
Windows-compatible functions
3. Dual Systems
Users who has both a Mac and a PC at his desk. He or she is benefitted by
everything from the coexistance group, but the coexistance functions weren't
developed for this scenario.
It's quite obvious that Apple isn't moving from 1 and 2 towards 3.
--
Sandman[.net]
flip
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
I would argue that Samba is for people in group #2 or #3 and not
specifically for group #1.
If you're going to throw away your PC, all you need is a file copying
utility (which is already available). Copy your files once and throw it
away.
Putting Samba right into the Finder implies that it's going to be used
more frequently than that.
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <1fynjnr.t414bho5vgyaN%and...@netneurotic.de>,
> and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
>
> > > Of course Apple would rather have people switch outright. But they're
> > > doing everything they can to support _both_ switchers and coexisters.
> >
> > No.
> >
> > They are doing everything to support switchers.
> >
> > There is nothing in OS X that specifically supports "coexisters"
> > (assuming by "coexisters" you mean "users of both platforms" rather than
> > what I would call "coexisters", namely people who use one platform and
> > exchange data with users of other platforms).
>
>
> What could they possibly do that would support coexisters and not
> switchers?
How should I know? Ask those who argue that Apple specifically supports
such people. _My take_ was that Apple doesn't specifically support them.
So why do you ask _me_ about what Apple could do to do what I think they
should not be doing and aren't doing?
> You're asking them to do something that doesn't even make sense.
I realize it is difficult for you to follow an argument, but I'll try to
summarize this once more.
_I_ believe that Apple wants people to switch rather than use two
platforms, and _I_ believe this is the strategy Apple should pursue. It
seems that Sandman also belongs to this faction and agrees with that
idea.
_Others_ believe (as does Seeker1, I think) that Apple should and do
pursue a strategy where people are not so much convinced to switch to a
Mac but rather to add a Mac to their Windows PC and use both platforms.
_I_ believe that this would be the wrong strategy, but only because it
has always failed when other companies tried it. And _I_ do not see a
single trace of evidence that Apple support that type of new Mac user or
that even many of them exist.
So if you want to know what Apple could do to support that type of new
customer, you shouldn't ask me (as I, as I have explained several times,
do _NOT_ believe Apple want to support that type of customer).
You should ask those who believe they see Apple supporting that type of
user specifically.
> ANYTHING that they could possibly do to support coexisters would _also_
> support switchers - so you'll just dismiss it by saying that they really,
> truly did it for switchers.
It's not dismissing. I have already given my reasons for believing that
switchers are a lot better than (what you call "coexisters" and what I
call "binary users") binary users.
Unless you give me a reason to believe that binary users would be an
asset worthy of specific support AND a trace of such specific support, I
am willing to believe that such a strategy exists.
But all you have given me is a lot of evidence that supports both points
of view, which means that I continue to assume that Apple pursue the
strategy that makes sense rather than the one that doesn't.
> The technologies support both. Apple is well aware that not everyone is
> going to switch 100% of their computers to Macs.
How many computers do you believe people use?
> That implies that they're supporting coexisters, too.
No. It implies that you are assuming that it is normal for people to
have more than one computer on their desk. I have yet to see any
evidence that this is generally true.
> Let's talk about SAMBA.
Ok.
> If Apple intended this to be targeted at switchers, it's a silly way to do
> it.
No, it's the very best way of doing it. What switchers need is a
Macintosh that replaces (in the best case) all the features of their
Windows computer with equivalent or better features,
Samba replaces their Windows computer's ability to connect to other
Windows machines and to have other Windows machines connect to their
computer.
> If the person is going to simply copy all their files to the Mac -one
> time- and then do all their work on the Mac from then on, why not just
> bundle a file copying utility? Why do you need Samba?
The question is, why bundle a file copying utility when files only need
to be copied once?
If I am correct and Apple want users to switch rather than use two
platforms at the same time, a file copying utility would be a bad thing.
> Samba is clearly more useful for someone who's going to continue to work
> in a mixed environment than for someone who's going to copy their files
> and throw away all their PCs.
And again I have to ask, how many computers do you think a single person
has on his desk?
Seeker1
> _Others_ believe (as does Seeker1, I think) that Apple should and do
> pursue a strategy where people are not so much convinced to switch to a
> Mac but rather to add a Mac to their Windows PC and use both platforms.
Just to clarify my position:
Although the initial scenario of discussion was one person, two
computers, I actually think the more common scenario will be one family,
several computers, which may be heterogenous Mac-Win.
And that in many cases family members use each other's computers. So Bob
who has a Mac may need to sit on Marge's Win machine to get some work
done, or vice versa. (This is aside from the fact that Bob and Marge
might want to share the Internet, files, or devices.)
That you say this scenario is uncommon is suprising, since from my
limited anecdotal experience, it's common.
The only position I take is that Apple has decided to make Bob and
Marge's life easier in OS X rather than harder, and that that's a good
thing. End of story.
I honestly don't feel we have too much to argue, if you can agree with
that last point.
Andrew J. Brehm
> > _Others_ believe (as does Seeker1, I think) that Apple should and do
> > pursue a strategy where people are not so much convinced to switch to a
> > Mac but rather to add a Mac to their Windows PC and use both platforms.
>
> Just to clarify my position:
>
> Although the initial scenario of discussion was one person, two
> computers, I actually think the more common scenario will be one family,
> several computers, which may be heterogenous Mac-Win.
Such a scenario is a typical network and has nothing to do with the
question of whether a user switches or uses both platforms.
> And that in many cases family members use each other's computers. So Bob
> who has a Mac may need to sit on Marge's Win machine to get some work
> done, or vice versa. (This is aside from the fact that Bob and Marge might
> want to share the Internet, files, or devices.)
I found that families very often switch completely, leaving old
computers behind, or not at all. But that's besides the point.
> That you say this scenario is uncommon is suprising, since from my limited
> anecdotal experience, it's common.
When did I say this scenario was uncommon?
> The only position I take is that Apple has decided to make Bob and Marge's
> life easier in OS X rather than harder, and that that's a good thing. End
> of story.
So what exactly is your position regarding our argument?
Do you believe that
a) Apple should and do try to convince people to _switch_?
or
b) Apple should and do try to convince people to _add_ a Mac to their
existing platform?
If you believe a), we are in agreement, if you believe b), I would be
curious about what made you think b) is true.
> I honestly don't feel we have too much to argue, if you can agree with
> that last point.
I don't know what that last point has to do with the argument. I agree
that Samba etc. make it easier for Mac OS X to co-exist with other
platforms. But that has nothing at all to do with whether Apple want
peope to switch or to add.
Seeker1
> computers behind, or not at all. But that's besides the point.
If they have 3 or more computers, and don't have an unlimited budget,
they tend to replace 1 at a time, usually when it's at or near the end
of its useful lifespan.
From my point of view, if they replace 3 Wintels with Macs, then they
are true "switchers" - they've switched all their computers.
I would suspect it's more common that they replace 1 machine with a Mac
and keep 2 Wintels, then replace all 3 at once. I.e. they've "added" a
Mac to their Wintel setup, not "switched" to all Macs.
My only point is, if Apple makes it too difficult to add a Mac to an
all-Wintel house/setup, they've just lost a sale. Those people will buy
a Wintel PC to replace their old one instead.
Presenting people with all or nothing situations - "Apple: SWITCH
EVERYTHING OR SWITCH NOTHING!" - isn't a good marketing approach.
> a) Apple should and do try to convince people to _switch_?
>
> or
>
> b) Apple should and do try to convince people to _add_ a Mac to their
> existing platform?
They should try and encourage people to do a). Obviously, as a business,
they profit more if people replace 3 Wintels with 3 Macs.
However, they should be willing to acknowledge that some families are
going to do b). And are not, in an absolute sense, "switching" TOTALLY.
> If you believe a), we are in agreement, if you believe b), I would be
> curious about what made you think b) is true.
I think people are doing b). Maybe they shouldn't mention that people
are doing b) in their advertising campaigns. But they shouldn't pretend
it isn't happening. Their planning should be based on that reality.
Sandman
flip <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
> > 1. Switchers
> > Users that switched from Windows to OSX. They benefit from some Windows
> > compatibility in the way that OSX reads windows CD's, which means they can
> > easily move their files.
> >
> > 2. Co-existance
> > One person has switched, but he is sitting in an environment of Windows
> > computers (at work or at home) - this is the reason for most of OSX
> > Windows-compatible functions
> >
> > 3. Dual Systems
> > Users who has both a Mac and a PC at his desk. He or she is benefitted by
> > everything from the coexistance group, but the coexistance functions
> > weren't
> > developed for this scenario.
> >
> > It's quite obvious that Apple isn't moving from 1 and 2 towards 3.
>
>
> I would argue that Samba is for people in group #2 or #3 and not
> specifically for group #1.
Of course - but Samba wasn't implemented specifically for people in group #3,
which is what we're arguing. Group #3 benefits from the implementation that was
added to cater to group #2.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Seeker1 <see...@mac.com> wrote:
> > _Others_ believe (as does Seeker1, I think) that Apple should and do
> > pursue a strategy where people are not so much convinced to switch to a
> > Mac but rather to add a Mac to their Windows PC and use both platforms.
>
> Just to clarify my position:
>
> Although the initial scenario of discussion was one person, two
> computers, I actually think the more common scenario will be one family,
> several computers, which may be heterogenous Mac-Win.
Which would then be one switcher and several non-switchers.
> And that in many cases family members use each other's computers. So Bob
> who has a Mac may need to sit on Marge's Win machine to get some work
> done, or vice versa. (This is aside from the fact that Bob and Marge
> might want to share the Internet, files, or devices.)
Yes, but there is nothing Apple has done to specifically cater to this scenario.
> That you say this scenario is uncommon is suprising, since from my
> limited anecdotal experience, it's common.
>
> The only position I take is that Apple has decided to make Bob and
> Marge's life easier in OS X rather than harder, and that that's a good
> thing. End of story.
And Bob is a switcher.
> I honestly don't feel we have too much to argue, if you can agree with
> that last point.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Seeker1 <see...@mac.com> wrote:
It seems that you, somehow, are lumping 'families' (and, perhaps workplaces)
together as one unit, and that unit hasn't switched until every family member
has switched. If only one family member (or co-worker) switches, then there has
been no switch, since 'Bob' still has access to other computer - even though
they aren't his.
I don't understand the relevancy in that. Is Bob a switcher? Does one need to
swear never to use a wintel box again to be considered a switcher?
--
Sandman[.net]
Seeker1
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
... and Bob might not have switched if Marge was not able to use his
computer, or if it was difficult for them to share files or other things
on their home network. My main point.
Bob is a switcher - the family unit are tryers/adders. You know, many
families do often make these decisions as a whole.
Windows compatibility is a feature touted for OS X, for exactly this
reason, I know what you and Andrew appear to be afraid of, but Apple
doesn't appear to be.
Seeker1
> swear never to use a wintel box again to be considered a switcher?
Let me turn around and ask you a serious question: the main possibility
you and Andrew seem to hate most of all - although I don't think it's
the most common one - is one user, two machines.
You're running the Apple Support Center.
Call #1. "I have a Mac at home but I use a Wintel at work. Can you help
me move files back and forth? How do I use my iPod on both machines?"
Call #2. "I have a Mac and a Wintel PC in my home. I want them to be
able to share my external zip disk with both machines. Can you help me?"
What's your response?
#1 "We don't support one user having a Mac and a Wintel. Piss off."
#2 "We don't do Windows. Piss off."
#3 "We only support people who only use Macs everywhere. Piss off."
or...
#4 "Let's help you..."
If you're going to give answer #4, then you/Apple SUPPORT ONE USER, TWO
PLATFORMS. If you give answers 1-3, then be prepared to realize that
your answer may mean many people will not buy Macs, or at least
definitely not buy a second one.
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <mr-F090F2.11...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> > > That you say this scenario is uncommon is suprising, since from my
> > > limited anecdotal experience, it's common.
> > >
> > > The only position I take is that Apple has decided to make Bob and
> > > Marge's life easier in OS X rather than harder, and that that's a good
> > > thing. End of story.
> >
> > And Bob is a switcher.
>
> ... and Bob might not have switched if Marge was not able to use his
> computer, or if it was difficult for them to share files or other things
> on their home network. My main point.
You are again changing the subject. Nobody doubted that interoperability
was wrong or a bad thing.
> Bob is a switcher - the family unit are tryers/adders. You know, many
> families do often make these decisions as a whole.
Which has nothing to do with our discussion.
Do you, or do you not believe that Apple targets potential switchers
rather than potential adders?
> Windows compatibility is a feature touted for OS X, for exactly this
> reason, I know what you and Andrew appear to be afraid of, but Apple
> doesn't appear to be.
The point is that Apple do appear to be. That's why they do nothing to
specifically support adders rather than switchers.
IBM and Be went for adders and failed. Apple do not appear to be making
the same mistake.
Andrew J. Brehm
> > I don't understand the relevancy in that. Is Bob a switcher? Does one
> > need to swear never to use a wintel box again to be considered a
> > switcher?
>
> Let me turn around and ask you a serious question: the main possibility
> you and Andrew seem to hate most of all - although I don't think it's
> the most common one - is one user, two machines.
Just for the record, I do _not_ _hate_ anything.
> You're running the Apple Support Center.
>
> Call #1. "I have a Mac at home but I use a Wintel at work. Can you help
> me move files back and forth? How do I use my iPod on both machines?"
>
> Call #2. "I have a Mac and a Wintel PC in my home. I want them to be
> able to share my external zip disk with both machines. Can you help me?"
>
> What's your response?
>
> #1 "We don't support one user having a Mac and a Wintel. Piss off."
>
> #2 "We don't do Windows. Piss off."
>
> #3 "We only support people who only use Macs everywhere. Piss off."
>
> or...
>
> #4 "Let's help you..."
>
> If you're going to give answer #4, then you/Apple SUPPORT ONE USER, TWO
> PLATFORMS. If you give answers 1-3, then be prepared to realize that
> your answer may mean many people will not buy Macs, or at least
> definitely not buy a second one.
That only means that Apple support interoperability. Also, this bit is
about Apple's MP3 player NOT their computers, which is what Sandman and
I were talking about.
I'm not sure if you have followed IBM's marketing for OS/2 or Be's
history. If you did you would probably understand what we are taking
about and why we don't see Apple supporting adders.
Lefty
> IBM and Be went for adders and failed. Apple do not appear to be
> making the same mistake.
I don't think you can name this as the one, proximate, cause of OS/2 and
BeOS failure. There were too many things happening at once, and more
importantly, there is no counter-example. There was no commercial desktop
OS introduced in the 90's which survived on the market. You can't say "Foo"
did it this way and won, because there is no foo.
FWIW, I think the real proximate cause of OS/2 and BeOS failure was that MS
understood, and effectively used, their Windows monopoly.
No minor business decision at IBM or Be mattered more than that.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
>
> > IBM and Be went for adders and failed. Apple do not appear to be
> > making the same mistake.
>
> I don't think you can name this as the one, proximate, cause of OS/2 and
> BeOS failure.
I think it was among the many reasons the most serious one.
> There were too many things happening at once, and more importantly, there
> is no counter-example. There was no commercial desktop OS introduced in
> the 90's which survived on the market. You can't say "Foo" did it this
> way and won, because there is no foo.
When method A fails whenever tried and method B was never tried, it is
still better to try method B.
> FWIW, I think the real proximate cause of OS/2 and BeOS failure was that
> MS understood, and effectively used, their Windows monopoly.
The very existence of OS/2 and BeOS means that there was no Windows
monopoly. There was a major market presence though. But do you seriously
believe that people didn't use OS/2 because they couldn't use it?
> No minor business decision at IBM or Be mattered more than that.
IBM marketed OS/2 as a better Windows than Windows. The result was that
ISVs, when they had to make a decision regarding what OS to support, had
these options:
1. Support OS/2 and target 5% of the market.
2. Support Win16 and target 100% of the market.
What do you think ISVs did?
Compatibility to existing applications is an asset when you introduce
your platform, but a liability when you want it to be supported
specifically. If Apple's goal was to convince people to add a Mac to
their existing PC, ISVs will learn that many Mac users also have access
to a Windows machine and develop for Windows only.
As for Be, their strategy was to market BeOS as a multimedia OS to run
side by side with the general purpose OS (Windows or Mac OS). Both Apple
and Microsoft did what they could to sabotage BeOS. The Be strategy
failed anyway, because both Mac OS and Windows started targeting
multimedia too and it was more convenient for users to run multimedia
applications under their general purpose OS rather than reboot into
BeOS. And that was it.
What I learn from this is that it is absolutely the wrong way to attempt
and try to convince users to _add_ your platform to their existing
platform.
Apple try to make users switch instead. And I think this is the right
way.
Lefty
> Lefty <Le...@NotARealAddress.com> wrote:
>
>> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
>>
>>> IBM and Be went for adders and failed. Apple do not appear to be
>>> making the same mistake.
>>
>> I don't think you can name this as the one, proximate, cause of OS/2
>> and BeOS failure.
>
> I think it was among the many reasons the most serious one.
Then you will miss out on understanding the 90's.
It is about monopoly, and the interaction of monopoly with computer
infrastructure. We _know_ computers work more easily with others of their
same kind. Combine this with a huge majority in one "kind" (a monopoly),
and what do you get? Massive feedback forces to keep the monopoly in place.
>> There were too many things happening at once, and more importantly,
>> there is no counter-example. There was no commercial desktop OS
>> introduced in the 90's which survived on the market. You can't say
>> "Foo" did it this way and won, because there is no foo.
>
> When method A fails whenever tried and method B was never tried, it is
> still better to try method B.
Be started with "buy" (with a machine that could not even run Windows for
goodness sakes), and only with to "add" very late in their ... I was going
to say "life" but it was probably the "deathbed" stage when they tried
coexistance as a lever to get themselves preinstalled on PCs.
>> FWIW, I think the real proximate cause of OS/2 and BeOS failure was
>> that MS understood, and effectively used, their Windows monopoly.
>
> The very existence of OS/2 and BeOS means that there was no Windows
> monopoly. There was a major market presence though. But do you
> seriously believe that people didn't use OS/2 because they couldn't
> use it?
I guess we're into semantics again. OK, MS had no monopoly, and there was
no 64-bit PC. This is advoacy, we can belive 6 impossible things before
breakfast.
>> No minor business decision at IBM or Be mattered more than that.
>
> IBM marketed OS/2 as a better Windows than Windows. The result was
> that ISVs, when they had to make a decision regarding what OS to
> support, had these options:
>
> 1. Support OS/2 and target 5% of the market.
>
> 2. Support Win16 and target 100% of the market.
>
> What do you think ISVs did?
First of all, a "better Windows than Windows" campaign is not an "add"
campaign.
Secondly, I think you are talking about the interaction of monopoly with
computer infrastructure.
> Compatibility to existing applications is an asset when you introduce
> your platform, but a liability when you want it to be supported
> specifically. If Apple's goal was to convince people to add a Mac to
> their existing PC, ISVs will learn that many Mac users also have
> access to a Windows machine and develop for Windows only.
My position (with hindsight) is that Apple should just try to sell
Macintoshes, and not waste time un-selling Windows.
They should make Macs (as products) as attractive as possible to a
mainstream audience.
> As for Be, their strategy was to market BeOS as a multimedia OS to run
> side by side with the general purpose OS (Windows or Mac OS). Both
> Apple and Microsoft did what they could to sabotage BeOS. The Be
> strategy
> failed anyway, because both Mac OS and Windows started targeting
> multimedia too and it was more convenient for users to run multimedia
> applications under their general purpose OS rather than reboot into
> BeOS. And that was it.
>
> What I learn from this is that it is absolutely the wrong way to
> attempt and try to convince users to _add_ your platform to their
> existing platform.
>
> Apple try to make users switch instead. And I think this is the right
> way.
I'm sorry. I think you are hung up on one minor decision at Be. It would
not have mattered either way.
I mean, heck, don't you *know* that there is testimony now that MS had
contractual arraingements that prevented BeOS being loaded at any of their
OEMs? This covered dual or single boot.
How the heck whould Be's marketing slogans have changed that?
Rick
> Lefty <Le...@NotARealAddress.com> wrote:
>
>> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
>>
>> > IBM and Be went for adders and failed. Apple do not appear to be
>> > making the same mistake.
>>
>> I don't think you can name this as the one, proximate, cause of OS/2
>> and BeOS failure.
>
> I think it was among the many reasons the most serious one.
No, the microsoft monopoly was the most serious one.
>
>> There were too many things happening at once, and more importantly,
>> there is no counter-example. There was no commercial desktop OS
>> introduced in the 90's which survived on the market. You can't say
>> "Foo" did it this way and won, because there is no foo.
>
> When method A fails whenever tried and method B was never tried, it is
> still better to try method B.
... if there is anyone left to try B.
>
>> FWIW, I think the real proximate cause of OS/2 and BeOS failure was
>> that MS understood, and effectively used, their Windows monopoly.
>
> The very existence of OS/2 and BeOS means that there was no Windows
> monopoly.
You AGAIN show you don't know what a market monopoly is. 100% marketshare
is NOT necessary for an economic monopoly. Read some economics books.
> There was a major market presence though. But do you seriously
> believe that people didn't use OS/2 because they couldn't use it?
Statistically, no they couldn't.
>
>> No minor business decision at IBM or Be mattered more than that.
>
> IBM marketed OS/2 as a better Windows than Windows. The result was that
> ISVs, when they had to make a decision regarding what OS to support, had
> these options:
>
> 1. Support OS/2 and target 5% of the market.
>
> 2. Support Win16 and target 100% of the market.
>
> What do you think ISVs did?
They went with the illegally maintained monopoly.
>
> Compatibility to existing applications is an asset when you introduce
> your platform, but a liability when you want it to be supported
> specifically. If Apple's goal was to convince people to add a Mac to
> their existing PC, ISVs will learn that many Mac users also have access
> to a Windows machine and develop for Windows only.
>
> As for Be, their strategy was to market BeOS as a multimedia OS to run
> side by side with the general purpose OS (Windows or Mac OS).
Can you support this statement.. .with some quotes from Gassee, maybe It
is my recollection that BeOS was to be THE multimedia OS, as well and a
general use OS.
> Both Apple
> and Microsoft did what they could to sabotage BeOS. The Be strategy
> failed anyway, because both Mac OS and Windows started targeting
> multimedia too and it was more convenient for users to run multimedia
> applications under their general purpose OS rather than reboot into
> BeOS. And that was it.
Thats bullshit. Be failed because microsoft's licenses forbade
dual-booting.
>
> What I learn from this is that it is absolutely the wrong way to attempt
> and try to convince users to _add_ your platform to their existing
> platform.
>
> Apple try to make users switch instead. And I think this is the right
> way.
--
Rick
Andrew J. Brehm
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:22:09 +0200, Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
>
> > Lefty <Le...@NotARealAddress.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> >>
> >> > IBM and Be went for adders and failed. Apple do not appear to be
> >> > making the same mistake.
> >>
> >> I don't think you can name this as the one, proximate, cause of OS/2
> >> and BeOS failure.
> >
> > I think it was among the many reasons the most serious one.
>
> No, the microsoft monopoly was the most serious one.
You are not the least bit confused about there being a _monopoly_ AND
_competition_?
> >
> >> There were too many things happening at once, and more importantly,
> >> there is no counter-example. There was no commercial desktop OS
> >> introduced in the 90's which survived on the market. You can't say
> >> "Foo" did it this way and won, because there is no foo.
> >
> > When method A fails whenever tried and method B was never tried, it is
> > still better to try method B.
>
> ... if there is anyone left to try B.
Apple is left.
> >
> >> FWIW, I think the real proximate cause of OS/2 and BeOS failure was
> >> that MS understood, and effectively used, their Windows monopoly.
> >
> > The very existence of OS/2 and BeOS means that there was no Windows
> > monopoly.
>
> You AGAIN show you don't know what a market monopoly is. 100% marketshare
> is NOT necessary for an economic monopoly. Read some economics books.
I again show that we disagree about what a monopoly is.
But I challenge you again to provide a source for your claim.
> > There was a major market presence though. But do you seriously
> > believe that people didn't use OS/2 because they couldn't use it?
>
> Statistically, no they couldn't.
What does it mean that somebody "statistically" can't do something.
People could use OS/2. There just wasn't much of a reason to switch to
OS/2.
> >
> >> No minor business decision at IBM or Be mattered more than that.
> >
> > IBM marketed OS/2 as a better Windows than Windows. The result was that
> > ISVs, when they had to make a decision regarding what OS to support, had
> > these options:
> >
> > 1. Support OS/2 and target 5% of the market.
> >
> > 2. Support Win16 and target 100% of the market.
> >
> > What do you think ISVs did?
>
> They went with the illegally maintained monopoly.
Nothing stopped customers from buying and installing OS/2 (except maybe
OS/2's legendary installer).
> >
> > Compatibility to existing applications is an asset when you introduce
> > your platform, but a liability when you want it to be supported
> > specifically. If Apple's goal was to convince people to add a Mac to
> > their existing PC, ISVs will learn that many Mac users also have access
> > to a Windows machine and develop for Windows only.
> >
> > As for Be, their strategy was to market BeOS as a multimedia OS to run
> > side by side with the general purpose OS (Windows or Mac OS).
>
> Can you support this statement.. .with some quotes from Gassee, maybe It
> is my recollection that BeOS was to be THE multimedia OS, as well and a
> general use OS.
I can always support all of my statements. Can you point me to a posting
of yours where you support a claim of yours with a source or quote?
Anyway, Be's strategy is explained by Gassee here:
<
http://www.beatjapan.org/mirror/www.be.com/aboutbe/benewsletter/Issue85.
html>
The specific quotes are these:
"For us, the idea is to exist to the left or right of them, not in their
path."
"We're proud of our work, we see incredible potential in our OS, but the
logical consequence of specialization is coexistence with general
purpose products, as opposed to attempting to displace them with a (yet)
unproven OS such as ours."
> > Both Apple and Microsoft did what they could to sabotage BeOS. The Be
> > strategy failed anyway, because both Mac OS and Windows started
> > targeting multimedia too and it was more convenient for users to run
> > multimedia applications under their general purpose OS rather than
> > reboot into BeOS. And that was it.
>
> Thats bullshit. Be failed because microsoft's licenses forbade
> dual-booting.
You will now explain how that stops customers from buying and installing
BeOS on their computers.
(That's a joke, of course. I have never seen you explain anything.)
> >
> > What I learn from this is that it is absolutely the wrong way to attempt
> > and try to convince users to _add_ your platform to their existing
> > platform.
> >
> > Apple try to make users switch instead. And I think this is the right
> > way.
--
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > Lefty <Le...@NotARealAddress.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> >>
> >>> IBM and Be went for adders and failed. Apple do not appear to be
> >>> making the same mistake.
> >>
> >> I don't think you can name this as the one, proximate, cause of OS/2
> >> and BeOS failure.
> >
> > I think it was among the many reasons the most serious one.
>
> Then you will miss out on understanding the 90's.
>
> It is about monopoly, and the interaction of monopoly with computer
> infrastructure. We _know_ computers work more easily with others of their
> same kind. Combine this with a huge majority in one "kind" (a monopoly),
> and what do you get? Massive feedback forces to keep the monopoly in place.
You see, I think that software availability is seen as an advantage for
any given platform.
A monopoly is an abstract concept. Customers don't care about it. People
didn't buy Windows because Windows was a "monopoly", they bought Windows
because Windows would run the applications they wanted.
A few Usenet trolls might care about the Microsoft monopoly being the
number one reason for people not to buy anything else, but for the
normal customer that simply didn't matter.
Ask any Windows user why they use Windows and you will get answers
ranging from "it runs the applications I want to run" to "it supports my
scanner/printer/video/whatever". But you will usually not hear "I
couldn't buy OS/2 Warp even though I wanted to".
That is because software availability and hardware support are reasons
to buy an OS and Windows excels in both and OS/2 didn't and doesn't.
I switched from Windows 3.1 to OS/2 Warp in 1995, shortly before Windows
95 appeared. I specifically switched away from Windows because I didn't
want to buy a product that everybody else was so eager to buy.
Between 1995 and 1998 I saw that more and more applications were written
specifically for Win32 rather than OS/2. Many OS/2 users switched to
Windows in these years. But the OS wars are not without a sense of
irony.
You will find that those who claim that everybody is forced to use
Windows are usually not, in fact, Windows users.
I gave up on OS/2 in 1998 and switched to BeOS (3.1 at that time). A
year later I gave up on BeOS and used GNU/Linux until Mac OS X came
around.
And during all these years I kept hearing how everybody is forced to use
Windows (most prominently from those who do not, in fact, use Windows)
and how people who switched to Windows claimed they did so because of
application availability and hardware support.
Do I believe a Windows user that he uses Windows because of software
availability and hardware support? Yes. Why should he lie about that?
Do I believe a Mac/GNU/OS2/BeOS user that people are forced to use
Windows? No.
> >> There were too many things happening at once, and more importantly,
> >> there is no counter-example. There was no commercial desktop OS
> >> introduced in the 90's which survived on the market. You can't say
> >> "Foo" did it this way and won, because there is no foo.
> >
> > When method A fails whenever tried and method B was never tried, it is
> > still better to try method B.
>
> Be started with "buy" (with a machine that could not even run Windows for
> goodness sakes),
They produced 2000 BeBoxen that run developer and preview releases of
BeOS for Zarquon's sake. I am sure you know I am talking about Be's more
agressive marketing when they ported the BeOS to Power Mac and Intel
hardware.
> and only with to "add" very late in their ... I was going to say "life"
> but it was probably the "deathbed" stage when they tried coexistance as a
> lever to get themselves preinstalled on PCs.
Be's decision to coexist on the same machine was made in 1997, one year
before they released their first non-developer/non-preview release of
BeOS, unless I am mistaken.
I agree that this was the end of their life, but I think that strategy
was the reason.
> >> FWIW, I think the real proximate cause of OS/2 and BeOS failure was
> >> that MS understood, and effectively used, their Windows monopoly.
> >
> > The very existence of OS/2 and BeOS means that there was no Windows
> > monopoly. There was a major market presence though. But do you seriously
> > believe that people didn't use OS/2 because they couldn't use it?
>
> I guess we're into semantics again. OK, MS had no monopoly, and there was
> no 64-bit PC. This is advoacy, we can belive 6 impossible things before
> breakfast.
Did Microsoft's "monopoly" mean that customers couldn't buy BeOS or
OS/2? I know it didn't. It's irrelevant. Customers could buy BeOS or
OS/2 and DIDN'T. And I think the reason was that customers simply had no
good reason to buy BeOS or OS/2.
Neither would run the applications customers wanted to run.
And neither supported all of their hardware.
Why are you using Outlook Express? Were you forced? Or was it
convenient? Why do you use a Mac (if you do)? Why don't you use RISC-OS
or TOS? Is it because Apple is a "monopoly" or because of application
availability and hardware support.
> >> No minor business decision at IBM or Be mattered more than that.
> >
> > IBM marketed OS/2 as a better Windows than Windows. The result was
> > that ISVs, when they had to make a decision regarding what OS to
> > support, had these options:
> >
> > 1. Support OS/2 and target 5% of the market.
> >
> > 2. Support Win16 and target 100% of the market.
> >
> > What do you think ISVs did?
>
> First of all, a "better Windows than Windows" campaign is not an "add"
> campaign.
It's campaign for a platform that is compatible to another. This means
that the OS/2 platform is _added_ to the existing Win16 platform. It
doesn't matter how it's done.
If you remember OS/2 (that is, if you were allowed to buy it), you will
remember that it came with not one but two dual boot mechanisms and in
two colors, one of which added OS/2 to an existing Windows system ("OS/2
for Windows", "OS/2 Warp Red Spine").
> Secondly, I think you are talking about the interaction of monopoly with
> computer infrastructure.
No, I am talking about the interaction of an individual customer with
the market. I leave the more abstract talk of "monopoly" and "computer
infrastructure" to those who want to impress people with words.
No "monopoly" or "computer infrastructure" will influence a customer's
decision. But software availability and hardware support will.
> > Compatibility to existing applications is an asset when you introduce
> > your platform, but a liability when you want it to be supported
> > specifically. If Apple's goal was to convince people to add a Mac to
> > their existing PC, ISVs will learn that many Mac users also have
> > access to a Windows machine and develop for Windows only.
>
> My position (with hindsight) is that Apple should just try to sell
> Macintoshes, and not waste time un-selling Windows.
Impossible. The market is saturated and has been for a long time. In the
80s and early 90s one could still sell one platform and not replace
anything. But that's over.
> They should make Macs (as products) as attractive as possible to a
> mainstream audience.
Yes.
> > As for Be, their strategy was to market BeOS as a multimedia OS to run
> > side by side with the general purpose OS (Windows or Mac OS). Both
> > Apple and Microsoft did what they could to sabotage BeOS. The Be
> > strategy
> > failed anyway, because both Mac OS and Windows started targeting
> > multimedia too and it was more convenient for users to run multimedia
> > applications under their general purpose OS rather than reboot into
> > BeOS. And that was it.
> >
> > What I learn from this is that it is absolutely the wrong way to
> > attempt and try to convince users to _add_ your platform to their
> > existing platform.
> >
> > Apple try to make users switch instead. And I think this is the right
> > way.
>
> I'm sorry. I think you are hung up on one minor decision at Be.
I am hung up on the fact that this same "minor" decision was made by all
of Microsoft's competitors and always led to their downfall.
> It would not have mattered either way.
I am sure this is what many people thought in the late 70s when IBM
ruled the computer universe and Microsoft wrote a few programming
languages for small computers. Things change.
> I mean, heck, don't you *know* that there is testimony now that MS had
> contractual arraingements that prevented BeOS being loaded at any of their
> OEMs? This covered dual or single boot.
I know. I happen to believe that one should be true to one's word, even
and especially when one deals with a more powerful entity. If I promised
you I wouldn't sell any apples but the ones you sell me, I would hope I
would be true to my word. But that's besides the point.
You could always order and install BeOS on Be's Web site or buy it in
book stores. The major problems were, of course, that there were no
applications for it and that your hardware was probably unsupported.
> How the heck whould Be's marketing slogans have changed that?
I'm not sure you realize that marketing is more than just slogans.
I now believe that BeOS was doomed to fail eventually anyway, there
simply was no demand for such a product.
But OS/2 had a chance and IBM blew it.
Lefty
> Lefty <Le...@NotARealAddress.com> wrote:
>>> The very existence of OS/2 and BeOS means that there was no Windows
>>> monopoly. There was a major market presence though. But do you
>>> seriously believe that people didn't use OS/2 because they couldn't
>>> use it?
>>
>> I guess we're into semantics again. OK, MS had no monopoly, and
>> there was no 64-bit PC. This is advoacy, we can belive 6 impossible
>> things before breakfast.
>
> Did Microsoft's "monopoly" mean that customers couldn't buy BeOS or
> OS/2? I know it didn't. It's irrelevant. Customers could buy BeOS or
> OS/2 and DIDN'T. And I think the reason was that customers simply had
> no good reason to buy BeOS or OS/2.
>
> Neither would run the applications customers wanted to run.
>
> And neither supported all of their hardware.
>
> Why are you using Outlook Express? Were you forced? Or was it
> convenient? Why do you use a Mac (if you do)? Why don't you use
> RISC-OS or TOS? Is it because Apple is a "monopoly" or because
> of application availability and hardware support.
My personal belief is that MS held a very strong position following the IBM
PC introduction (and their smart move to generalize it from an "IBM-PC" to
an "MS-DOS" standard). They might have been nice guys and ended up with a
natural monopoly. I probably wouldn't have been too broken up about that.
Unfortunately (as is documented from wall to wall), they were not always
nice guys. By the definition of our laws, they've done illegal things.
They even faked evidence for federal court, for goodness sakes!
Since I've never faked evidence for a court, I think I'm on higher moral
ground ;-)
Still, I'm running Windows (on this machine) because I benefit from the
natural parts of the monopoly. I can find low cost and easily available
hardware and software. Unfortunately, they got a little money out of me
(whatever Dell paid at their OEM rate). I'm supporting the nasty things
they've done as well.
FWIW, I'll probably run it for as long as they let me do it for free, and
try Linux again when they ask me to start paying for updates.
Sandman
Seeker1 <see...@mac.com> wrote:
Relax.
Me and Andrew fully understand that these people exist and know that Apple
would be happy to help them out. I am going to restate our claim one last time:
"Apple hasn't specifically developed functions in Mac OS X to cater to these
people"
You see, contrary to (your?) original claim, Apple is NOT including software
that *promotes* dual systems, but rather software that promotes *co-existance*
- which includes, but is not limmited to, your scenario.
See?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Seeker1 <see...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > The only position I take is that Apple has decided to make Bob and
> > > Marge's life easier in OS X rather than harder, and that that's a good
> > > thing. End of story.
> >
> > And Bob is a switcher.
>
> ... and Bob might not have switched if Marge was not able to use his
> computer, or if it was difficult for them to share files or other things
> on their home network. My main point.
>
> Bob is a switcher - the family unit are tryers/adders. You know, many
> families do often make these decisions as a whole.
(All the family at the dinner table:)
Bob: Hey guys... I've been thinking...
Marge: About what, dear?
Bob: Well... Hmm, how am I going to say this... I am thinking about
switching to Mac.
All: *gasp*
Bob: Now now... Nothing will change, I'll still be your father and all
Marge: Bob... I don't know, this is all so unexpected...
Bob: Yes, I know... But there is nothing I can do... I'ts not like it's
a choice... I am a maccie.
Son: Daddy, why don't you love us???
Bob: Oh, son... but I do! Nothing changes... It's not your fault!
(Marge starts to sob)
Bob: Oh, come on! I was hoping that you guys would understand...
Hehe :)
In reality, I don't think the brand of computer is a household descicion. I
think computer X folds or is getting old, and Bob says he'll buy a new one and
comes home with a Mac.
> Windows compatibility is a feature touted for OS X, for exactly this
> reason, I know what you and Andrew appear to be afraid of, but Apple
> doesn't appear to be.
Yet, in the end, Bob is a switcher, which is what we're saying. this scenario
supports our point of view.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Lefty" <Le...@NotARealAddress.com> wrote:
> > IBM and Be went for adders and failed. Apple do not appear to be
> > making the same mistake.
>
> I don't think you can name this as the one, proximate, cause of OS/2 and
> BeOS failure. There were too many things happening at once, and more
> importantly, there is no counter-example. There was no commercial desktop
> OS introduced in the 90's which survived on the market. You can't say "Foo"
> did it this way and won, because there is no foo.
No, but I firmly believe that the reason Apple survived those days are just
because they weren't trying to coexist on the same platform or harddrive, as Be
and OS/2 did.
> FWIW, I think the real proximate cause of OS/2 and BeOS failure was that MS
> understood, and effectively used, their Windows monopoly.
Which didn't affect Apple (much), which leads to... :)
> No minor business decision at IBM or Be mattered more than that.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Lefty" <Le...@NotARealAddress.com> wrote:
> >> There were too many things happening at once, and more importantly,
> >> there is no counter-example. There was no commercial desktop OS
> >> introduced in the 90's which survived on the market. You can't say
> >> "Foo" did it this way and won, because there is no foo.
> >
> > When method A fails whenever tried and method B was never tried, it is
> > still better to try method B.
>
> Be started with "buy" (with a machine that could not even run Windows for
> goodness sakes), and only with to "add" very late in their ... I was going
> to say "life" but it was probably the "deathbed" stage when they tried
> coexistance as a lever to get themselves preinstalled on PCs.
Rather, Be added PCs to their supported platform for their "add" business
model. BeOS could be installed on Macs from the very start.
--
Sandman[.net]
Lefty
Apple's advantage was in staring before MS (and IBM).
Maybe you can help me, but wasn't their marketshare a bit higher before the
introduction of the IBM PC?
As I remember it, they lost share, but were in the position to offer
something new enough and different enough, to retain some kind of place.
If you want to compare them to anyone, compare them to the other vendors who
pre-date the IBM PC. TI, Commadore, Atari ... did they have "add" campaigns
that sunk them, or was it something else?
If Apple had started (without a brand image and loyal customer base) *after*
the IBM PC, then I think they would have done just as poorly as OS/2, Be, or
anyone else who tried to fight the established standard.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
But its interesting that Microsoft is constantly being accused of
killing Be by not letting OEMs install it along with Windows but no
one ever mentions that not one single Mac ever went out the door with
BeOS on it either.
--
"Whoever is advising them [Democrats] on gun control
should be shot."
Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence.
Sandman
"Lefty" <Le...@NotARealAddress.com> wrote:
I merely meant that in the time period where products such as OS/2 and
companies such as Be, who tried to all eat a piece of the PC-cake alongisde
with Microsoft, died - Apple was managing quite allright, or at least survived
- probably mainly due to them having their own hardware and software.
Macusers didn't end up with a dualsystem configuration, where they could just
boot into windows if they wanted - which is exactly how OS/2 and BeOS worked.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Be started with "buy" (with a machine that could not even run Windows for
> >> goodness sakes), and only with to "add" very late in their ... I was going
> >> to say "life" but it was probably the "deathbed" stage when they tried
> >> coexistance as a lever to get themselves preinstalled on PCs.
> >
> >Rather, Be added PCs to their supported platform for their "add" business
> >model. BeOS could be installed on Macs from the very start.
>
> But its interesting that Microsoft is constantly being accused of
> killing Be by not letting OEMs install it along with Windows but no
> one ever mentions that not one single Mac ever went out the door with
> BeOS on it either.
Ah, another Maccie myth?
The difference, of course, is that Apple didn't want to install BeOS on the
machines they sold to consumers, since they wanted to sell MacOS. I would be ok
with Microsoft limiting the OS choice on the PCs that MS manufactures and sells.
Now, MS wanted to restrict OTHER companies to only ship Windows, no matter if
Compaq/HP/Dell/Packard Bell/IBM -wanted- to sell BeOS/Linux/Whatever on them.
You see, Microsoft doesn't make PC hardware (yet) - but when they do, I am all
for them pre-installing Windows on it - but before that, I think it's lousy for
them to dictate to other companies how they sell their products.
--
Sandman[.net]
Alan Baker
Perhaps because the circumstances were totally different? Like the the
fact that Apple was exercising legitimate control over its own business,
where Microsoft was exercising illegal, monopolistic control over
*other* people's businesses.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <4727ivcd35hjt9amf...@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Be started with "buy" (with a machine that could not even run Windows for
>> >> goodness sakes), and only with to "add" very late in their ... I was going
>> >> to say "life" but it was probably the "deathbed" stage when they tried
>> >> coexistance as a lever to get themselves preinstalled on PCs.
>> >
>> >Rather, Be added PCs to their supported platform for their "add" business
>> >model. BeOS could be installed on Macs from the very start.
>>
>> But its interesting that Microsoft is constantly being accused of
>> killing Be by not letting OEMs install it along with Windows but no
>> one ever mentions that not one single Mac ever went out the door with
>> BeOS on it either.
>
>Ah, another Maccie myth?
You deny it?
>
>The difference, of course, is that Apple didn't want to install BeOS on the
>machines they sold to consumers, since they wanted to sell MacOS. I would be ok
>with Microsoft limiting the OS choice on the PCs that MS manufactures and sells.
>
>Now, MS wanted to restrict OTHER companies to only ship Windows, no matter if
>Compaq/HP/Dell/Packard Bell/IBM -wanted- to sell BeOS/Linux/Whatever on them.
They had the choice. No one was making them ship Windows. If they
wanted to ship something else they shouldn't have signed contracts
saying that they wouldn't.
>
>You see, Microsoft doesn't make PC hardware (yet) - but when they do, I am all
>for them pre-installing Windows on it - but before that, I think it's lousy for
>them to dictate to other companies how they sell their products.
Microsoft has no ability to dictate to other companies on how to sell
their products. All Microsoft can do is offer Windows at better or at
worse terms. And please none of this 'They need Windows at a low cost
to survive' crap. Apple seems to be selling enough computers to
survive without access to Windows at a low cost as do Sun and SGI so
it obviously can be done.
Mayor of R'lyeh
No more control than freely entered into contracts gave it. Its a
constant source of amazement to me just how many people think that not
liking one of the parties involved should invalidate agreements.
Alan Baker
And those contracts were illegal by virtue of Microsoft's monopoly.
>
> >
> >You see, Microsoft doesn't make PC hardware (yet) - but when they do, I am
> >all
> >for them pre-installing Windows on it - but before that, I think it's lousy
> >for
> >them to dictate to other companies how they sell their products.
>
> Microsoft has no ability to dictate to other companies on how to sell
> their products. All Microsoft can do is offer Windows at better or at
> worse terms. And please none of this 'They need Windows at a low cost
> to survive' crap. Apple seems to be selling enough computers to
> survive without access to Windows at a low cost as do Sun and SGI so
> it obviously can be done.
Funny. You keep telling us that Apple's not going to survive. You can't
have it both ways...
Alan Baker
It's got nothing to do with not liking and everything to do with the law
of the land.
Mayor of R'lyeh
According to a judge who declared them guilty in interviews before the
trial started.
>
>>
>> >
>> >You see, Microsoft doesn't make PC hardware (yet) - but when they do, I am
>> >all
>> >for them pre-installing Windows on it - but before that, I think it's lousy
>> >for
>> >them to dictate to other companies how they sell their products.
>>
>> Microsoft has no ability to dictate to other companies on how to sell
>> their products. All Microsoft can do is offer Windows at better or at
>> worse terms. And please none of this 'They need Windows at a low cost
>> to survive' crap. Apple seems to be selling enough computers to
>> survive without access to Windows at a low cost as do Sun and SGI so
>> it obviously can be done.
>
>Funny. You keep telling us that Apple's not going to survive. You can't
>have it both ways...
Where have I ever said that Apple wasn't going to survive? I've
actually said that it didn't matter to me one way or another and that
their survival was largely up to them.
Alan Baker
References please.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >You see, Microsoft doesn't make PC hardware (yet) - but when they do, I
> >> >am
> >> >all
> >> >for them pre-installing Windows on it - but before that, I think it's
> >> >lousy
> >> >for
> >> >them to dictate to other companies how they sell their products.
> >>
> >> Microsoft has no ability to dictate to other companies on how to sell
> >> their products. All Microsoft can do is offer Windows at better or at
> >> worse terms. And please none of this 'They need Windows at a low cost
> >> to survive' crap. Apple seems to be selling enough computers to
> >> survive without access to Windows at a low cost as do Sun and SGI so
> >> it obviously can be done.
> >
> >Funny. You keep telling us that Apple's not going to survive. You can't
> >have it both ways...
>
> Where have I ever said that Apple wasn't going to survive? I've
> actually said that it didn't matter to me one way or another and that
> their survival was largely up to them.
You've implied on occasions too numerous to count.
Mayor of R'lyeh
As interpreted by a judge who issues guilty verdicts before the trial
starts. Can you say 'kangaroo court'?
Alan Baker
Mayor of R'lyeh
You're kidding. It was an issue that went before the appeals court who
ruled that expediency was more important than a fair trial.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >You see, Microsoft doesn't make PC hardware (yet) - but when they do, I
>> >> >am
>> >> >all
>> >> >for them pre-installing Windows on it - but before that, I think it's
>> >> >lousy
>> >> >for
>> >> >them to dictate to other companies how they sell their products.
>> >>
>> >> Microsoft has no ability to dictate to other companies on how to sell
>> >> their products. All Microsoft can do is offer Windows at better or at
>> >> worse terms. And please none of this 'They need Windows at a low cost
>> >> to survive' crap. Apple seems to be selling enough computers to
>> >> survive without access to Windows at a low cost as do Sun and SGI so
>> >> it obviously can be done.
>> >
>> >Funny. You keep telling us that Apple's not going to survive. You can't
>> >have it both ways...
>>
>> Where have I ever said that Apple wasn't going to survive? I've
>> actually said that it didn't matter to me one way or another and that
>> their survival was largely up to them.
>
>You've implied on occasions too numerous to count.
References please.
Mayor of R'lyeh
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/7100.html
"Although DOJ lawyers conceded that judges generally should not
comment on pending cases, they made the counterclaim that Jackson's
remarks did not reflect a bias against the company and should not be a
factor in overturning the verdict."
Yeah, right. And potential jurors who walk into court, take one look
at the defendant and say 'The little sonofabitch looks guilty to me!'
shouldn't be disqualified either then.
Now where's just one quote of mine declaring that Apple isn't going to
survive? Surely you can come up with one since you've declared them to
be legion.
Alan Baker
IOW, you have no references, and the appeals court didn't find the
argument valid.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You see, Microsoft doesn't make PC hardware (yet) - but when they do,
> >> >> >I
> >> >> >am
> >> >> >all
> >> >> >for them pre-installing Windows on it - but before that, I think it's
> >> >> >lousy
> >> >> >for
> >> >> >them to dictate to other companies how they sell their products.
> >> >>
> >> >> Microsoft has no ability to dictate to other companies on how to sell
> >> >> their products. All Microsoft can do is offer Windows at better or at
> >> >> worse terms. And please none of this 'They need Windows at a low cost
> >> >> to survive' crap. Apple seems to be selling enough computers to
> >> >> survive without access to Windows at a low cost as do Sun and SGI so
> >> >> it obviously can be done.
> >> >
> >> >Funny. You keep telling us that Apple's not going to survive. You can't
> >> >have it both ways...
> >>
> >> Where have I ever said that Apple wasn't going to survive? I've
> >> actually said that it didn't matter to me one way or another and that
> >> their survival was largely up to them.
> >
> >You've implied on occasions too numerous to count.
>
> References please.
Unfortunately, I *can* believe you would be this dishonest.
Mayor of R'lyeh
I give you one in another post. Do you need a reference to prove that
Usenet is real while I'm documenting well known things that you surely
already realize for you?
>>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You see, Microsoft doesn't make PC hardware (yet) - but when they do,
>> >> >> >I
>> >> >> >am
>> >> >> >all
>> >> >> >for them pre-installing Windows on it - but before that, I think it's
>> >> >> >lousy
>> >> >> >for
>> >> >> >them to dictate to other companies how they sell their products.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Microsoft has no ability to dictate to other companies on how to sell
>> >> >> their products. All Microsoft can do is offer Windows at better or at
>> >> >> worse terms. And please none of this 'They need Windows at a low cost
>> >> >> to survive' crap. Apple seems to be selling enough computers to
>> >> >> survive without access to Windows at a low cost as do Sun and SGI so
>> >> >> it obviously can be done.
>> >> >
>> >> >Funny. You keep telling us that Apple's not going to survive. You can't
>> >> >have it both ways...
>> >>
>> >> Where have I ever said that Apple wasn't going to survive? I've
>> >> actually said that it didn't matter to me one way or another and that
>> >> their survival was largely up to them.
>> >
>> >You've implied on occasions too numerous to count.
>>
>> References please.
>
>Unfortunately, I *can* believe you would be this dishonest.
So its 'dishonest' of me to expect you to back up your wild claims but
perfectly acceptable for you to do the same wrt well known facts?
I'll take that as your way of saying that you can't find anywhere that
I've ever said Apple wasn't going to survive.
Alan Baker
Oh, golly. Your reference is a report on Microsoft's position. A
position which apparently didn't convince the appeals court.
>
> "Although DOJ lawyers conceded that judges generally should not
> comment on pending cases, they made the counterclaim that Jackson's
> remarks did not reflect a bias against the company and should not be a
> factor in overturning the verdict."
Perhaps it turns on what those remarks actually were, which you've
conveniently left out.
>
> Yeah, right. And potential jurors who walk into court, take one look
> at the defendant and say 'The little sonofabitch looks guilty to me!'
> shouldn't be disqualified either then.
>
> Now where's just one quote of mine declaring that Apple isn't going to
> survive? Surely you can come up with one since you've declared them to
> be legion.
As I said: your essential dishonesty comes as no surprise. You're
seriously suggesting that you've never state nor implied that Apple is
doomed to fail? Come on, Mayor.
Alan Baker
Nope. You gave me a post to Microsoft's claims, not to what the judge
actually said.
The business of searching for such is just a little more complicated
than finding the reference that I asked you to search for would be if it
actually existed. Keyword searchs don't work so easily for arguments
that contain common english words only, but the best you could provide
was a parroting of Microsoft's position on the matter; hardly unbiased
and hardly convincing.
Mayor of R'lyeh
Perhaps you missed the opening. "Although DOJ lawyers conceded that
judges generally should not comment on pending cases" or are you
claiming that the DOJ lawyers were on Microsoft's side.
>>
>> "Although DOJ lawyers conceded that judges generally should not
>> comment on pending cases, they made the counterclaim that Jackson's
>> remarks did not reflect a bias against the company and should not be a
>> factor in overturning the verdict."
>
>Perhaps it turns on what those remarks actually were, which you've
>conveniently left out.
They're in the article. Perhaps if you bothered to read it...?
>
>>
>> Yeah, right. And potential jurors who walk into court, take one look
>> at the defendant and say 'The little sonofabitch looks guilty to me!'
>> shouldn't be disqualified either then.
>>
>> Now where's just one quote of mine declaring that Apple isn't going to
>> survive? Surely you can come up with one since you've declared them to
>> be legion.
>
>As I said: your essential dishonesty comes as no surprise. You're
>seriously suggesting that you've never state nor implied that Apple is
>doomed to fail? Come on, Mayor.
No I haven't. Where's your proof Alan 'I'll cry like a little girl
until you give me a URL" Baker? You've declared that I've made the
implication too many times to count. Surely out of all those times you
can produce just one. Go to Google and use the search terms 'Apple'
'doom' and 'fail' with me as the author. Surely this will yield
thousands upon thousands of hits for you to post...unless you're full
of beans.
Mayor of R'lyeh
What you want is in the article. The least you could do after
demanding a URL is to read the article. Its not very long. Its only
one page. It shouldn't take you more than 2 or 3 hours to read it. Try
not to let your lips move too much while you're sounding out the big
words.
You got exactly what you asked for. Everything you're crying about is
in the article. You'd see that if you read it. Now where's your proof
to back up your assertion that i've implied that Apple wasn't going to
survive 'too many times to mention'? Surely out of all those times you
can find just one. Just one. That's all I'm asking for Alan " I'll cry
like a little girl until you give me a URL" Baker.
Alan Baker
I didn't miss it at all.
But what was said, and *when* matter.
IIRC, his comments were *after* he'd heard the testimony (some if not
all) and at that point he is *supposed* to have formed opinions, is he
not?
>
> >>
> >> "Although DOJ lawyers conceded that judges generally should not
> >> comment on pending cases, they made the counterclaim that Jackson's
> >> remarks did not reflect a bias against the company and should not be a
> >> factor in overturning the verdict."
> >
> >Perhaps it turns on what those remarks actually were, which you've
> >conveniently left out.
>
> They're in the article. Perhaps if you bothered to read it...?
*They* are not. There is precisely one *snippet* of what Jackson is
supposed to have said.
> >
> >>
> >> Yeah, right. And potential jurors who walk into court, take one look
> >> at the defendant and say 'The little sonofabitch looks guilty to me!'
> >> shouldn't be disqualified either then.
> >>
> >> Now where's just one quote of mine declaring that Apple isn't going to
> >> survive? Surely you can come up with one since you've declared them to
> >> be legion.
> >
> >As I said: your essential dishonesty comes as no surprise. You're
> >seriously suggesting that you've never state nor implied that Apple is
> >doomed to fail? Come on, Mayor.
>
> No I haven't. Where's your proof Alan 'I'll cry like a little girl
> until you give me a URL" Baker? You've declared that I've made the
> implication too many times to count. Surely out of all those times you
> can produce just one. Go to Google and use the search terms 'Apple'
> 'doom' and 'fail' with me as the author. Surely this will yield
> thousands upon thousands of hits for you to post...unless you're full
> of beans.
Or unless you used other words...
Alan Baker
Nope. It's not. One snippet is not a reference to the Judges statements.
Nor does it place it in time.
>Now where's your proof
> to back up your assertion that i've implied that Apple wasn't going to
> survive 'too many times to mention'? Surely out of all those times you
> can find just one. Just one. That's all I'm asking for Alan " I'll cry
> like a little girl until you give me a URL" Baker.
Oh, shut up.
Sandman
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >The difference, of course, is that Apple didn't want to install BeOS on the
> >machines they sold to consumers, since they wanted to sell MacOS. I would
> >be ok with Microsoft limiting the OS choice on the PCs that MS manufactures
> >and sells.
> >
> >Now, MS wanted to restrict OTHER companies to only ship Windows, no matter
> >if Compaq/HP/Dell/Packard Bell/IBM -wanted- to sell BeOS/Linux/Whatever on
> >them.
>
> They had the choice. No one was making them ship Windows. If they wanted to
> ship something else they shouldn't have signed contracts saying that they
> wouldn't.
I see, MS had nothing to do with it - it was all their choice. MS didn't put
any pressure on them at all. Hey, you're pretty great at creating and
substantiating "Wintroll myths".
> >You see, Microsoft doesn't make PC hardware (yet) - but when they do, I am
> >all for them pre-installing Windows on it - but before that, I think it's
> >lousy for them to dictate to other companies how they sell their products.
>
> Microsoft has no ability to dictate to other companies on how to sell their
> products.
Are you really this naive?
--
Sandman[.net]
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <seeker1-86DBC5...@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
> Seeker1 <see...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The only position I take is that Apple has decided to make Bob and
> > > > Marge's life easier in OS X rather than harder, and that that's a good
> > > > thing. End of story.
> > >
> > > And Bob is a switcher.
> >
> > ... and Bob might not have switched if Marge was not able to use his
> > computer, or if it was difficult for them to share files or other things
> > on their home network. My main point.
> >
> > Bob is a switcher - the family unit are tryers/adders. You know, many
> > families do often make these decisions as a whole.
>
> (All the family at the dinner table:)
>
> Bob: Hey guys... I've been thinking...
> Marge: About what, dear?
> Bob: Well... Hmm, how am I going to say this... I am thinking about
> switching to Mac.
> All: *gasp*
> Bob: Now now... Nothing will change, I'll still be your father and all
> Marge: Bob... I don't know, this is all so unexpected...
> Bob: Yes, I know... But there is nothing I can do... I'ts not like it's
> a choice... I am a maccie.
> Son: Daddy, why don't you love us???
> Bob: Oh, son... but I do! Nothing changes... It's not your fault!
> (Marge starts to sob)
> Bob: Oh, come on! I was hoping that you guys would understand...
>
> Hehe :)
Ah, the other version of the script for the episode of Dawson's Creek
where Dawson switches?
> In reality, I don't think the brand of computer is a household descicion. I
> think computer X folds or is getting old, and Bob says he'll buy a new one and
> comes home with a Mac.
Indeed. I don't even think people care so much about operating systems
or brands as we do. :-)
> > Windows compatibility is a feature touted for OS X, for exactly this
> > reason, I know what you and Andrew appear to be afraid of, but Apple
> > doesn't appear to be.
>
> Yet, in the end, Bob is a switcher, which is what we're saying. this scenario
> supports our point of view.
At the beginning of this argument someone refered to users of both
platforms as "coexisters", while I (and you, I think) used that same
word for a user of one platform who lives among users of the other.
Since then nobody seemed to get what we meant.
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > Lefty <Le...@NotARealAddress.com> wrote:
> >>> The very existence of OS/2 and BeOS means that there was no Windows
> >>> monopoly. There was a major market presence though. But do you
> >>> seriously believe that people didn't use OS/2 because they couldn't
> >>> use it?
> >>
> >> I guess we're into semantics again. OK, MS had no monopoly, and
> >> there was no 64-bit PC. This is advoacy, we can belive 6 impossible
> >> things before breakfast.
> >
> > Did Microsoft's "monopoly" mean that customers couldn't buy BeOS or
> > OS/2? I know it didn't. It's irrelevant. Customers could buy BeOS or
> > OS/2 and DIDN'T. And I think the reason was that customers simply had
> > no good reason to buy BeOS or OS/2.
> >
> > Neither would run the applications customers wanted to run.
> >
> > And neither supported all of their hardware.
> >
> > Why are you using Outlook Express? Were you forced? Or was it
> > convenient? Why do you use a Mac (if you do)? Why don't you use
> > RISC-OS or TOS? Is it because Apple is a "monopoly" or because
> > of application availability and hardware support.
>
> My personal belief is that MS held a very strong position following the IBM
> PC introduction (and their smart move to generalize it from an "IBM-PC" to
> an "MS-DOS" standard). They might have been nice guys and ended up with a
> natural monopoly. I probably wouldn't have been too broken up about that.
> Unfortunately (as is documented from wall to wall), they were not always
> nice guys. By the definition of our laws, they've done illegal things.
> They even faked evidence for federal court, for goodness sakes!
My point is not that Microsoft didn't do anything illegal. They did. My
point isn't even that I am against this particular law, although I am.
My point is that this "monopoly" wasn't the reason for people to use
Windows, but the effect of people using Windows.
People buy Windows for lots of reasons, but being forced to do so and
not being able to buy anything else was not one of the reasons.
> Since I've never faked evidence for a court, I think I'm on higher moral
> ground ;-)
Have you been in a similar situation? Unless you have been, I wouldn't
be so sure.
(Microsoft could never have ended up with a natural monopoly because
software is a product.)
> Still, I'm running Windows (on this machine) because I benefit from the
> natural parts of the monopoly. I can find low cost and easily available
> hardware and software. Unfortunately, they got a little money out of me
> (whatever Dell paid at their OEM rate). I'm supporting the nasty things
> they've done as well.
I don't. I despise Microsoft for what they did and try not to buy from
them. That's one reason I use a Mac and one reason I had a GNU/Linux
machine in my office for over a year in a company where everybody used
Windows.
(I have now established my iBook as a viable platform and use that in
the office. The Linux machine is now gone.)
> FWIW, I'll probably run it for as long as they let me do it for free, and
> try Linux again when they ask me to start paying for updates.
It's your choice. Do what you like.
Andrew J. Brehm
>
> Microsoft has no ability to dictate to other companies on how to sell
> their products. All Microsoft can do is offer Windows at better or at
> worse terms. And please none of this 'They need Windows at a low cost to
> survive' crap. Apple seems to be selling enough computers to survive
> without access to Windows at a low cost as do Sun and SGI so it obviously
> can be done.
Mayor,
you have been reading this particular newsgroups longer that I have.
This means that you must be perfectly aware of the fact that the
availability of competing products doesn't mean that Windows is no
monopoly and that the existence of companies that don't sell Windows
computers doesn't mean that companies can survive without selling
Windows.
This is how some people's minds work and I therefor think that your
attempt to use this argument is completely futile.
Just for the record, though. Why do you use Windows (I assume you do)?
a) Because Microsoft is a monopoly and you could not buy anything but
Windows.
b) Because Windows gives you access to thousands of applications and
supports your hardware.
Mac users, of course, use Macs in spite of both reasons and are therefor
a paradox when they use a platform they cannot use. :-)
Seeker1
> Relax.
I'm not excited.
Caps signify emphasis, not necessarily change in emotional state.
> "Apple hasn't specifically developed functions in Mac OS X to cater to these
> people"
I actually don't care, as long as they keep functions in OS X that keep
them happy. (This is not motivated by self-interest, as I'm not one of
them. But I know there are people out there who are.)
> You see, contrary to (your?) original claim, Apple is NOT including software
> that *promotes* dual systems, but rather software that promotes
> *co-existance*
> - which includes, but is not limmited to, your scenario.
Right. As you've been arguing all along, Apple doesn't sell systems that
can boot both Windows and MacOS.
Indeed.
They do sell systems that work in conjunction with Windows systems,
including but not limited to those used by one user who owns both,
although I think the scenario of one family owning both is more common.
What are we arguing about?
Ah, fuggedaboutit, this thread has moved on to the "is a monopoly! is
not!" debate for the 300th time. I'm not getting involved. I know Andrew
is a "switcher" on this *question* (i.e. he has a different opinion than
most), so you and him may have at it.
Whether or not it was legal, I do not think it is fair or competitive
for a company to make vendors sign contracts preventing them from
selling competitor's products. Yes, I understand Mayor's point that Coke
and Pepsi do this all the time. Coke signs contracts that prevent people
from selling Pepsi, and vice versa. I also think those practices are
anti-competitive and unfair and SHOULD BE illegal.
If your product is competitive, you should not have to make vendors sign
contracts saying they won't be allowed to offer the competition.
Andrew J. Brehm
> > Relax.
>
> I'm not excited.
>
> Caps signify emphasis, not necessarily change in emotional state.
>
> > "Apple hasn't specifically developed functions in Mac OS X to cater to these
> > people"
>
> I actually don't care, as long as they keep functions in OS X that keep
> them happy. (This is not motivated by self-interest, as I'm not one of
> them. But I know there are people out there who are.)
If you don't care, why do you participate in an argument about it?
> > You see, contrary to (your?) original claim, Apple is NOT including software
> > that *promotes* dual systems, but rather software that promotes
> > *co-existance*
> > - which includes, but is not limmited to, your scenario.
>
> Right. As you've been arguing all along, Apple doesn't sell systems that
> can boot both Windows and MacOS.
>
> Indeed.
You still don't get it.
> They do sell systems that work in conjunction with Windows systems,
> including but not limited to those used by one user who owns both,
> although I think the scenario of one family owning both is more common.
>
> What are we arguing about?
>
> Ah, fuggedaboutit, this thread has moved on to the "is a monopoly! is
> not!" debate for the 300th time. I'm not getting involved. I know Andrew
> is a "switcher" on this *question* (i.e. he has a different opinion than
> most), so you and him may have at it.
I am "switcher" on what question?
But anway, the monopoly debate has nothing to do with this argument.
We were arguing about whether Apple target adders or switchers.
My (and Sandman's) position was that Apple should not and do not target
adders but switchers.
What is yours?
> Whether or not it was legal, I do not think it is fair or competitive for
> a company to make vendors sign contracts preventing them from selling
> competitor's products. Yes, I understand Mayor's point that Coke and Pepsi
> do this all the time. Coke signs contracts that prevent people from
> selling Pepsi, and vice versa. I also think those practices are
> anti-competitive and unfair and SHOULD BE illegal.
If you don't like such practices, don't participate in them. I think it
is sad that so many people want to resort to using force immidiately.
Whether you like a certain agreement between two other parties or not is
quite irrelevant.
> If your product is competitive, you should not have to make vendors sign
> contracts saying they won't be allowed to offer the competition.
"should not" and "must not" are two different things.
Lefty
> Lefty <Le...@NotARealAddress.com> wrote:
>
>> Since I've never faked evidence for a court, I think I'm on higher
>> moral ground ;-)
>
> Have you been in a similar situation? Unless you have been, I wouldn't
> be so sure.
LOL, so my never having had to hire a lawyer to defend myself now says
something "bad" about me?
I'd say being "in a similar situation" would be a danger sign in itself.
>> FWIW, I'll probably run it for as long as they let me do it for
>> free, and try Linux again when they ask me to start paying for
>> updates.
>
> It's your choice. Do what you like.
;-)
Rick
> Rick <ri...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:22:09 +0200, Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
>>
>> > Lefty <Le...@NotARealAddress.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > IBM and Be went for adders and failed. Apple do not appear to be
>> >> > making the same mistake.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think you can name this as the one, proximate, cause of OS/2
>> >> and BeOS failure.
>> >
>> > I think it was among the many reasons the most serious one.
>>
>> No, the microsoft monopoly was the most serious one.
>
> You are not the least bit confused about there being a _monopoly_ AND
> _competition_?
No, I am not.
>> >> There were too many things happening at once, and more importantly,
>> >> there is no counter-example. There was no commercial desktop OS
>> >> introduced in the 90's which survived on the market. You can't say
>> >> "Foo" did it this way and won, because there is no foo.
>> >
>> > When method A fails whenever tried and method B was never tried, it
>> > is still better to try method B.
>>
>> ... if there is anyone left to try B.
>
> Apple is left.
So what?
>> >> FWIW, I think the real proximate cause of OS/2 and BeOS failure was
>> >> that MS understood, and effectively used, their Windows monopoly.
>> >
>> > The very existence of OS/2 and BeOS means that there was no Windows
>> > monopoly.
>>
>> You AGAIN show you don't know what a market monopoly is. 100%
>> marketshare is NOT necessary for an economic monopoly. Read some
>> economics books.
>
> I again show that we disagree about what a monopoly is.
>
> But I challenge you again to provide a source for your claim.
<http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm>
<http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getword.cgi?3112>
<http://business-law.freeadvice.com/trade_regulation/monopoly_power.htm>
<http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9500/9549.htm> " The Court of Appeals
upheld the conclusion that Microsoft had engaged in
a variety of exclusionary acts designed to protect its operating system
monopoly from the threat posed by a type of platform software known as
"middleware," in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Specifically,
the Court determined that, in response to the middleware threat,
Microsoft:"
... and...
" Specifically, the Court affirmed the District Court's finding and
conclusion that Microsoft had illegally maintained its operating system
monopoly in violation of Section"
>> > There was a major market presence though. But do you seriously
>> > believe that people didn't use OS/2 because they couldn't use it?
>>
>> Statistically, no they couldn't.
>
> What does it mean that somebody "statistically" can't do something.
Are you that dense?
>
> People could use OS/2. There just wasn't much of a reason to switch to
> OS/2.
>
>
>> >> No minor business decision at IBM or Be mattered more than that.
>> >
>> > IBM marketed OS/2 as a better Windows than Windows. The result was
>> > that ISVs, when they had to make a decision regarding what OS to
>> > support, had these options:
>> >
>> > 1. Support OS/2 and target 5% of the market.
>> >
>> > 2. Support Win16 and target 100% of the market.
>> >
>> > What do you think ISVs did?
>>
>> They went with the illegally maintained monopoly.
>
> Nothing stopped customers from buying and installing OS/2 (except maybe
> OS/2's legendary installer).
You just don't get it do you? No.. you don't.
>
>> > Compatibility to existing applications is an asset when you introduce
>> > your platform, but a liability when you want it to be supported
>> > specifically. If Apple's goal was to convince people to add a Mac to
>> > their existing PC, ISVs will learn that many Mac users also have
>> > access to a Windows machine and develop for Windows only.
>> >
>> > As for Be, their strategy was to market BeOS as a multimedia OS to
>> > run side by side with the general purpose OS (Windows or Mac OS).
>>
>> Can you support this statement.. .with some quotes from Gassee, maybe
>> It is my recollection that BeOS was to be THE multimedia OS, as well
>> and a general use OS.
>
> I can always support all of my statements. Can you point me to a posting
> of yours where you support a claim of yours with a source or quote?
See above.
> Anyway, Be's strategy is explained by Gassee here:
>
> <
> http://www.beatjapan.org/mirror/www.be.com/aboutbe/benewsletter/Issue85.
> html>
>
> The specific quotes are these:
>
> "For us, the idea is to exist to the left or right of them, not in their
> path."
>
> "We're proud of our work, we see incredible potential in our OS, but the
> logical consequence of specialization is coexistence with general
> purpose products, as opposed to attempting to displace them with a (yet)
> unproven OS such as ours."
... as well as ...
"Put another way, our focus is the digital media content creation space."
<http://www.bebox.nu/articles.php?s=articles/1995xxxx-JLGInterview>
"Is the BeBox a mass market machine?
The game is played in this business in concentric rings, like the old
adventure games -- if you play well in the first ring, you get more lives,
more weapons and you get to play again. So the answer to that question
depends on the time. If we do a good job, a few years down the road it
might be a mass-market platform because we license it from day one, having
learned some lessons in a another life."
>> > Both Apple and Microsoft did what they could to sabotage BeOS. The Be
>> > strategy failed anyway, because both Mac OS and Windows started
>> > targeting multimedia too and it was more convenient for users to run
>> > multimedia applications under their general purpose OS rather than
>> > reboot into BeOS. And that was it.
>>
>> Thats bullshit. Be failed because microsoft's licenses forbade
>> dual-booting.
>
> You will now explain how that stops customers from buying and installing
> BeOS on their computers.
You will now explain why you failed to address my statement. And, BTW,
why should customers pay for an OS on a computer only to wipe it off and
pay for another one.
> (That's a joke, of course. I have never seen you explain anything.)
Then you should open your eyes.
>
>
>> > What I learn from this is that it is absolutely the wrong way to
>> > attempt and try to convince users to _add_ your platform to their
>> > existing platform.
>> >
>> > Apple try to make users switch instead. And I think this is the right
>> > way.
--
Rick
Andrew J. Brehm
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > Lefty <Le...@NotARealAddress.com> wrote:
> >
>
> >> Since I've never faked evidence for a court, I think I'm on higher
> >> moral ground ;-)
> >
> > Have you been in a similar situation? Unless you have been, I wouldn't
> > be so sure.
>
> LOL, so my never having had to hire a lawyer to defend myself now says
> something "bad" about me?
No. But it's easy not to do X when you have never been in a situation
where you could have done X.
> I'd say being "in a similar situation" would be a danger sign in itself.
Depending on the type of government you live under it can be difficult
or very easy to be in a similar situation.
> >> FWIW, I'll probably run it for as long as they let me do it for
> >> free, and try Linux again when they ask me to start paying for
> >> updates.
> >
> > It's your choice. Do what you like.
>
> ;-)
Ok.
Andrew J. Brehm
> >> marketshare is NOT necessary for an economic monopoly. Read some
> >> economics books.
> >
> > I again show that we disagree about what a monopoly is.
> >
> > But I challenge you again to provide a source for your claim.
>
> <http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm>
> <http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getword.cgi?3112>
> <http://business-law.freeadvice.com/trade_regulation/monopoly_power.htm>
> <http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9500/9549.htm> " The Court of Appeals
> upheld the conclusion that Microsoft had engaged in
> a variety of exclusionary acts designed to protect its operating system
> monopoly from the threat posed by a type of platform software known as
> "middleware," in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Specifically,
> the Court determined that, in response to the middleware threat,
> Microsoft:"
>
> ... and...
> " Specifically, the Court affirmed the District Court's finding and
> conclusion that Microsoft had illegally maintained its operating system
> monopoly in violation of Section"
>
These are court decisions.
You spoke of economics books. My challenge stands.
Which economics book defines a monopoly the way you do and how prominent
is the opinion defined by that book?
Sandman
Seeker1 <see...@mac.com> wrote:
(you seem to be off on a sidetrack here, so I guess there is nothing more to
say...)
--
Sandman[.net]
no
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >You've implied on occasions too numerous to count.
> >>
> >> References please.
> >
> >Unfortunately, I *can* believe you would be this dishonest.
If he has said it on "occasions too numerous to count" it should be
exceedingly easy to find such references.
Rick
You wanted references... I gave you references. I am sure if I provided
book pages, you would disregard them. However, since I won't be back in
school for a couple of weeks, you will have to wait. Or, you could just
re-read those books you've seen that you don't agree with.
Perhaps you you are having problems with microsoft not being a "pure
monopoly" when being described as a monopoly, instead of describing
microsoft as wielding monopoly power?
If you search the literature, I am sure you will find that while microsoft
in not a "pure monopoly", it can, and does, bar entry into the marketplace
(ask Be, Go Computing and Digital Research), it can set pricing (well, it
could until Free Software appeared with the majority at $0) in the
marketplace, and keeps its marketplace position through predatory
pricing. All of the above show that micro$oft wields monopoly power and is
correctly considered a monopoly.
--
Rick
Mayor of R'lyeh
Brehm) chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
I'm constantly amused by the fact that almost every message decrying
the 'fact' that you have no choice but to use Microsoft has been
posted by someone using a non-Microsoft OS.