Someday You'll Hate Apple (And Google Too) 734
jfruhlinger writes "Think today's world, where Apple is the innovative underdog, Google is the company that does no evil, and Microsoft sits atop its throne as ruler of an evil empire. Will this state of affairs last forever? You must not remember the days when everybody loved that scrappy upstart Bill Gates. Don Reisinger muses on the fickleness of consumer loves and hates. 'It's that same [level of] success and its own questionable privacy practices that will lead to Google's PR downfall and propel it into a position of disdain going forward. Trust me, the future of Apple and Google may look bright from an economic standpoint, but these companies will be hated one day too. Sad, but true.'"
One day? (Score:5, Insightful)
Blind devotion to *anything* is questionable.
Re:One day? (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone can find someone to hate them. The important point is that Microsoft are hated by their own customers, and it's probably true that Google and Apple will be too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I will forever be untrusting of Google.
Re:One day? (Score:5, Funny)
Amen!
Re:One day? (Score:5, Interesting)
I myself think that apple could do some things better (being less of a control freak on the gui for one). I buy apple products sometimes because the hardware works with an acceptable rate of failure and their software is usually easier to get running than linux but less irritating to use than windows. These are my opinions, I recognize that not everyone feels the same way. Anyhow, the point is that I'm no apple fanboi even though I buy their products sometimes (e.g., my home PC is a linux box I built from parts) but then I'm not an irrational hater either.
That said, I do tend to hate Microsoft sometimes. Mostly when Ballmer was going on about the "patent infringments" in linux. That pissed me off. Or when I go to an internet site that has some Microsoft only file or plugin on it, although that's getting less and less as the linux codecs catch up.
Re:One day? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reliability, duh. (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no technical reason for disallowing OS X to run on any x86-based platform.
If the software can only run on known hardware configurations, you get to design and debug for a more reliable OS than if it has to run on an infinite permutation of unknown hardware.
Not to mention that Apple sells hardware, the OS is what makes it run. They have no reason to offer the OS they make to run hardware they aren't selling.
And the third reason is that if the OS is seen as unreliable on non-supported hardware, it will lead people to think that the OS, and the company that made it, is at fault, ra
well, this is a free-software/etc. site (Score:4, Insightful)
Which Apple supports to a great extent!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean openness like:
Webkit (open source, core of Safari)
Darwin (open source, base for )
GCC (used for Apple development tools, significant updates added by Apple for Objective C support)
All sorts of BSD tools
LaunchD framework
Rendezvous
Apache (OS X ships with Apache built in)
PHP, Perl, Ruby, etc (same deal).
Those are all open and strongly supported by Apple. Apple has been one of the most open source friendly companies to come along, of all the ones that also do more proprietary work as well.
I am a huge fan of open source, and also happily use a number of Apple products.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apple Killed it,
All Open licensed before Apple got their hands on it. Apple doesnt have a choice but to support them (if open in name only) if they want to continue using them.
Name one?
The other three you mentioned, I've never used, two of them I've never heard of. I've only heard about Rendezvou
Re:One day? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One day? (Score:5, Interesting)
And Bill Gates:
I never had an opinion about him, but I hated the IBM/MS-DOS empire which symbolized a lack of progress in the 80s (and in some respects still do). While I was creating music on my Ataris and Commodores, the MS-DOS machines were still going "beep" with a mere 4 colors. While my Amiga was running a dozen programs at the same time, Microsoft machines were still limited to just a single task.
By rights IBM/Microsoft PCs should have died while the innovators at Atari, Commodore, Amiga rose to the top with their multimedia machines.
But success and innovation aren't always the same thing.
No, we hated Apple from time to time (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No, we hated Apple from time to time (Score:5, Funny)
- QuickTime for Windows
- Brushed Steel
On second thoughts, make that any Apple product for Windows
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a cult, you can use a multi-button mouse on Macs, their OS supports it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's a good thing. It's reliable, predictable... which are things I want from an interface.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, we hated Apple from time to time (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, any old PC that can make use of more than 256 MB RAM can be very useful with Windows XP for several years to come (XP can actually be made very lean, if you know how to remove stuff). No, it won't run the latest and greatest games, but neither will a brand new MacBook.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sounds like the issue is yours, not the age of your machines...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Networking was commonplace in the PC world in 1998. Heck, my OS/2 box was built in 1996 and has an EEPro/100B in it compliments of Micron.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The cult of the single-button mouse.
(turns red). Yeah. But...those who prefer 2 or 3 button mouse could buy one from 3rd parties. Right mouse click does work on a Mac. Multi button mouse just didn't come with Macs.
The thing I've never understood is why Apple persisted with a single button on the trackpad once they moved to OSX. It's the one thing that's kept me from buying a Mac laptop, and it drives me insane because those laptops are pretty nice in every other way ... (It's pretty hard finding three-button non-apple trackpads, too, but the trick is to find one with those silly two-way or four-way scroll buttons in the middle and remap it)
The funny thing is, Apple could have marketed middle-mouse cut-and-paste, a
Re:No, we hated Apple from time to time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No, we hated Apple from time to time (Score:4, Funny)
Wow, half a DECADE?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Functional languages are the true winners. They've been around for over half a decade. In another half decade people will still be writing code in some variant of Emacs Lisp and Java, etc. will be as forgotten as Fortran IV and Cobol is today.
Half a DECADE?! Ye Gods, that's older than Facebook! Please, what other ancient lore can you share with us from the days before Web 2.0? [insert witty remark about old-timers with 5-digit /. uids here]
(Of course, if you meant to say "half a century" in both places, then I completely agree with the point about Lisp [xkcd.com] and functional languages in general. Also, while I'm not that much of an old-timer myself, I know there are those who would take issue with the claim of Fortran and Cobol being "forgotten".)
Re:One day? (Score:5, Interesting)
In the early 90's I hated Apple. The reason why? I had an onboxious Apple-zealot friend. I didn't know much about the machines, but I remember in our programming class I heard him say "too bad, I could do that easily with my Mac"... oh about 1.3 million times over the course of two years. Frankly, I was a know-it-all asshole back then. So yeah, that put me off. The rest of the peeps in the class had PCs, so we all agreed he was just being a zealot and cemented our positions as PC dudes. It didn't matter much, anyway. The Mac was out of reach of any of our price ranges, plus the game selection was a joke (and we cared about that more than anything), so it's not like our doubts about the platform were ever challenged.
Fast foward to the late 90's. Intel was proud of their Pentium 2 chips and Apple was proud of their... erm.. pardon my lack of terminology here, but I think they were using PowerPC chips from IBM. Apple was running ads saying that Photoshop was up to twice as fast on their chips as it was on Intel/P2 chips. I remember reading that that had been de-bunked from a practicality point of view. Something like "yeah, if you did level 80 gaussian blurs throughout most of the day, you'd get your money's worth out of using a Mac instead." The benefits of that processor were enhancements in certain ways it did the math, but were not an overall improvement on the design. Cute. I didn't really hate Apple for this, though. No, what caused this was some guy coming into a chatroom proclaiming "Don't believe what you read in biased sources like PC World, go get the TRUTH at Macfanatic.com!" I cannot believe the irony of that statement was completely lost on that guy! Not long after that, I started seeing posts like that rumbling around the world-wide-web. (This was back in the good 'ol days, when it was called the world wide web.) I remember thinking "yeesh, are these Apple fans under Dogbert's control or something?"
Anyway, yes, I hated Apple. No, I really didn't have a good reason for it... really I hated Apple fanatics, but I didn't draw the distinction back then. For the record, no, I don't hate Apple now. I'm actually about to drop 3k on a Macbook Pro. (I still can't get over Apple's decision to go Intel. Woo!) I cannot scientifically prove this, but I can totally see how there were lots of Apple 'haters' back then. The noise ratio from the fanatics was just too high for that not to happen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One day? (Score:5, Funny)
Ahead of their time (Score:4, Insightful)
First to market with a revolutionary new product guarantees you an entry in wikipedia, nothing more.
Re:One day? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, once you've figured out the price-point that maximizes your profits, you sell at it. Businesses aren't charities. They could be making profits of 1000% and it would be reasonable to sell at that price if it was the maximum on the curve.
Figuring out that point, though--that's the tricky part.
Re:One day? (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost EVERYTHING you buy from electronics to food to clothing is marked up at least 200%. That's the nature of retail. It's not exclusive to Apple products and never has been.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Speaking of Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Speaking of Google (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, there are (and don't say there aren't) certain apps we use that Firefox and Opera just don't like to behave with.
Plus, if you take Google Crapbar and any other "helper" toolbars out of the equation, IE7 runs just fine. It's the crapbars causing the crash, every time - and half the time Google Crapbar turns out to have gotten into the system in some little "tag-along" arrangement, usually through an "automatic update" of Java or Acrobat Reader where you have to go into the "advanced" install mode to DENY the Google Crapbar permission to install.
Re:Speaking of Google (Score:5, Informative)
Also, complain loudly to whoever's responsible for those apps. It seems likely they won't care, but it seems equally likely that they're just waiting for enough people to complain, so they can make the case to their bosses.
Re:Speaking of Google (Score:5, Insightful)
We learned a long time ago that 9 times out of 10 you can avoid the sub-radar injection of spyware that way and this was a contributory factor in our machines working whilst others fell over all the time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
iexplore.exe -extoff
That should take care of most of the crap addins.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is this really surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, looking at all their marketing tactics and dirty moves... its fine now, because its mostly aimed at Microsoft, and its with a small market...but if Apple was to NOT change tactics once it reaches 30%+ marketshare? OUCH! Bundling, false advertising, FUD, price jacking, bullying their partners around, etc? That would be fairly bad.
Now to hope that the only reason they do that now is because they have no choice (have to sink to the competition's level), but I somehow have my doubts.
Re:Is this really surprising? (Score:5, Interesting)
Thus the entire premise of the article is a bit of a straw-man: Apple's corporate goals don't appear to include even TRYING to gain a majority of the market share. Their phone only competes in the "smart" market which is 1% of the total market; their computers have no low-end offerings whatsoever; the iPods, despite having some of the best margins in the industry, are consistently undercut on price-per-feature.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
800 MHz G3 iBook (Score:2)
Honestly, Apple! Soddering the GPU with a ball grid array upside-down? Yeah, thanks for that!
Love Bill Gates? (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, but they're just companies (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't need an adoring cult around them. They need to provide what the market demands. If people want to impute a personality or culture to a company, that's fine as far as that goes. But it's still pretty much bullshit.
Re:Yeah, but they're just companies (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that people then unconsciously port this methodology into the domain of assessing a corporation. In this case it doesn't work: you can have a positive experience with one part of the company, but that actually says little about how other parts of the company will treat you (e.g. a nice salesman versus a rude phone support person a week later). This confusion is very much intentional on the part of the company: the marketing departments are very good at creating the image of friendlieness, or trustworthyness, or hipness, or whatever... but this bears no correlation to the actual engineering or sales departments.
It's been said before that if corporations are persons then they are surely insane persons. Indeed. The problem is that corporations 'behave' in inconsistent ways. It's like they have mental disorders (bipolar? multiple personalities?), and hence violate the normal rules we would like to use for consistency and trust.
All of that to say that we should be very careful about assigning personality to corporations. A statistical analysis of a company is meaningful (e.g. "I use this company because 80% of customers who call the support line get a satisfactory solution within 5 minutes"), but we should not fall into the (natural) trap of treating the company as a single personality (e.g. "I use this company because it's always been nice to me").
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They act inconsistently because they are a group, and no group of people is completely consistent. And individual people also act inconsistently! But that doesn't mean they don't h
And perhaps Microsoft will be loved again (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty simple, really (Score:5, Insightful)
- when companies are at the top of their niche, and have their nice walled garden and penned sheep to shear at will, they want to keep their garden walled and their sheep penned. Then they want proprietary protocols, incompatible tweaks to the "standard", and they want those sheep scared shitless of even thinking about the world outside their pen. They want you to think "oh shit, if we switch from IBM mainframes to cheap Unix workstations, we'll have to retrain everyone, rewrite our software, rip out and change the whole infrastructure, etc. Naah, let's buy another workstation, it's cheaper." In fact, they don't even want you doing that kind of maths, they want you scared of what might pop up later that you haven't foreseen, and unsure if you even know the right sum it will cost you, and whether you'll get ass raped without lubricant by your clients _and_ accounting department if you changed anything.
The term FUD, now almost synonimous with MS tactics, was coined about IBM tactics. That's not even the tip of the iceberg of FUD there, but the very phrase "nobody got fired for buying IBM" carried the thinly veiled threat that you _might_ lose your job if you go with something else.
- when they're at the bottom and scraping a living off the niches outside the pens, then they want access to those rich guys gardens and sheeps. Then they start screaming that such fences and walls are an abhomination and evil. Then they want open protocols, and ISO standards, and generally everything that will make it easy for them to get to those penned sheep.
And a company's attitude can change at the drop of a hat, if their position on the food chain changes enough. IBM was the big bad monopolist, as long as it was the king of the hill. IBM became the champion of open source and open standards when it got enough of their lunch money stolen by the likes of MS.
And occasionally you even get to see the schizophrenic fits of a company that just slowly slides somewhere around the middle point. So they're starting to covet the neighbour's penned sheep, but aren't quite ready to free their own penned sheep too. Sun was for a couple of years at that point, but now it seems to have mostly resigned to being in the latter camp.
So what I'm saying is that, yes, things can change with MS too. If one day it finds itself at the bottom of the food chain, then MS _will_ become the champion of open standards. And then a bunch of nerds will love them.
Why we love them. (Score:2, Insightful)
Back in the 90's, MS gave us great development tools, opportunity, a series of great Office suites and other excellent software.
Sadly however, software seemed to stagnate somewhat, and Microsoft have become increasingly dependent on their core set of products / cash cows, of Office and Windows.
In contrast, Apple in the 90's had a cruddy product line, stagnating software, and people were migrating away from Mac OS in droves, so the shiny new
Re:Why we love them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
competiting offerings to choose from, the Microsoft one was quite often the
one considered least sophisticated. This even applies to visual studio.
Skully (Score:3, Insightful)
Many Apple fans hated Apple under Skully's leadership.
He killed their most profitable platform the (Apple II) and almost destroyed their second most profitable platform (the Mac) with crap like the Performa boxes.
Those Performas made Packard Bell PC's look good!
Hate Apple? Been there, done that.
wrong assumption (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite a lot of people never liked Bill Gates. Not his person, not his business ethics and not the software he created. There's enough stuff on the Internet about his early disagreements with Free Software advocates, for example.
And far from the article, like it or not, Microsoft and especially Gates are still hailed as the best and greatest in a lot of trade magazines and computer magazines for the non-techies. Despite the crashes and bugs and problems, a lot of "regular" people believe that they invented "the cumputa".
AN OPEN LETTER TO HOBBYISTS (Score:5, Interesting)
To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?
Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the initial work took only two months, the three of us have spent most of the last year documenting, improving and adding features to BASIC. Now we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC. The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000.
The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however, 1) Most of these "users" never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent on Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.
Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?
Is this fair? One thing you don't do by stealing software is get back at MITS for some problem you may have had. MITS doesn't make money selling software. The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft.
What about the guys who re-sell Altair BASIC, aren't they making money on hobby software? Yes, but those who have been reported to us may lose in the end. They are the ones who give hobbyists a bad name, and should be kicked out of any club meeting they show up at.
I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up, or has a suggestion or comment. Just write me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108. Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.
Bill Gates
General Partner, Micro-Soft
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. I've never read that. This explains why he thinks linux (the currently prominent hobbyist OS) is rife with copyrighted code. "It *must* be, hobbyists are thieves!"
Re:AN OPEN LETTER TO HOBBYISTS (Score:5, Insightful)
I dislike Windows and most other Microsoft software, but I actually agree with most of this letter. Taking other people's programs when you don't have permission isn't right, and if someone wants to make their code closed source, that's their choice too.
The two things Bill was wrong about were a) that no one would distribute software for free and b) that he would be able to deluge the hobby market with good software.
Manufacturing Consent (Score:2, Funny)
"Sure you hate Microsoft now. You didn't used to.
Why don't you crazy kids patch things up and get back together?"
Like they think I'm going to rush out and buy Vista
for nostalgic love reasons.
When was Bill Gates loved? (Score:2)
I already hate apple (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this sad? Surely being suspicious of powerful entities is one of the better human qualities.
We'll See (Score:5, Interesting)
*sigh*
I have this conversation regularly at work. Whenever I express my distrust of Microsoft inevitably someone will start babbling about how I will hate some other random company in ten years. I can't help but think that these are all just Microsoft apologists.
It isn't the age or size of a company that makes me hate them personally- it's their behavior.
So far Google has never done anything as a company that I think is evil (yes even the China filtering) and all their products have been delightful to use. Given their past history I see no reason to assume that they will suddenly and magically become irresponsible. I also don't see my loyalty to them to be a function of any PR department. As soon as they modify the IMAP spec to make it so only their own email client can connect, or sell my personal information, then I will hate them.
The difference is that I can't imagine Google doing that. I would practically expect it of some companies like MS or Sony who have a long history of such behavior.
Incidentally- I have no opinion about Apple as a corporation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It isn't the age or size of a company that makes me hate them personally- it's their behavior.
I agree. Personally, I don't think it's good for any single operating system to be as dominant as Windows has been, but that's not the reason I dislike Microsoft. If they were this dominant simply by being the best, I wouldn't consider it their fault. It's a question of what they've done with that dominance-- stifled innovation, harassed their own customers with "activation" crap, locked their customers into M
I'm starting to fear Google already (Score:5, Insightful)
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is because there were no such days. From the very beginning, having stolen CP/M and computer time at a university to get their business running, Microsoft has always been regarded as a band of criminals largely devoid of real know-how. The fact that Google and Apple are not targets of widespread hatred in the tech community is evidence that there is more to the anti-Microsoft sentiment than simply rooting for the underdog.
Microsoft hasn't mattered in 10 years. Google is on top of the tech game now and everyone knows it. Apple is expensive and pretentious, but remains, for the most part, respected. The best Microsoft can hope for with regard to public sentiment is to transition from outright, boiling hatred to pity. If anti-Microsoft sentiment were the fickle leftist hatred of success that it is cast to be, then why would we also hate SCO, which is anything but successful?
The hatred of Microsoft is well earned, and its reasons go back to the very beginning of the company. If the SCO experience is any indication, it will long outlast the company's success.
All about competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Utter nonsense. Apart from the obvious massive differences in approach to quality between MS and Apple, it's actually primarily about competition; companies generally stay in line when there are true competitive pressures. If the industry manages to become competitive (we're not there yet but it's certainly improved over five years ago) then there'll be fewer reasons to 'hate' any particular company, market forces will help make sure they behave. The current trend towards improved support for Web standards is just one example. If we end up with say 15% Linux, 30% Apple, 30% MS, 10% Androi, 15% 'other', that would be a good balance - things like interoparability will be literally forced by the market, and they'll also be forced to actually improve and debloat their respective products.
We don't hate MS "because they're big", that's what marketers want you to think. We hate them because of their unethical abuse of their dominant market position to push inferior products which we've had to suffer with for years.
The day they change their attitude and start producing quality standards-based products, is the day we start liking them, no matter their size - it's really as simple as that.
Maybe hate is the problem then? (Score:5, Insightful)
The socially-reinforced need to pick out people or organizations to hate seems like something you might want to grow out of at some point.
If Apple or Google actually send assassins to kill your wife and children, go ahead and hate them. If some opinionated Internet comment-posters and the folks you chit-chat with at the office decide to hate Apple and Google, why not just encourage them to worry about reality, live their own lives, and stop the schoolgirl clique nonsense?
Don't you have anything better to do? Can't you find something before the "hate-Google" and "hate-Apple" memes get started? You have time. Now is your chance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, we all remember when Bill Gates announced to Homebrew that he was planning to sell his BASIC interpreter for cash. Trust me, there were quite a few displeased people - not because they wanted "good stuff for free", but because it corrupted a community that was sharing its work for the great benefit.
I thought it was fair - even smart - but I also concluded that his approach turned off the exact community that he was trying to sell to. "Customers be damned" comes to mind.
And that was back in 1976. Don't get me wrong - Apple also had a crappy dozen years, when its machines were named Macs with a number. Apple was despised, even by its strongest supporters.
But Apple later learned that you have to have great products that your customers love. Google knows this too. GM? Not so much. Microsoft? No, not any more. Maybe someday they'll come back.
GM has been in the dumps for decades - so can Microsoft. Apple and Google will continue as long as their management knows that you have to strive for excellent products.
So maybe power does corrupt? (Score:3, Insightful)
The unstated premise here is that people are being unfair for disliking the monopolistic corporation. After all, if Google and Apple become uber-rich monopolistic corporations, we'll hate them too. I can't speak for anybody else, but I like competition, and any organization that becomes successful enough to deprive the market of a healthy competition will attract my animosity.
I do not dislike Microsoft because they're "evil". I dislike the situation they are in.
Did you enjoy all the comments? (Score:3)
Article is absolut crap (Score:3, Insightful)
Like hell.
Have you followed the OOXML scam? The SCO-scam? The Acacia scam? How about msft lying to the US-DoJ in video taped testomony? What about the letters from dead people campaign? How about microsoft stealing Stacker technology? Then there are: fake TCO studies, fake benchmark studies, fake think tanks, Bestbuy rackteering, msft customers sued because of msft patent violation. How about msft saying computers where "Vista Ready" when they weren't. How about the Peter Quinn scam? And, right now, msft is lying to congress about a "tech worker shortage" in order to have congress double the number of H1-Bs, and even further hurt US tech workers.
Have Apple or Google done that sort of thing?
People don't hate msft because msft is big, people hate msft because msft really is evil.
Never forgive! The day MS ate BUNGIE!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
But to his credit, Bill saw that coming... and squashed it.
2000 called. (Score:3, Funny)
Burn karma burn (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not quite the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not quite the same (Score:5, Informative)
and in Apple's case, Darwin that you conceded, Filemaker? iTunes (not the store) ?
others are pointing out more.
Are you RDF positive?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What matters today is that MacOSX and iTunes are 'defining characteristics' of Apple and as long as they do the job right, I as a consumer don't really care where they came from, same goes for any other company.
Re:Not quite the same (Score:5, Informative)
As for MS innovation, MS required Apple to give them their source code for Mac OS so that they could code up the first version of Excel. It wasn't until Windows 1 came out and Apple engineers poked around in it that they found Apple code used in Windows. That was finally settled with the $150M stock transfer back in the late 90's.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Steve Jobs visited Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center), and was shown around. Having paid (in stock), he was allowed to "pick one of three", and went for the GUI. Apple developers then did significant extra items on top of Xerox's work (partly because they mis-remembered what they saw; some things like overlapping windows hadn't been worked out by Xerox, although the devs thought they had seen them)
http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventions/a/Apple_Computers.htm [about.com]
http://fol [folklore.org]
Re:Not quite the same (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not quite the same (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is, though, they didn't really do anything terribly innovative. DOS is just a close kissing cousin of CP/M, and if Bill had failed IBM would have paid someone else for their copy of CP/M, or just bought the real thing. Microsoft was really just a broker. Even their much-heralded office suite was nothing special until all of the competition was beaten away and no one could afford to make a competitive product. In the end, it was easy to dislike them.
Contrast this with my like for Google and Apple, where I actually like the products that they make. As long as they keep making great products, I'll probably keep liking those companies - it has very little to do with their corporate policies (unless the policies become "screw the customer").
Re:Not quite the same (Score:5, Insightful)
HE was the one who wrote the famous CUG letter about not stealing software. For him to lecture his fellow club members about not stealing, and then do it himself, would be hypocritical.
Oh wait.
Re:Not quite the same (Score:4, Informative)
The Apple ][ family was MOS/WDC. There might have been 1 or 2 Intel chips on some of the motherboards, but the CPU was an MOS 6502 (or a second-source clone, usually Synertek or Rockwell,) WDC 65C02 (actually, an NCR second-source clone,) or WDC 65C816 (a VLSI second-source clone.)
Re:Not quite the same (Score:5, Interesting)
Huh? Apple has used Intel's CPUs for a long time? Where did you get that from?
The original Apple ][s were based on MOS Technology's 6502 processor, although MOS later licensed the technology to other manufacturers, Intel was never one of them, since they were doing quite well with their 8080 and then later the 80286 and successors in the x86 line. The Apple
The original Macintosh was based on the 68000 chip from Motorola, and Macs continued to be based on that chips successors, the 68020, 68030, and 68040 for several years. Then they switched to the PowerPC family which were designed by IBM and Motorola together. I believe that most of the chips were branded IBM inside the case, but I believe the chips, at least at first, were being supplied by Motorola.
The switch to Intel didn't happen until 2006, although NextSTEP, the OS that OS X was based on, ran on multiple architectures including Intel, and Apple kept making sure that OS X could be used on Intel chips in secret to give them more bargaining power.
I highly doubt we would have seen the bunny suit ads if Apple had been using Intel chips for anything mission-critical.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I posted a response to someone else's MS hating/Apple loving post that basically stated this article's points and was modded -1 Troll. I went back to my mom's basement and cried.
Re:See it everywhere (Score:5, Interesting)
The big reason that big success companies become hated is that they try to change the way they gained their success and horde everything for themselves. If Google, or others try to do this they too will get the boot from esteem. Most people do not mind a company trying to profit. I don't.
Examples include Walmart. That outfit started out as a country store which got smart in finance but remembered to serve its customers well and and always made sure to involve the local industry in the marketing plan. Then the kids and finance guys took over from Sam Walton and to say the least, instantly the buy local and support your community stuff went the way of the dinosaurs. Bill Gates at the famous evil empire used to brag about making many other people into millionaires. He made a fortune in the USA and hiring Americans to do it. Then he got rich and decided that he should keep all the money to himself. Being as rich as 4 or 5 US States wasn't enough for him. He just had to move on to China, India and the like, forgetting the guys who made him rich. Then he decided to rent his software for developers in the USA for about $2000 a year. At the same time he practically gave it away in India and China. Well it is no wonder the programmers who were living well with him suddenly became the enemies of the empire.
I know a company McKee Baking in Collegedale Tn. This company has made its original owners and heirs quite wealthy. Nobody is anything but proud of them for their pretty successful baking empire. The reason is that they pay well, and have not tried to dump the people who made their fortune possible. If they ever do I assure you their goodwill will go with it. This is pretty simple stuff people. All you have to do if you get big is not to stomp on people and just go on earning your living. It makes friends and deters enemies.
In the case of Microsoft Corporation, they undertook about 10 years ago to begin to completely destroy the careers of American Programmers. They are hated for it now. Their product lines are not growing and are shuddering with competition because they have just about destroyed any rational reason to partner with them. Google on the other hand is for the time being a friendly helpful and cooperative giant. As long as it stays so it will be so. Once burned the good will of such a company is probably not recoverable. Microsoft will be big for some time but it is in decline and it is it's own fault. If I as a programmer could come and pitch a good new idea and get it moved on to production with their cooperation and partnership, they could be winning but they are refusing to do that. Everybody who tries this game with them loses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I like Gates. I wouldn't necessarily think him to be the most ethical of business men but in business you win or you die. He plays to win.
Re:First Trout! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First Trout! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like Bill Gates is the only shifty business guy out there. He was just the most successful one, and as such he is the one that people cry about the most.
I don't agree with his practices or ethics, but from a business standpoint, the man is a genius and one of the most successful in the world. There is no denying that he has accomplished the near impossible. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant: business is business, and in this case, Bill Gates smashed one out of the park.
The fact that he earns more money while trimming his nose hair than most of us will ever see in our entire lives is proof enough of that. Recognizing someone's business success while acknowledging their shortcomings as a person doesn't make you a pussy, you know...it's ok to admire someone while hating them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:New definition of genius... (Score:5, Informative)
In every market that Microsoft has won, they won by being the only choice left.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:New definition of genius... (Score:4, Interesting)
You say capitalism provides people with an opportunity to rise above everyone else. I ask, does the capitalist system only allow people to rise above others through merit, or are other, less honorable factors at least as important in determining who rises and who falls?
Re:First Trout! (Score:5, Insightful)
I call upon the excrement of the male bovine!
Many businessmen and women have lost business opportunities and not lost their business. If your business goes bankrupt you are not strapped into the electric chair.
Business is NOT win or die, it isn't even win or lose. Yes there is some competition in business, quite a bit of it actually, but being second best in business does NOT mean that you are going to go under or lose your shirt.
Ethics matters in terms of gaining and keeping a reputation with customers and employees.
It isn't a race, it isn't a game, there is no one winner and the end is the same for everyone.
Which moral dilemma? (Score:4, Insightful)
I you allow greedy, immoral shareholders to dictate dubious business practices, you, as a CEO or any other higher official in a company, will be held responsible also for the consequences (either in the marketplace or the court of law).
A shareholder that does not understand that the only way to make money honestly is by offering a good service or product is a scumbag, no self respectable CEO should accept to work for them.
Re:First Trout! (Score:4, Insightful)
But since Amiga isn't coming back any time soon, I'm glad there's a presence in the commercial computing world that tries to be innovative outside of office productivity (blech).
Re:Power Leads to Corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry but no, I expect and want to be permitted to enter through legally established means, so that I may be an upstanding guest of the place I am visiting.
Discrimination is when you use an irrelevant attribute to make decisions. The ability to afford the product at a profitable price(*) is hardly irrelevant, and distracts from real discrimination -- and Apple is one the top 10 companies to work for if you're a minority. I'm not a fanboi, I'm just homosexual and love my wife just the same, and wish her capacity for pregnancy did not prevent her from receiving health care (I don't work for Apple, sadly).
~Rebecca
(*) Someone will invariably make a comment of gasoline or food or some such. Please understand that we're talking about Apple computer, which to my knowledge does not produce or sell anything in the "necessary for sustainable life" category. If iPods become as important as the automobile, groceries, or healthcare, we'll reconsider.
Re:Power Leads to Corruption (Score:4, Insightful)
And comparing Iraq to Viet Nam just shows your vast ignorance. There's no draft in Iraq. We never toppled the North Vietnamese government. We never captured and killed Ho Chi Minh, his children, and every important official in his government. The number of soldiers who have died in Iraq are more than an order of magnitude less than the number of soldiers who died in Viet Nam (4000 in Iraq, 58000 in Viet Nam).
And people wonder why leftists are persona non grata in American society.
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Funny)