or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Ballmer calls Apple's Mac growth a "rounding error"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Ballmer calls Apple's Mac growth a "rounding error" - Page 7

post #241 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinitaBoy View Post

[...]

Do NOT delude your self into believing that Microsoft bailed out Apple. Didn't happen. They bailed THEMSELVES out of just one more in a long list of ethical (not to say CRIMINAL) activities here and around the world.

Like their locking in of customers with IE, while locking out competition, which has cost 'm 1,5 BILLION in fines in the EU sofar. Locking customers in, and the competition out with Windows Media Player is the current case. Wonder how many billions that's going to cost 'm.

And just wait until Russia, India, China, Japan, and Australia wake up to that music...!
post #242 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

This is what I've always thought. You hear about how PCs just go spectacularly wrong in this forum, and how the user has paid MILLIONS for virus software, yet my Windows PC 'just works' and I have a free antivirus installed. It's either ignorance, or trolling.

I really get irriated when someone makes this quote, you are one person out of many millions and because yours works fine, Hey its ok. Hmm please if you going to quote at least have some FACTS and understand the virus issue with MS.

This basically a translation of your quote to allow you to see how silly it was 'Hey my country has never been to war, so I can't understand why everyone is talking about all the wars around the world'

There are many people who are probably virus free, BUT when you compare the number of people/coporations that have been infected, it is vastly significant compared to Apple community.

I changed to Mac computers not because there look bloody good, superior quality compared to similar priced brands or because it just works. I changed due to security superority in OS especially now OSX.

Btw CNET is not a Mac lover site but there have rated iMac and MacBook Pro has the TOP products in their class, I wonder why?

As this statement:

The CEO also, in a roundabout way, acknowledged that Apple is known for making higher-quality hardware than Microsoft's PC partners. But Ballmer said he expects consumers to be surprised at some of the new offerings available this fall alongside the debut of its new operating system, Windows 7.


Ballmer, you just do not get it, reason why Mac is better quality is because you have one company ensuring that hardware/sofware works. Ther is a saying "two many cooks spoil the Broth"

No matter how good the operating system is, it is only has good as the hardware that runs it.
post #243 of 275
Quote:
I really get irriated when someone makes this quote, you are one person out of many millions and because yours works fine, Hey its ok. Hmm please if you going to quote at least have some FACTS and understand the virus issue with MS.

If you end up with a virus on your computer, it's because you're ignorant, and have done something you shouldn't have done. You were ignorant because you didn't know about the necessary precautions to take. As such, anyone who claims to have switched to a Mac due to the many viruses they had was either ignorant, or are simply trolling.
post #244 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

If you end up with a virus on your computer, it's because you're ignorant, and have done something you shouldn't have done. You were ignorant because you didn't know about the necessary precautions to take. As such, anyone who claims to have switched to a Mac due to the many viruses they had was either ignorant, or are simply trolling.

or....lives with someone, or visited a trusted website with a zero day flash infection, or received an email with a .doc attachment from a trusted source which was nevertheless infected with a virus. I don't think that everyone who's been infected by a PC virus is ignorant. The truly smart PC users should just avoid the internet, I guess.
post #245 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

If you end up with a virus on your computer, it's because you're ignorant, and have done something you shouldn't have done. You were ignorant because you didn't know about the necessary precautions to take. As such, anyone who claims to have switched to a Mac due to the many viruses they had was either ignorant, or are simply trolling.

What an attitude, and all too common. Maybe you should try helping people, most of whom are perfectly intelligent, but are overwhelmed by technological complexities.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #246 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by dballecer View Post

or....lives with someone, or visited a trusted website with a zero day flash infection, or received an email with a .doc attachment from a trusted source which was nevertheless infected with a virus. I don't think that everyone who's been infected by a PC virus is ignorant. The truly smart PC users should just avoid the internet, I guess.

The one that your up to date free anti-virus would catch...

Quote:
What an attitude, and all too common. Maybe you should try helping people, most of whom are perfectly intelligent, but are overwhelmed by technological complexities.

I do, fairly often. I've dealt with people who have asked 'what's the mouse?' when I've asked them to use the mouse to control the cursor.
post #247 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGregor View Post

Yeah, but an Apple dominated industry would look ALOT better than a Microsoft dominated one.

Ah, updated antivirus. But aren't updates inherently reactive? They can't issue a fix before the problem is created right? So, there will necessarily be some lag time between the time the virus is out in the wild and the time an update is issued. Thus, a non ignorant pc user can be infected.

The ultimate fix would be to stay off the Internet. Otherwise, update frequently and hope to god that the update came in time.

But I like your logic. So I can say that anybody who cannot successfully navigate through an adjustment of status application with an I601 waiver is either ignorant or a troll. Cool. Now I feel better about myself.
post #248 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by dballecer View Post

Ah, updated antivirus. But aren't updates inherently reactive? They can't issue a fix before the problem is created right? So, there will necessarily be some lag time between the time the virus is out in the wild and the time an update is issued. Thus, a non ignorant pc user can be infected.

The ultimate fix would be to stay off the Internet. Otherwise, update frequently and hope to god that the update came in time.

But I like your logic. So I can say that anybody who cannot successfully navigate through an adjustment of status application with an I601 waiver is either ignorant or a troll. Cool. Now I feel better about myself.

Oops. Quoted the wrong post. I'm so ignorant with these computer thingies.
post #249 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by dballecer View Post

Ah, updated antivirus. But aren't updates inherently reactive? They can't issue a fix before the problem is created right? So, there will necessarily be some lag time between the time the virus is out in the wild and the time an update is issued. Thus, a non ignorant pc user can be infected.

The ultimate fix would be to stay off the Internet. Otherwise, update frequently and hope to god that the update came in time.

But I like your logic. So I can say that anybody who cannot successfully navigate through an adjustment of status application with an I601 waiver is either ignorant or a troll. Cool. Now I feel better about myself.

I can see your point, but it really does only take common sense and an up to date anti-virus and nothing more. I'm sure most people around here can just about manage to rub 2 brain cells together to manage that . The only infected computers I've ever seen are those which people have been downloading illegal content, or accepting files from unknown contacts through IMs etc, all of which are well documented, well publicised, widely known ways of getting a virus. If you still continue regardless, you're ignorant, and deserve to be infected by said virus.
post #250 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

I can see your point, but it really does only take common sense and an up to date anti-virus and nothing more. I'm sure most people around here can just about manage to rub 2 brain cells together to manage that . The only infected computers I've ever seen are those which people have been downloading illegal content, or accepting files from unknown contacts through IMs etc, all of which are well documented, well publicised, widely known ways of getting a virus. If you still continue regardless, you're ignorant, and deserve to be infected by said virus.

Good point. I definitely agree with that.
post #251 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

I can see your point, but it really does only take common sense and an up to date anti-virus and nothing more. I'm sure most people around here can just about manage to rub 2 brain cells together to manage that . The only infected computers I've ever seen are those which people have been downloading illegal content, or accepting files from unknown contacts through IMs etc, all of which are well documented, well publicised, widely known ways of getting a virus. If you still continue regardless, you're ignorant, and deserve to be infected by said virus.

I must disagree. Nobody deserves to have his/her machine infected by a virus unles he/she is one of the jerks creating viruses in the first place.

It's awfully presumptuous to assume that people are idiots if they don't know much about computers.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #252 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I must disagree. Nobody deserves to have his/her machine infected by a virus unles he/she is one of the jerks creating viruses in the first place.

It's awfully presumptuous to assume that people are idiots if they don't know much about computers.

Exactly. It is so condescending to say that it's always user error. This is the classic tech head argument. I know lots and lots of Windows users who have had their PCs hosed multiple times. They are not ignorant people by any means. They are not downloading illegal content, they are not the type to use IM at all. WIth Windows, it only takes one errant click -- and the spreaders of these viruses are very good at inducing that errant click. Of course I sometimes suggest politely to friends who are having recurring problems that they might be better off with a Mac. But I am never, ever going to question their wisdom, knowledge or intelligence in any event.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #253 of 275
cause every time he say's something negative about a product, it goes through the roof, making him eat crow. So, bash away Steve, just let me know how you want the serving of crow, roasted or grilled?
post #254 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by dballecer View Post

Good point. I definitely agree with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I must disagree. Nobody deserves to have his/her machine infected by a virus unles he/she is one of the jerks creating viruses in the first place.

It's awfully presumptuous to assume that people are idiots if they don't know much about computers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

If you end up with a virus on your computer, it's because you're ignorant, and have done something you shouldn't have done. You were ignorant because you didn't know about the necessary precautions to take. As such, anyone who claims to have switched to a Mac due to the many viruses they had was either ignorant, or are simply trolling.

sounds to me your the one who ignorant and very narrow minded in your comments. Wishing people to have viruses, well what goes aorund comes around, karma!
post #255 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

I really get irriated when someone makes this quote, you are one person out of many millions and because yours works fine, Hey its ok. Hmm please if you going to quote at least have some FACTS and understand the virus issue with MS.

This basically a translation of your quote to allow you to see how silly it was 'Hey my country has never been to war, so I can't understand why everyone is talking about all the wars around the world'

There are many people who are probably virus free, BUT when you compare the number of people/coporations that have been infected, it is vastly significant compared to Apple community.

Life isn't safe, if you drive a car you have to be intelligent and not do something stupid or you'll kill yourself and others. If you use an oven you have to take precautions not to roast your hands. And so on.

A PC simply requires a low level of intelligence and common sense to operate. It's not a DVD player which even a monkey could operate, it's something far more complex and powerful.

If people a) install some anti-virus software, b) don't visit dodgy sites, and c) don't do something as retarded as opening attachments from people they don't trust, then they'll be fine. I've never had a virus on my PC, EVER. I'm not an IT professional, I'm not an expert on any of this type of stuff, I just don't do stupid stuff on my machine. And when I do that, guess what, it just works!

Yes it's true, Windows PCs can just work if you have a brain. Who'd of thought it?
post #256 of 275
Quote:
sounds to me your the one who ignorant and very narrow minded in your comments. Wishing people to have viruses, well what goes aorund comes around, karma!

I didn't at any point wish for anyone to get a virus. I did say that if you do get a virus, you have got it because you were ignorant and didn't take the necessary precautions. If you're not ignorant, and do take the necessary precautions, you won't get a virus.
post #257 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

I didn't at any point wish for anyone to get a virus. I did say that if you do get a virus, you have got it because you were ignorant and didn't take the necessary precautions. If you're not ignorant, and do take the necessary precautions, you won't get a virus.

No, but this is just about as bad. Blaming the victim is possibly even worse.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #258 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

If people a) install some anti-virus software, b) don't visit dodgy sites, and c) don't do something as retarded as opening attachments from people they don't trust, then they'll be fine. I've never had a virus on my PC, EVER. I'm not an IT professional, I'm not an expert on any of this type of stuff, I just don't do stupid stuff on my machine. And when I do that, guess what, it just works!

Most PC malware comes from everyday websurfing. You hit an infected (hacked) website, it loads malware in your browser from a second site using cross-site scripting that you never see. The malware itself can load via any number of Windows/IE vulnerabilities and often completes the install via the RunOnce registry key on the next reboot. The background services don't show up in Task Manager or msconfig, or if they do they look like other normal background processes including the inscrutable Windows-specific background processes.

This all happens without your knowledge, without surfing to dodgy sites, without opening attachments, etc. Mostly this is quiet, except when the guy running the botnet wakes it up on thousands of PCs to send out v1@gra spam or launch a DDoS attack on Twitter or whatever. The other approach is to surreptitiously scan your PC for potentially sensitive files or keylog your passwords when you log into banking website, to send back to the mothership later.

I'd venture to say that most people who have these types of malware on their PCs not only know they don't have it, but are probably just as indignant as you are that they are somehow "safe" because they have "safe habits". The problem isn't so much in what you do, since you can't control how well secured the websites are that you surf to everyday. The problem is that the Windows platform itself is insecure by its nature and patching the holes is a b1tch to keep up with. OS X doesn't do anything special to be more secure than Windows in that regard, it just leverages the BSD underpinnings that were written to be more secure by default.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #259 of 275
I never thought comparing Windows PCs to Macs was a fair comparison. First off Microsoft is just a software company, they don't build PCs, they depend on other manufacturers to do that. So the cheapness of WinPCs is not coming from Microsoft, its coming from the PC manufacturers like Dell and HP. Microsoft for its part has the daunting task of trying to shoe-horn their OS into a nearly infinite number of hardware configurations which would explain the bloat of Windows. And microsoft needs to up the cost of their software because its their only real revenue stream.

Apple on the other hand can afford to slice down the costs of their software because they more than make up for it on the hardware end where they make MUCH more money. But Apple is a closed system. Hardware and software all flow from the same place. That leads to simplicity but also destroys any kind of competition which would regulate prices.

Microsoft allows anyone who buys a license to install their software on any compatible PC. So you get wider appeal.

I think Apple knows that its closed eco-system can never compete head-to-head with Microsoft and its armada of OEMs. So Apple has positioned itself as a 'boutique' company and is doing quite well. Upside is its high returns are able to weather these economic storms downside is limited exposure to the mass-market.

Microsoft is able to be everywhere because of its army of manufacturers but the downside is such wide-spread exposure makes them a target for hackers and bargain vendors that don't care about quality only price. And microsoft has to dumb-itself down to be able to work with them.

It really is apples and oranges. But the wrench being thrown into the mix is the internet. For the most part the internet is OS neutral. All you need is a web-browser. And as the need for a particular OS diminishes people are more easily able to switch back and forth which is why Apple is doing so well lately. Which is good for everyone. If companies like Microsoft, Sony, HP, Palm, etc are all targetting and copying Apple's innovative designs thats good for everyone. It means innovation isn't dead.
post #260 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdyates View Post

Poppycock!

The browser is more relevant that ever! Google is betting the farm on it. Everything they've built was designed to run in a browser, or use a browser - and now they've packaged up their very own browser. If you believe even a little of the hype around "cloud computing" and all the related technologies, you know the web browser isn't going anywhere soon.

The browser is walking dead argument surfaced when some people "predicted" that all the great desktop apps would eventually be connected to the net to move, store, and share data, usurping the need for "dumbed-down", browser-based applications.

I think those people might have been wrong.

I think the original poster simply left out the word "Netscape." In that by the time they forced Microsoft to decouple, they had time to improve Explorer to the point of Netscape leading it's significant edge.

Here's my biased view of the browser history:

Between 1992 and 1993
---------------------------
NCSA Mosaic developed on the NeXT (therefore quickly available on on all *nix variants.)
NCSA Mosaic developed for Mac (along with MacWeb, MacWWW (Samba), Cello, etc.)
NCSA Mosaic developed for Windows

Netscape Navigator (1994)
Internet Explorer (1995)

Netscape had a much better browser than Explorer, and was simply kicking Explorer's butt. Microsoft was losing big time when it came to Internet tools in general.

Microsoft starts bundling Explorer. Netscape is so much better that people use it anyway. PC manufacturers want to ship Netscape to make customers happy. Microsoft tells them they won't license Windows to them if they ship Netscape, and they must ship Explorer installed and as default browser. Justice department looks into monopolistic practices.

Microsoft also distributes (for free) FrontPage, so people can make webpages. Webpages made with Frontpage seem to work fine when using Explorer, but often crash Netscape when Netscape tries to load a page created by FrontPage. FrontPage is free, so many pages are developed using Frontpage, making Netscape look more unstable than it actually is. Microsoft pulls the same stunt with MP3 audio files by bundling a version of WindowsMediaPlayer that plays MP3's horribly, but when converted to Microsofts media format, sounds better. Giving people the impression that MP3 is inferior to WMF.

Microsoft works very hard at improving Explorer, and does improve it significantly for version 5. By this time the justice department rules that Microsoft's practices of forcing Netscape out was illegal, but it is too late. The 3 years allowed MS to copy Netscape and dominate the browser market anyway. -Neat! (I won't even get into the copied Quicktime code, and how MS screwed Borland when they decided to get into the developer market, by not publishing known snags (or worse... creating them) that would cause other developer tools to bog down, while the information was given to the Turbo/Visual group.

Oh well... enough conspiracy theory for today....

IAMIQ78
post #261 of 275
You don't need conspiracy theories when there are real, documented conspiracies. Microsoft did conspire to force Netscape out, but not for the reasons we might assume. Microsoft wasn't concerned with being bested in the browser market per se, they were worried that the browser might eventually make the operating system less relevant. Netscape was talking openly about this possibility. Microsoft wanted Netscape neutralized for this reason primarily. FrontPage wasn't the issue so much as ActiveX and other Microsoft-specific technologies which they pushed through their server products, as a way of marginalizing Netscape.

I think they went through a whole lot of trouble for nothing much. If the browser was in any danger of becoming a software platform, this was little more than a theory during the mid-1990s. But Microsoft thought it could happen, so that was enough for them to use their uniquely powerful position in the market to eliminate any chance that Netscape could become a future competitive threat. They tried the same thing with Java. Any technology that was platform-neutral, they worked overtime to destroy.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #262 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

You don't need conspiracy theories when there are real, documented conspiracies. Microsoft did conspire to force Netscape out, but not for the reasons we might assume. Microsoft wasn't concerned with being bested in the browser market per se, they were worried that the browser might eventually make the operating system less relevant. Netscape was talking openly about this possibility. Microsoft wanted Netscape neutralized for this reason primarily. FrontPage wasn't the issue so much as ActiveX and other Microsoft-specific technologies which they pushed through their server products, as a way of marginalizing Netscape.

I think they went through a whole lot of trouble for nothing much. If the browser was in any danger of becoming a software platform, this was little more than a theory during the mid-1990s. But Microsoft thought it could happen, so that was enough for them to use their uniquely powerful position in the market to eliminate any chance that Netscape could become a future competitive threat. They tried the same thing with Java. Any technology that was platform-neutral, they worked overtime to destroy.

Right... It was probably ActiveX, which was easily implemented using FrontPage that caused Netscape to seem unstable. But I swear I heard about other snags in FrontPage that crashed Netscape outside of ActiveX. I certainly read about Window versions that tripped-up Borland's developer tools/compilers but yet somehow the Microsoft developer tools were aware of these "undocumented" snags. I believe in 1993 Borland was sueing Microsoft for this... maybe I'm wrong.
post #263 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQ78 View Post

Right... It was probably ActiveX, which was easily implemented using FrontPage that caused Netscape to seem unstable. But I swear I heard about other snags in FrontPage that crashed Netscape outside of ActiveX. I certainly read about Window versions that tripped-up Borland's developer tools/compilers but yet somehow the Microsoft developer tools were aware of these "undocumented" snags. I believe in 1993 Borland was sueing Microsoft for this... maybe I'm wrong.

You could be right, I don't recall. Maybe I'll look it up. Anyway, I do know that Borland wasn't cited in the Findings of Fact in US v. Microsoft. They pulled so many anticompetitive stunts during the '80s and '90s. Not all of them were documented in the antitrust case.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #264 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQ78 View Post

I think the original poster simply left out the word "Netscape." In that by the time they forced Microsoft to decouple, they had time to improve Explorer to the point of Netscape leading it's significant edge.

Here's my biased view of the browser history:

Between 1992 and 1993
---------------------------
NCSA Mosaic developed on the NeXT (therefore quickly available on on all *nix variants.)
NCSA Mosaic developed for Mac (along with MacWeb, MacWWW (Samba), Cello, etc.)
NCSA Mosaic developed for Windows

Netscape Navigator (1994)
Internet Explorer (1995)

Netscape had a much better browser than Explorer, and was simply kicking Explorer's butt. Microsoft was losing big time when it came to Internet tools in general.

Microsoft starts bundling Explorer. Netscape is so much better that people use it anyway. PC manufacturers want to ship Netscape to make customers happy. Microsoft tells them they won't license Windows to them if they ship Netscape, and they must ship Explorer installed and as default browser. Justice department looks into monopolistic practices.

Microsoft also distributes (for free) FrontPage, so people can make webpages. Webpages made with Frontpage seem to work fine when using Explorer, but often crash Netscape when Netscape tries to load a page created by FrontPage. FrontPage is free, so many pages are developed using Frontpage, making Netscape look more unstable than it actually is. Microsoft pulls the same stunt with MP3 audio files by bundling a version of WindowsMediaPlayer that plays MP3's horribly, but when converted to Microsofts media format, sounds better. Giving people the impression that MP3 is inferior to WMF.

Microsoft works very hard at improving Explorer, and does improve it significantly for version 5. By this time the justice department rules that Microsoft's practices of forcing Netscape out was illegal, but it is too late. The 3 years allowed MS to copy Netscape and dominate the browser market anyway. -Neat! (I won't even get into the copied Quicktime code, and how MS screwed Borland when they decided to get into the developer market, by not publishing known snags (or worse... creating them) that would cause other developer tools to bog down, while the information was given to the Turbo/Visual group.

Oh well... enough conspiracy theory for today....

IAMIQ78

I wish more people understood that this is how the events unfolded.

MS was quite prescient in deciding to abusing its monopoly in order to put Netscape out of business. Browsers did, and still do, represent the biggest threat to Microsoft's Windows/Office dominance. If Microsoft hadn't succeeded in de-standardizing the web, choice of OS would have become largely irrelevant. Their abuse of monopoly powers set back web standardization by at least a decade.

This was an absolutely pivotal turn of events in the computing industry. It has had a large hand in defining the computing landscape for the past decade, and perhaps even the next decade. It really was that significant.
post #265 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

I wish more people understood that this is how the events unfolded.

MS was quite prescient in deciding to abusing its monopoly in order to put Netscape out of business. Browsers did, and still do, represent the biggest threat to Microsoft's Windows/Office dominance. If Microsoft hadn't succeeded in de-standardizing the web, choice of OS would have become largely irrelevant. Their abuse of monopoly powers set back web standardization by at least a decade.

This was an absolutely pivotal turn of events in the computing industry. It has had a large hand in defining the computing landscape for the past decade, and perhaps even the next decade. It really was that significant.

I don't think they were especially prescient. They were just doing that paranoid thing they do, which is to eliminate any competitive threat, real or imagined, current or future, before it can become a competitive threat. As I pointed out above, they tried the same stunt with Java. Platform neutral Java was a much bigger potential threat to Windows than Netscape, I'd argue. The idea that the browser could be the platform is only now beginning to have some reality to it. But 15 years ago, it was just barely a theory. That didn't matter to Microsoft.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #266 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Not entirely. The continued development of Office for the Mac was part of the deal Apple made with Microsoft to avoid a long court battle, which involved that, the "investment," a technology sharing arrangement, the MSIE install agreement, and many thought at the time, probably some cash behind the scenes. We don't know if Microsoft would have continued Office development for the Mac had all the rest not occurred. It was all packaged up in one big announcement.

My point was that the continued development of Office for the Mac saved the Mac platform, and the (potential) investment of cash did not. While your response was an interesting dive into what all was involved with that deal, it did not refute that point.

Thompson
post #267 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

My point was that the continued development of Office for the Mac saved the Mac platform, and the (potential) investment of cash did not. While your response was an interesting dive into what all was involved with that deal, it did not refute that point.

Trying to remember what this discussion was about...

I'd respond that no single thing saved the Mac. As far as Office is concerned, Microsoft was already committed to the next version at the time the announcement was made, so at most, Microsoft's commitment was to one more version beyond that one (which turned out to be Office X). A lot of things happened at Apple between 1997 and 2001 to save the Mac platform.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #268 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

I wish more people understood that this is how the events unfolded.

MS was quite prescient in deciding to abusing its monopoly in order to put Netscape out of business. Browsers did, and still do, represent the biggest threat to Microsoft's Windows/Office dominance. If Microsoft hadn't succeeded in de-standardizing the web, choice of OS would have become largely irrelevant. Their abuse of monopoly powers set back web standardization by at least a decade.

This was an absolutely pivotal turn of events in the computing industry. It has had a large hand in defining the computing landscape for the past decade, and perhaps even the next decade. It really was that significant.

Please. Netscape killed itself. They started charging for their browser starting at 1.0 and eventually IE stopped sucking and Navigator started sucking badly at 4.0.

Besides they were equally guilty with their own non-standard extensions. They both de-standardized the web and netscape was the FIRST guilty party because they wanted browser dominance.

And in 2009 not even Google Docs is as good as Office. The browser was no real threat to Windows/Office dominance any more than Java was and it had nothing to do with MS. Constellation was a freaking joke in 1995 and cloud services so-so even 15 years later.
post #269 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinitaBoy View Post

@phalanx,

"That is why the they bailed them out financially years ago."

Sorry, "phal," but Microsoft did no such thing. When little Billy G's company sent $150 million to Apple "years ago," it was to keep himself and his company out of jail! Microsoft (via one of its supposed "subcontractors) was caught red-handed stealing the code from QuickTime to make its own media support system. Yes, STEALING THE CODE. Gotcha!

The settlement of this matter, accomplished out of court, was the transfer of funds you allude to, above. Believe me, there is no love lost between Microsoft and ANY of its present or former competitors: not Netscape, not Word Perfect, not anybody.

Do NOT delude your self into believing that Microsoft bailed out Apple. Didn't happen. They bailed THEMSELVES out of just one more in a long list of ethical (not to say CRIMINAL) activities here and around the world.

Many things were at play back then. Apple needed a shot in the arm to keep afloat, Apple needed Microsoft to continue making Office and IE for the mac, to keep people from fleeing Apple in its darkest hour. Microsoft had infringed on some patents and Apple namely Jobs made a phone call to Bill Gates cutting a deal that would help band aid Apple for a few years until Apple could get securely back on its feet. This phone call and story put Jobs on the front cover of TIME magazine and is now seen as amazing folklore about Steve Jobs and the silicone valley company.

This was stopgap so Apple could refocus the company while getting some support from a major software player which at the time many were leaving in droves. Analysts were counting down the months that Apple had left to stay in business. Yes that's how bad it was at one point.

I think I remember the iconic Jobs being quoted as saying to Bill Gates, "the world is a better place (with Apple), thank you." about the deal that helped Apple sustain itself.
post #270 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Trying to remember what this discussion was about...

I'd respond that no single thing saved the Mac. As far as Office is concerned, Microsoft was already committed to the next version at the time the announcement was made, so at most, Microsoft's commitment was to one more version beyond that one (which turned out to be Office X). A lot of things happened at Apple between 1997 and 2001 to save the Mac platform.

Let's just agree on this: that Microsoft's recommitment to Office on Mac was a NECESSARY condition for saving the platform, but it may not have been sufficient all by itself. In that case, we are BOTH right. At the time, the Mac would have been doomed without Office, but it also took a lot of other great moves by Apple (e.g. the iMac) to save it too.

Also: my memory differs from yours with respect to timing between announcement of the deal and commitment to Office for Mac. In other words, I am quite sure (because I was paying close attention to all things Mac even back then) that the information about Office for Mac and the deal we are discussing were revealed simultaneously.

Thompson
post #271 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

I wish more people understood that this is how the events unfolded.

MS was quite prescient in deciding to abusing its monopoly in order to put Netscape out of business. Browsers did, and still do, represent the biggest threat to Microsoft's Windows/Office dominance. If Microsoft hadn't succeeded in de-standardizing the web, choice of OS would have become largely irrelevant. Their abuse of monopoly powers set back web standardization by at least a decade.

This was an absolutely pivotal turn of events in the computing industry. It has had a large hand in defining the computing landscape for the past decade, and perhaps even the next decade. It really was that significant.

Agreed, and they pulled the same stunt with Sun's open source Java. They highjacked it too and began adding proprietary stuff to it that only worked with Internet Explorer.

In both cases (HTML and Java) we are still paying the price of the fractionation that was caused.

Thompson
post #272 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

Let's just agree on this: that Microsoft's recommitment to Office on Mac was a NECESSARY condition for saving the platform, but it may not have been sufficient all by itself. In that case, we are BOTH right. At the time, the Mac would have been doomed without Office, but it also took a lot of other great moves by Apple (e.g. the iMac) to save it too.

Also: my memory differs from yours with respect to timing between announcement of the deal and commitment to Office for Mac. In other words, I am quite sure (because I was paying close attention to all things Mac even back then) that the information about Office for Mac and the deal we are discussing were revealed simultaneously.

Thompson

My point was the announcement was of more symbolic than substantive value, since Microsoft was already committed to the next version of Office before the announcement was made. By the time the next version of Office was released in 2001, Apple had made other strides in recovering from their tailspin, which could well have induced Microsoft to continue developing Office for the Mac without the 1997 deal. Don't get me wrong, the politics were important. I just question how much difference it made in what Microsoft actually did in terms of developing Office for the Mac.

I don't think our memories differ. The $150 million investment, the technology sharing agreement, the MSIE and Office deal -- all were announced at the same time. Did I ever imply otherwise? If, I didn't mean to.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #273 of 275
The other thing to remember with this deal was that Microsoft was still in the throes of building the Office brand into the ubiquitous product we know today. The fact that there was a Mac version of Office at that time helped cement Microsoft's market position -- even people who would never imagine themselves using a Mac believed that the Mac version made their purchase of the Windows version of Office "safer" because it was in the process of becoming the de facto productivity suite.

Nobody wanted to be buying the next WordStar-type product (regardless of the merits)...

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #274 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_lha View Post

Is that why GM went bankrupt and needed to be bailed out by the US Gov then?

LIKE

Amazing how people can stair history in the face & learn nothing from it.
post #275 of 275
Two year thread bump? Just what were you doing in the archives anyway?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Ballmer calls Apple's Mac growth a "rounding error"