It hasn't been fully refuted as I've heard many stories suggesting both things with the same level of clarity (and evidence) so I simply discount it as the usual and time honored tradition of idea A inspiring idea B and I move on.
Everything is borrowed and adapted...that's life...but in Mac World apparently all ideas aren't supposed to inspire other ideas.
Well, no is has been utterly refuted, just as it is incontrovertably established that Android is a cheap, cheesy knockoff of iOS, and that Samsung is copying Apple's phone and tablet designs, just as they copied others designs before that. But, there will always be people like you who will claim that things that are proven aren't.
So would you be happy if the only computers and OS that existed was MACs?
The reality is Microsoft blindly copied the Mac OS, much like Google is doing today with iOS. The interesting thing is Microsoft in the phone arena has actually come up with its own ideas for its new Mobile OS. I'd like to see more of the new Microsoft.
Let's take a vote: repeating this exhausted, endlessly refuted chestnut should be sufficient grounds for immediate, permanent ban, in that it suggests the kind of profound and willful ignorance that can only lead to tears.
Where do I vote? I'm in. Garbage like this only serves to troll and derail threads. Since most forums and comments section on the internet are filled with nothing but Apple-bashing, yes, even apple fan sites, this is the only site I know of that has so far escaped that to some degree. I'm all for banning anyone who willfully tries to stir up shit. There's a billion other forums where they can do that and be applauded. But please, let's maintain a higher level of discourse here, and at least keep this place from becoming an Apple bash-fest.
If being a despicable businessman makes me the most wealthy person in the world (only reaso he isn't is because of his charities), then I hope I too can be that despicable.
I don't believe in software theft by simply taking an idea and modifying it to be your own.
Others do...why do you think so many people say Android is a 1:1 copy of iOS despite them being as different as Mac OS and Xerox PARC?
Apple did something significantly different that Google. The concept of a GUI predated Xerox. The first significant GUI work started at the Stanford Institute of Research and was lead by a guy named Douglas Engelbart. He was the same guy credited with creating the first mouse. Many of his students later went to work at PARC, and other places, like Apple. Before Apple's team visiting Xerox, there were people already interested at Apple in GUIs. The plan was to get Jobs on Board with the idea. That is how the whole Xerox visit was hatched. To inspire Jobs.
Apple gave Xerox 100, 000 pre IP shares of Apple stock just for Apple to be able to take a tour of the research facilities. Split adjusted that equates to 800, 000 shares of Apple stock today. So, here is the first place Apple and Google differ. Apple actually paid Xerox for the privilege of checking out the Xerox goodies to essentially inspire Jobs. Apple also paid Engelbart $40, 000 for a license to use his mouse.
The second place where Apple and Google differ, is Apple didn't copy Xerox at all. Xerox's GUI was running on an expensive mainframe computer. Apple did not get to look at the underlying code. The Xerox Star was the product Xerox actually shipped. It cost $75, 000 dollars. Apple's system cost about $2, 500. So, Apple's engineers essentially figured out how to create a GUI from scratch. Google on the other hand 1) had inside access to Apple's plans (via Eric what's his name), 2) didn't pay Apple squat, 3) stole Java from Sun Microsystems (so it wouldn't have to spend years (like Apple) writing the underlying Code), and 4) did this to compete directly with Apple (Apple never competed with Xerox as Xerox never brought a consumer version of its product to market).
"it was strange to have someone as "vibrant" as Jobs die so young"
Fact: more than 30 million people (mostly kids) die each year of hunger worldwide.
Is that strange then as well?
I never understand the point of these posts. Yes, I think we're all aware that people die everyday. Many, many people, old and young. You know why Steve's death was 'strange' for me? Because I've watched every single one of his keynotes for the past 15 years- many of them live. It's because I absolutely loved the company he built, the vision he had, and the philosophy he instilled. To me, there was noone like him in the field, and in general. Obviously I felt a personal connection with him- even though I never met him. I use and love so many of the products he personally envisioned and made into reality. I benefit everyday from the innovations both directly and indirectly attributed to him. This sentiment was echoed millions of times after his death. So yeah, I can also see why it was strange for BG, because of the relationship and the history they had. It's not everyday there's such a high profile death of someone at the peak of his career, the CEO of one of the most loved companies of the planet, that had such an effect on soe many people in such a tragic way. Stop trying to be obtuse and pretending you dont understand the strange bit.
You know how it goes. 'The death of one person is a tragedy. The death of a thousand is a statistic' or whatever. I can't get choked up about ramdom children whom I've never seen dying. I can only be affected by people I know, or feel I know. As the case with most human beings.
Built on the backs of WordPerfect and 123. Actually, thats not fair - Excel was and is pretty good, especially compared to 123. Then again it was birthed in the Mac division
Quote:
Exchange
Exchange? Please! Until 2010, Exchange was a complete house of cards. Now it's just mostly a house of cards. Don't sneeze!
Quote:
NT
Screwed over IBM with OS/2...
Quote:
Win 2k
Active Directory still can't do 1/2 of what Network Directory Services could do in the late 90's. If Novell would have had the balls to release NDS for NT as a separate product that didn't require Netware at that one Comdex (one of the last Comdex's I attended) the world would be a different place indeed...
Quote:
Back office
Has evolved into a really nice product with SBS 2011, but the original offering was just a bunch of products thrown together in a bundle that got you a slight price advantage.
Quote:
web browsers
Convicted of illegally starving out the competition - nice!
Quote:
smart phones
Windows mobile sucked! The web browser was completely unusable. WAP was a total joke! I paid for smartphone data for another 7 months before my contract expired when the first iPhone was released. Stupidest waist of money ever! I would have been WAY ahead if I had canceled, happily paid the termination fee and ditched that flaming pile of poo that was the Treo.
Quote:
were all great products born from the 1990s without Apple being a leading force
They were all products. Great, I wold not use. I would go with "successful due to lack of better alternatives"
Guess what - in the face of better alternatives, MS is floundering pretty badly!
Quote:
Please don't flame me. I am a big apple fan, own multiple iphones, and converted multiple people to Macbooks from Windoze :P
Nothing to flame over but your memories of history is pretty out there...
No such product as "Mac OS 1.0" ever existed and nothing was ever "stolen." In fact Microsoft had a license from Apple that gave them a lot of cover to develop Windows. The way they got the license was typical high-handedness from Gates, but he got it just the same.
It wasn't stolen, but it was given away - by Scully when Steve was out.
The comment at the launch of the iPhone - the "And we have patented it" - was aimed right at that moment in time.
Like most characterizations, all this is really shades of gray. I was impressed with Bill recently, because I thought he had the best quote when Steve passed away. Bill has found another niche in life with his philanthropy, which is insanely great. I think Steve may have appreciated Bill's philanthropy as much as anything Bill did in the computer industry.
Apple gave Xerox 100, 000 pre IP shares of Apple stock just for Apple to be able to take a tour of the research facilities. Split adjusted that equates to 800, 000 shares of Apple stock today. So, here is the first place Apple and Google differ. Apple actually paid Xerox for the privilege of checking out the Xerox goodies to essentially inspire Jobs. Apple also paid Engelbart $40, 000 for a license to use his mouse.
I don't know about Apple paying Englebart anything (never heard that story) but I'm pretty sure nobody can give away pre-IPO shares, since at that point they don't actually exist. What they can do is give them an opportunity to buy shares at the pre-IPO price, which is a deal that few get. Usually the buy-in minimum is $1 million. This is probably what happened. Did Xerox take advantage of this opportunity? I don't know, never heard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
It wasn't stolen, but it was given away - by Scully when Steve was out.
The comment at the launch of the iPhone - the "And we have patented it" - was aimed right at that moment in time.
Squarely.
In a way. Microsoft had Apple over a barrel in 1985 and used that leverage to the max. It was a classic Bill Gates take no prisoners, I'm your partner and your worst enemy combined, sort of tactic.
So would you be happy if the only computers and OS that existed was MACs?
I would be happy if the only computers that existed ran OS' that were from UNIQUE SOURCES. I would be happy if these OS' made the greatest possible effort to open the same files (so basically the world we have now; standardized media, document, etc. files) for compatibility within and without their various ecosystems around the world. I would be happy if these OS' competed in functionality, usability, and tightness/lightness of code WITHOUT stealing implementations from each other.
License them? Sure! Say we had four big OS', each with about a quarter of the market. One has an exceptionally better GUI than the rest and would dominate because of it. They should WANT to license that out to the others, specifically because one of the others has a much cleaner file system and yet another one takes advantage of better multitasking, or some such.
Rather than a duopoly, necessarily, I would have wanted a few more big operating systems. Not hundreds. Not dozens. Not even ten. But more than two. Right now we have The One That Everyone Uses Because They've Always Used It. It has tweaks out the wazoo but is only good because everyone has always used it. And we have The One You Use When You're Fed Up With That Other One. Less tweaking, but a better UI and a much smaller hill to climb if it's your first computer.
We should have greater shades than that. And no, the *NIX crowd isn't a solution. They're fine for a back-end, but they're not a solution.
Let's take a vote: repeating this exhausted, endlessly refuted chestnut should be sufficient grounds for immediate, permanent ban, in that it suggests the kind of profound and willful ignorance that can only lead to tears.
I second this motion, as long as there is also agreement to stop beating the dead horse that Microsoft completely ripped off Apple to create Windows.
I don't know about Apple paying Englebart anything (never heard that story) but I'm pretty sure nobody can give away pre-IPO shares, since at that point they don't actually exist. What they can do is give them an opportunity to buy shares at the pre-IPO price, which is a deal that few get. Usually the buy-in minimum is $1 million. This is probably what happened. Did Xerox take advantage of this opportunity? I don't know, never heard.
In a way. Microsoft had Apple over a barrel in 1985 and used that leverage to the max. It was a classic Bill Gates take no prisoners, I'm your partner and your worst enemy combined, sort of tactic.
Xerox bought exactly $1M worth of Apple shares before the IPO - 100k shares at $10 ea. They sold almost immediately after the IPO and made $16M profit.
This transaction did not grant Apple rights to any IP. Instead, what Xerox gave Apple was access to the technology - see it work and, to the extent Xerox engineers were willing, see the underpinnings. What many people have forgotten is that Xerox sued Apple, claiming that the Mac stole the look and feel of the Star.
It didn't. In fact, if I am not mistaken, the case was tossed out for legal reasons and was never tried. But I'm Just mentioning it to clarify facts, specifically to dispel the notion that Xerox traded IP for Apple shares.
Well, Steve made great products. Bill made great copies.
Other than the lying to the creator of DOS to get an improbable discount and the theft of Mac OS 1.0 to make Windows and stagnate the industry for twenty years, Bill was a decent guy.
I DO agree that he's a good person, particularly with the things he has done since Microsoft and plenty of stuff during. But the good in his life didn't come from his business. He was a very dishonorable businessman.
Just like the good in Steve's life came from his business. Incredible works that truly exemplify the Crazy Ones speech.
Steve and Bill were antitheses. Two poles of the same magnet. Bill's good came with people. Steve's good came with business. On the opposite fronts, they were quite despicable.
I wonder if it was only coincidence that they existed in the industry at the same time or if they had to exist to balance each other.
You really can go overboard with the copying charges. Tell me, who did Microsoft copy when they developed Word? Word had an enormous influence on graphic design and printing.
You really can go overboard with the copying charges. Tell me, who did Microsoft copy when they developed Word? Word had an enormous influence on graphic design and printing.
I don't recall saying anything about Word at all. In fact, I DO recall saying something about him doing some good while at Microsoft.
Comments
Let's wait for an in depth Bill Gates biography, on which he would have absolutely no control whatsoever, to count the sins on both sides.
Let us hope Gates doesn't use somebody as talentless as Isaacson. Good thing Jobs never read his own.
Interesting.
It hasn't been fully refuted as I've heard many stories suggesting both things with the same level of clarity (and evidence) so I simply discount it as the usual and time honored tradition of idea A inspiring idea B and I move on.
Everything is borrowed and adapted...that's life...but in Mac World apparently all ideas aren't supposed to inspire other ideas.
Well, no is has been utterly refuted, just as it is incontrovertably established that Android is a cheap, cheesy knockoff of iOS, and that Samsung is copying Apple's phone and tablet designs, just as they copied others designs before that. But, there will always be people like you who will claim that things that are proven aren't.
So would you be happy if the only computers and OS that existed was MACs?
The reality is Microsoft blindly copied the Mac OS, much like Google is doing today with iOS. The interesting thing is Microsoft in the phone arena has actually come up with its own ideas for its new Mobile OS. I'd like to see more of the new Microsoft.
Two giants in the tech industry and they're still writing letters...
Interesting.
2 reasons I'd guess:
1. secrecy
2. intimacy
... in that order.
Let's take a vote: repeating this exhausted, endlessly refuted chestnut should be sufficient grounds for immediate, permanent ban, in that it suggests the kind of profound and willful ignorance that can only lead to tears.
Where do I vote? I'm in. Garbage like this only serves to troll and derail threads. Since most forums and comments section on the internet are filled with nothing but Apple-bashing, yes, even apple fan sites, this is the only site I know of that has so far escaped that to some degree. I'm all for banning anyone who willfully tries to stir up shit. There's a billion other forums where they can do that and be applauded. But please, let's maintain a higher level of discourse here, and at least keep this place from becoming an Apple bash-fest.
This is the first time I agree with you.
This is a historical moment, truly.
Gates = Great person, despicable businessman.
Jobs = Despicable person, great businessman.
If being a despicable businessman makes me the most wealthy person in the world (only reaso he isn't is because of his charities), then I hope I too can be that despicable.
I don't believe in software theft by simply taking an idea and modifying it to be your own.
Others do...why do you think so many people say Android is a 1:1 copy of iOS despite them being as different as Mac OS and Xerox PARC?
Apple did something significantly different that Google. The concept of a GUI predated Xerox. The first significant GUI work started at the Stanford Institute of Research and was lead by a guy named Douglas Engelbart. He was the same guy credited with creating the first mouse. Many of his students later went to work at PARC, and other places, like Apple. Before Apple's team visiting Xerox, there were people already interested at Apple in GUIs. The plan was to get Jobs on Board with the idea. That is how the whole Xerox visit was hatched. To inspire Jobs.
Apple gave Xerox 100, 000 pre IP shares of Apple stock just for Apple to be able to take a tour of the research facilities. Split adjusted that equates to 800, 000 shares of Apple stock today. So, here is the first place Apple and Google differ. Apple actually paid Xerox for the privilege of checking out the Xerox goodies to essentially inspire Jobs. Apple also paid Engelbart $40, 000 for a license to use his mouse.
The second place where Apple and Google differ, is Apple didn't copy Xerox at all. Xerox's GUI was running on an expensive mainframe computer. Apple did not get to look at the underlying code. The Xerox Star was the product Xerox actually shipped. It cost $75, 000 dollars. Apple's system cost about $2, 500. So, Apple's engineers essentially figured out how to create a GUI from scratch. Google on the other hand 1) had inside access to Apple's plans (via Eric what's his name), 2) didn't pay Apple squat, 3) stole Java from Sun Microsystems (so it wouldn't have to spend years (like Apple) writing the underlying Code), and 4) did this to compete directly with Apple (Apple never competed with Xerox as Xerox never brought a consumer version of its product to market).
"it was strange to have someone as "vibrant" as Jobs die so young"
Fact: more than 30 million people (mostly kids) die each year of hunger worldwide.
Is that strange then as well?
I never understand the point of these posts. Yes, I think we're all aware that people die everyday. Many, many people, old and young. You know why Steve's death was 'strange' for me? Because I've watched every single one of his keynotes for the past 15 years- many of them live. It's because I absolutely loved the company he built, the vision he had, and the philosophy he instilled. To me, there was noone like him in the field, and in general. Obviously I felt a personal connection with him- even though I never met him. I use and love so many of the products he personally envisioned and made into reality. I benefit everyday from the innovations both directly and indirectly attributed to him. This sentiment was echoed millions of times after his death. So yeah, I can also see why it was strange for BG, because of the relationship and the history they had. It's not everyday there's such a high profile death of someone at the peak of his career, the CEO of one of the most loved companies of the planet, that had such an effect on soe many people in such a tragic way. Stop trying to be obtuse and pretending you dont understand the strange bit.
You know how it goes. 'The death of one person is a tragedy. The death of a thousand is a statistic' or whatever. I can't get choked up about ramdom children whom I've never seen dying. I can only be affected by people I know, or feel I know. As the case with most human beings.
MS Office
Built on the backs of WordPerfect and 123. Actually, thats not fair - Excel was and is pretty good, especially compared to 123. Then again it was birthed in the Mac division
Exchange
Exchange? Please! Until 2010, Exchange was a complete house of cards. Now it's just mostly a house of cards. Don't sneeze!
NT
Screwed over IBM with OS/2...
Win 2k
Active Directory still can't do 1/2 of what Network Directory Services could do in the late 90's. If Novell would have had the balls to release NDS for NT as a separate product that didn't require Netware at that one Comdex (one of the last Comdex's I attended) the world would be a different place indeed...
Back office
Has evolved into a really nice product with SBS 2011, but the original offering was just a bunch of products thrown together in a bundle that got you a slight price advantage.
web browsers
Convicted of illegally starving out the competition - nice!
smart phones
Windows mobile sucked! The web browser was completely unusable. WAP was a total joke! I paid for smartphone data for another 7 months before my contract expired when the first iPhone was released. Stupidest waist of money ever! I would have been WAY ahead if I had canceled, happily paid the termination fee and ditched that flaming pile of poo that was the Treo.
were all great products born from the 1990s without Apple being a leading force
They were all products. Great, I wold not use. I would go with "successful due to lack of better alternatives"
Guess what - in the face of better alternatives, MS is floundering pretty badly!
Please don't flame me. I am a big apple fan, own multiple iphones, and converted multiple people to Macbooks from Windoze :P
Nothing to flame over
No such product as "Mac OS 1.0" ever existed and nothing was ever "stolen." In fact Microsoft had a license from Apple that gave them a lot of cover to develop Windows. The way they got the license was typical high-handedness from Gates, but he got it just the same.
It wasn't stolen, but it was given away - by Scully when Steve was out.
The comment at the launch of the iPhone - the "And we have patented it" - was aimed right at that moment in time.
Squarely.
Apple gave Xerox 100, 000 pre IP shares of Apple stock just for Apple to be able to take a tour of the research facilities. Split adjusted that equates to 800, 000 shares of Apple stock today. So, here is the first place Apple and Google differ. Apple actually paid Xerox for the privilege of checking out the Xerox goodies to essentially inspire Jobs. Apple also paid Engelbart $40, 000 for a license to use his mouse.
I don't know about Apple paying Englebart anything (never heard that story) but I'm pretty sure nobody can give away pre-IPO shares, since at that point they don't actually exist. What they can do is give them an opportunity to buy shares at the pre-IPO price, which is a deal that few get. Usually the buy-in minimum is $1 million. This is probably what happened. Did Xerox take advantage of this opportunity? I don't know, never heard.
It wasn't stolen, but it was given away - by Scully when Steve was out.
The comment at the launch of the iPhone - the "And we have patented it" - was aimed right at that moment in time.
Squarely.
In a way. Microsoft had Apple over a barrel in 1985 and used that leverage to the max. It was a classic Bill Gates take no prisoners, I'm your partner and your worst enemy combined, sort of tactic.
So would you be happy if the only computers and OS that existed was MACs?
I would be happy if the only computers that existed ran OS' that were from UNIQUE SOURCES. I would be happy if these OS' made the greatest possible effort to open the same files (so basically the world we have now; standardized media, document, etc. files) for compatibility within and without their various ecosystems around the world. I would be happy if these OS' competed in functionality, usability, and tightness/lightness of code WITHOUT stealing implementations from each other.
License them? Sure! Say we had four big OS', each with about a quarter of the market. One has an exceptionally better GUI than the rest and would dominate because of it. They should WANT to license that out to the others, specifically because one of the others has a much cleaner file system and yet another one takes advantage of better multitasking, or some such.
Rather than a duopoly, necessarily, I would have wanted a few more big operating systems. Not hundreds. Not dozens. Not even ten. But more than two. Right now we have The One That Everyone Uses Because They've Always Used It. It has tweaks out the wazoo but is only good because everyone has always used it. And we have The One You Use When You're Fed Up With That Other One. Less tweaking, but a better UI and a much smaller hill to climb if it's your first computer.
We should have greater shades than that. And no, the *NIX crowd isn't a solution. They're fine for a back-end, but they're not a solution.
Let's take a vote: repeating this exhausted, endlessly refuted chestnut should be sufficient grounds for immediate, permanent ban, in that it suggests the kind of profound and willful ignorance that can only lead to tears.
I second this motion, as long as there is also agreement to stop beating the dead horse that Microsoft completely ripped off Apple to create Windows.
I don't know about Apple paying Englebart anything (never heard that story) but I'm pretty sure nobody can give away pre-IPO shares, since at that point they don't actually exist. What they can do is give them an opportunity to buy shares at the pre-IPO price, which is a deal that few get. Usually the buy-in minimum is $1 million. This is probably what happened. Did Xerox take advantage of this opportunity? I don't know, never heard.
In a way. Microsoft had Apple over a barrel in 1985 and used that leverage to the max. It was a classic Bill Gates take no prisoners, I'm your partner and your worst enemy combined, sort of tactic.
Xerox bought exactly $1M worth of Apple shares before the IPO - 100k shares at $10 ea. They sold almost immediately after the IPO and made $16M profit.
This transaction did not grant Apple rights to any IP. Instead, what Xerox gave Apple was access to the technology - see it work and, to the extent Xerox engineers were willing, see the underpinnings. What many people have forgotten is that Xerox sued Apple, claiming that the Mac stole the look and feel of the Star.
What many people have forgotten is that Xerox sued Apple, claiming that the Mac stole the look and feel of the Star.
... and how did that work out for them?
... and how did that work out for them?
It didn't. In fact, if I am not mistaken, the case was tossed out for legal reasons and was never tried. But I'm Just mentioning it to clarify facts, specifically to dispel the notion that Xerox traded IP for Apple shares.
Well, Steve made great products. Bill made great copies.
Other than the lying to the creator of DOS to get an improbable discount and the theft of Mac OS 1.0 to make Windows and stagnate the industry for twenty years, Bill was a decent guy.
I DO agree that he's a good person, particularly with the things he has done since Microsoft and plenty of stuff during. But the good in his life didn't come from his business. He was a very dishonorable businessman.
Just like the good in Steve's life came from his business. Incredible works that truly exemplify the Crazy Ones speech.
Steve and Bill were antitheses. Two poles of the same magnet. Bill's good came with people. Steve's good came with business. On the opposite fronts, they were quite despicable.
I wonder if it was only coincidence that they existed in the industry at the same time or if they had to exist to balance each other.
You really can go overboard with the copying charges. Tell me, who did Microsoft copy when they developed Word? Word had an enormous influence on graphic design and printing.
You really can go overboard with the copying charges. Tell me, who did Microsoft copy when they developed Word? Word had an enormous influence on graphic design and printing.
I don't recall saying anything about Word at all. In fact, I DO recall saying something about him doing some good while at Microsoft.