So funny how Balmer looks essentially identical way back in that Windows advert as he does today. That suit could almost fit into his current wardrobe. :)
Because it was such a long time ago, and because it was followed up by essentially nothing at all, a lot of folks (especially those who weren't alive at the time) find it easier to believe that we never landed on the moon. The moon landing is the singular proof of the realities of outer space and the fact that we are all living on a tiny ball, so to deny it, means that we can go on believing in God and our uniqueness here in the same way as we always have before. Similarly, because a lot of Americans find it hard to believe that they were so weak as to allow the 911 attacks to happen (which goes against the American myth of ultimate strength), it's easier to believe it was an inside job. That way the US wasn't defeated by a stronger enemy, the stronger enemy was the US.
Don't loop God in with the "fake" moon landing crowd. It's patronizing and false.
People believe what they want to believe, and they're not going to hear otherwise.
People don't want to believe that they chose the bad guy, and while it may never change in the minds of the old Windows heads we can educate the younger generation and diminish the spreading of lies.
We do, however, all rewrite history. Apple did enter a "late 80s partnership with Olivetti (the Italian owner of British PC maker Acorn) that culminated in plans to jointly develop a new mobile processor architecture capable of powering Sculley's pet project: the Newton Message Pad". The alliance didn't create the ARM architecture though, that already existed within Acorn and was used in the Archimedes desktop computer. Indeed, ARM - Advanced RISC Machine - was the new meaning of the acronym originally created as Acorn RISC Machine.
Amusingly, when Apple first advertised PowerPC Macs in UK as the most powerful RISC desktops, Acorn was urged to appeal to the UK's Advertising Standards body because of their own supposedly more powerful ARM powered desktop. ARM's management proved visionary though, perhaps through Apple's help, leading to today's dominant low power, high performance chips in almost all smart phones and much else. Acorn, meanwhile, lost its way despite its excellent technology in an echo of 1990s Apple. However, without a visionary leader to return to rescue it, it withered and died. Only ARM now remains :-)
The name ARM did exist at Acorn prior to the creation of the jointly-owned Apple/Olvetti ARM partnership, at which point "Acorn RISC Machine" morphed into "Advanced RISC Machine."
However ARM at Acorn was a desktop processor, inspired by RISC work at Berkeley and sort of a middle road between the 6502 chip powering the Apple II line and the Motorola 68000 chip that powered the original Macintosh, a combination of power and simplicity. Olvetti also bought the struggling Acorn in 1985, unaware that its target was even working on ARM because it was kept secret throughout the acquisition negotiations.
ARM caught the attention of Apple in 1985, at a point where there was interest in developing a "new" Apple II in parallel with the higher-end Mac, or potentially a third platform known as "Möbius."
But while the ARM project that Olvetti acquired had some value, it was essentially just another chip architecture, which like MIPS, DEC Alpha, Intel i960 and PowerPC, was only valuable if somebody actually began using it. Acorn was using its own desktop ARM chips, but even a UK government subsidy couldn't keep that business alive in the face of WinTel competition.
It wasn't until Newton got started that Apple realized it needed a new chip architecture for mobile devices, and neither x86 nor PowerPC nor AT&T's Hobbit nor anything else that existed could really meet those necessary objectives yet, in terms of power, cost and efficiency.
Acorn ARM came pretty close, but it lacked, for example, an integrated MMU (memory management unit), and the nearly dead Acorn didn't have the funds to develop its desktop chip into the type of device Apple was looking for. While Acorn's ARM formed the starting point for developing a new ARM mobile architecture, the fact that Acorn/Olvetti and Apple took equal partnership shares in the new ARM Ltd (formed in 1990) makes it clear that Acorn desperately needed help to make a mobile new ARM chip possible.
Acorn kept working on its ARM chips for desktop systems, which were similar to the Mac, but the Newton mobile chips jointly designed by ARM are what took off.
Acorn didn't make mobile devices. It essentially turned into a parallel universe / doppleganger of Apple, depicting an alternate reality of what would have happened to the Macintosh if Steve Jobs hadn't returned, which is to say: another PowerPC-like workstation vendor that simply frittered away its resources struggling to compete against WinTel, dying before 2000 even arrived.
Apple spent the rest of 1990s sort of ineffectually, half-assedly working on Newton while focusing on PPC Macs, but the rest of the world began licensing ARM chip technologies (including DEC, TI, Samsung, Nvidia & Qualcomm) and using them to build their own mobile devices, somewhat similar to the role Windows played on PCs. By 2001, Apple didn't even have much of choice but to use ARM chips in the iPod, because there was nothing else that could touch ARM in terms of power/watt.
Owning nearly half the shares of ARM enabled Jobs to sell off shares in the late 1990s, and if you look at Apple's earning statements from that period, dumping ARM stock was the only thing keeping Apple from reporting quarterly losses.
Somehow I don't think anti-Apple posters are going to be persuaded by a brief, unsourced piece that a case presided over by numerous judges, attorneys, etc., for a period of years was wrongly decided.
I think the real villain of the piece is Sculley, whose memoir suggests that he didn't defend Apple's interests competently. If Apple didn't put on the right case, it's not the courts' fault the company lost.
The contention of the article isn't that the "look and feel" lawsuit was "wrongly decided" in legal terms. You can read the linked findings of the judges. The case was quite clearly decided based entirely on the fact that Sculley had granted Microsoft a 1985 license to Mac IP in exchange for Excel continuing as an exclusive on the Mac (ie, not porting it to Windows or OS/2) for just two years.
Given that Microsoft had written Excel around 1993-1995, what Sculley should have done in obvious hindsight was to scramble to develop Apple's own Mac spreadsheet. However, Apple was afraid that if it made its own Mac software, everyone else would be afraid to write Mac apps.
Incidentally, Apple's own AppleWorks on the Apple II were a huge cash cow, and Claris' later version for the Mac outsold Microsoft's Works (integrated Office). Other developers Apple courted on the Mac either never managed to deliver their own apps, or did so so late and poorly that they were unsuccessful (Lotus Jazz, the 1-2-3 customized for Mac, was a flop).
Had Apple focused on first party Office apps, the world would likely be using Macs today and Microsoft wouldn't have survived the 1990s. But those Macs would probably still be PowerPC and still running a derivation of System 7, unless you imagine that Jobs also stayed at Apple and could pull off the Macintosh Office/SuperMac, essentially NeXT within Apple. It just took an extra decade to get there.
Note that today, the top selling office apps for iOS are from Apple. As well perhaps the most impressive mobile apps on any platform: iMovie & GarageBand.
Had Apple focused on first party Office apps, the world would likely be using Macs today and Microsoft wouldn't have survived the 1990s. But those Macs would probably still be PowerPC and still running a derivation of System 7, unless you imagine that Jobs also stayed at Apple and could pull off the Macintosh Office/SuperMac, essentially NeXT within Apple. It just took an extra decade to get there.
Now THAT is a very interesting what-if. I think Apple had an opportunity there. I remember when Microsoft Office wasn't even a thing, but separate productivity apps that were lagging IBM/Lotus in the productivity race. And this was in the 1990s. I don't know why Apple never ported the Lisa's productivity suite over to Mac (I assume it had more to do with internal animosity between the Mac and Lisa divisions than some deal Sculley made with Microsoft). And frankly, there was strife between the Apple II division and Mac, and the Apple II had AppleWorks. Hmm... Food for speculation
Do you know what atrocious mean? Yeah, why? Because People should be free to WORK on pretty much any product they need to, to make money, to feed, cloth, and shelter themselves.
Someone should not be able to make a "Doll house by Apple" and then say you can't make a "Doll house by Microsoft", anyone should be able to create, make, or build, and then sell and buy FOOD.
Trademark, Patent, Copyright... everyday of my life, as "The walls of the room seem to alter angles Elongating and shrinking alternately" Read more: Bauhaus - Departure Lyrics | MetroLyrics
MAC Guy for 25 , WIN Guy for 10 , GNU Guy for 5
To me as long as you say, "This" by "Your Name Here" You can make it as Art! cause it all comes down to what is Art.
Someone should not be able to make a "Doll house by Apple" and then say you can't make a "Doll house by Microsoft"
Why? Why do they have the right to steal someone else's name?
So you're Bob. And you have a repair shop. You call it "Bob's Autos". Then Frank comes along and puts his store up right next to yours. "Bob's Autos: By Frank". You're fine with that?
…anyone should be able to create, make, or build, and then sell and buy FOOD.
I think you're confusing the name of Apple Inc. with something else.
Trademark, Patent, Copyright... everyday of my life, as "The walls of the room seem to alter angles Elongating and shrinking alternately"
"Tabs, pads, and boards." The phrase may sound like a piece of techno-buzzy cud coughed up at a TEDx or SXSW talk, but it's actually a precise description of current hardware trends made 22 years ago by a chief scientist at Xerox PARC. That scientist, the late Mark Weiser, was talking about his then-new concept of "ubiquitous computing": the idea that cheap connectivity and networked devices would liberate "computing" from mainframes and desktop boxes and integrate it into people's everyday lives. But how? What would that actually look like? Weiser sketched out three basic tiers of ubiquitous computing devices based on interactive display technology: tabs (small, wearable); pads (handheld, mobile); boards (large, fixed)...
1. Having an idea isn't as important as being able to produce a salable product from it.
That is a common refrain but simply not true. It is a remarkable accomplishment to successfully produce and sell a product. But that happens often. Clearly, some companies do it better than others.
Coming up with a truly original and society-changing idea, however, is something that simply happens rarely and is orders of magnitude more significant than production.
The contention of the article isn't that the "look and feel" lawsuit was "wrongly decided" in legal terms. You can read the linked findings of the judges. The case was quite clearly decided based entirely on the fact that Sculley had granted Microsoft a 1985 license to Mac IP in exchange for Excel continuing as an exclusive on the Mac (ie, not porting it to Windows or OS/2) for just two years.
Given that Microsoft had written Excel around 1993-1995, what Sculley should have done in obvious hindsight was to scramble to develop Apple's own Mac spreadsheet. However, Apple was afraid that if it made its own Mac software, everyone else would be afraid to write Mac apps.
Incidentally, Apple's own AppleWorks on the Apple II were a huge cash cow, and Claris' later version for the Mac outsold Microsoft's Works (integrated Office). Other developers Apple courted on the Mac either never managed to deliver their own apps, or did so so late and poorly that they were unsuccessful (Lotus Jazz, the 1-2-3 customized for Mac, was a flop).
Had Apple focused on first party Office apps, the world would likely be using Macs today and Microsoft wouldn't have survived the 1990s. But those Macs would probably still be PowerPC and still running a derivation of System 7, unless you imagine that Jobs also stayed at Apple and could pull off the Macintosh Office/SuperMac, essentially NeXT within Apple. It just took an extra decade to get there.
Note that today, the top selling office apps for iOS are from Apple. As well perhaps the most impressive mobile apps on any platform: iMovie & GarageBand.
I am guessing you were around and involved at the time, I enjoy and appreciate your input immensely.
BTW, I am hoping Apple sucks Claris back in and delivers a 'PFS' for iWorks.
You don't get to say what is and is not patentable, copyrightable, trademarkable, or protectable.
An invisible force created by SOME men, enforced by OTHER men, to allow SOME men to get what (anything) they want. Pathetic. Cause see this is the problem. If something is yours protect it yourself... CREATE a Technology if you must, to protect it, copy protection etc. Don't ask others to enforce your will. So yeah weak… oh and take your 25,000 post and go ahead...
This reads like Time Cube. A lot like Time Cube. And if you had any manner of actual argument, you would have left off that last line.
While a lot of what Microsoft did was clearly unethical, and very destructive to Apple at the time, Apple wouldn't be where it is now without the knocks it was dealt in the past. If Microsoft hadn't caused so much damage there would never have been an opportunity for Steve Jobs to return. Even a sugar water salesman could sell the Mac in a world with no serious competitors. No Steve, no OSX, iPod, iPhone, iPad etc. Arguably we have Microsoft to thank for the great technologies we use now. They just didn't write any of them
You don't get to say what is and is not patentable, copyrightable, trademarkable, or protectable.
This reads like Time Cube. A lot like Time Cube. And if you had any manner of actual argument, you would have left off that last line.
Ok, here's the overall idea here
Wedon't get to say what is and is not patentable, copyrightable, trademarkable, or protectable.
And the last line is because unless it is the Year 2,500+ talking to someone with 25,000+ post is a WASTE of my time. I am not going to go back and forth with you for 10 post each.
Wedon't get to say what is and is not patentable, copyrightable, trademarkable, or protectable.
… Except no, that's not how it works.
And the last line is because unless it is the Year 2,500+ talking to someone with 25,000+ post is a WASTE of my time. I am not going to go back and forth with you for 10 post each.
Comments
He's like Benjamin Ballmer Buttons
Don't loop God in with the "fake" moon landing crowd. It's patronizing and false.
People don't want to believe that they chose the bad guy, and while it may never change in the minds of the old Windows heads we can educate the younger generation and diminish the spreading of lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Don't loop God in with the "fake" moon landing crowd. It's patronizing and false.
I meant to contrast the traditional, religious view of the Earth versus the scientific one, so putting God in there is valid.
Please don't start that. Let's stick to Apple related topics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Command_F
Good article, I enjoyed it.
We do, however, all rewrite history. Apple did enter a "late 80s partnership with Olivetti (the Italian owner of British PC maker Acorn) that culminated in plans to jointly develop a new mobile processor architecture capable of powering Sculley's pet project: the Newton Message Pad". The alliance didn't create the ARM architecture though, that already existed within Acorn and was used in the Archimedes desktop computer. Indeed, ARM - Advanced RISC Machine - was the new meaning of the acronym originally created as Acorn RISC Machine.
Amusingly, when Apple first advertised PowerPC Macs in UK as the most powerful RISC desktops, Acorn was urged to appeal to the UK's Advertising Standards body because of their own supposedly more powerful ARM powered desktop. ARM's management proved visionary though, perhaps through Apple's help, leading to today's dominant low power, high performance chips in almost all smart phones and much else. Acorn, meanwhile, lost its way despite its excellent technology in an echo of 1990s Apple. However, without a visionary leader to return to rescue it, it withered and died. Only ARM now remains :-)
The name ARM did exist at Acorn prior to the creation of the jointly-owned Apple/Olvetti ARM partnership, at which point "Acorn RISC Machine" morphed into "Advanced RISC Machine."
However ARM at Acorn was a desktop processor, inspired by RISC work at Berkeley and sort of a middle road between the 6502 chip powering the Apple II line and the Motorola 68000 chip that powered the original Macintosh, a combination of power and simplicity. Olvetti also bought the struggling Acorn in 1985, unaware that its target was even working on ARM because it was kept secret throughout the acquisition negotiations.
ARM caught the attention of Apple in 1985, at a point where there was interest in developing a "new" Apple II in parallel with the higher-end Mac, or potentially a third platform known as "Möbius."
But while the ARM project that Olvetti acquired had some value, it was essentially just another chip architecture, which like MIPS, DEC Alpha, Intel i960 and PowerPC, was only valuable if somebody actually began using it. Acorn was using its own desktop ARM chips, but even a UK government subsidy couldn't keep that business alive in the face of WinTel competition.
It wasn't until Newton got started that Apple realized it needed a new chip architecture for mobile devices, and neither x86 nor PowerPC nor AT&T's Hobbit nor anything else that existed could really meet those necessary objectives yet, in terms of power, cost and efficiency.
Acorn ARM came pretty close, but it lacked, for example, an integrated MMU (memory management unit), and the nearly dead Acorn didn't have the funds to develop its desktop chip into the type of device Apple was looking for. While Acorn's ARM formed the starting point for developing a new ARM mobile architecture, the fact that Acorn/Olvetti and Apple took equal partnership shares in the new ARM Ltd (formed in 1990) makes it clear that Acorn desperately needed help to make a mobile new ARM chip possible.
Acorn kept working on its ARM chips for desktop systems, which were similar to the Mac, but the Newton mobile chips jointly designed by ARM are what took off.
Acorn didn't make mobile devices. It essentially turned into a parallel universe / doppleganger of Apple, depicting an alternate reality of what would have happened to the Macintosh if Steve Jobs hadn't returned, which is to say: another PowerPC-like workstation vendor that simply frittered away its resources struggling to compete against WinTel, dying before 2000 even arrived.
Apple spent the rest of 1990s sort of ineffectually, half-assedly working on Newton while focusing on PPC Macs, but the rest of the world began licensing ARM chip technologies (including DEC, TI, Samsung, Nvidia & Qualcomm) and using them to build their own mobile devices, somewhat similar to the role Windows played on PCs. By 2001, Apple didn't even have much of choice but to use ARM chips in the iPod, because there was nothing else that could touch ARM in terms of power/watt.
Owning nearly half the shares of ARM enabled Jobs to sell off shares in the late 1990s, and if you look at Apple's earning statements from that period, dumping ARM stock was the only thing keeping Apple from reporting quarterly losses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor
Somehow I don't think anti-Apple posters are going to be persuaded by a brief, unsourced piece that a case presided over by numerous judges, attorneys, etc., for a period of years was wrongly decided.
I think the real villain of the piece is Sculley, whose memoir suggests that he didn't defend Apple's interests competently. If Apple didn't put on the right case, it's not the courts' fault the company lost.
The contention of the article isn't that the "look and feel" lawsuit was "wrongly decided" in legal terms. You can read the linked findings of the judges. The case was quite clearly decided based entirely on the fact that Sculley had granted Microsoft a 1985 license to Mac IP in exchange for Excel continuing as an exclusive on the Mac (ie, not porting it to Windows or OS/2) for just two years.
Given that Microsoft had written Excel around 1993-1995, what Sculley should have done in obvious hindsight was to scramble to develop Apple's own Mac spreadsheet. However, Apple was afraid that if it made its own Mac software, everyone else would be afraid to write Mac apps.
Incidentally, Apple's own AppleWorks on the Apple II were a huge cash cow, and Claris' later version for the Mac outsold Microsoft's Works (integrated Office). Other developers Apple courted on the Mac either never managed to deliver their own apps, or did so so late and poorly that they were unsuccessful (Lotus Jazz, the 1-2-3 customized for Mac, was a flop).
Had Apple focused on first party Office apps, the world would likely be using Macs today and Microsoft wouldn't have survived the 1990s. But those Macs would probably still be PowerPC and still running a derivation of System 7, unless you imagine that Jobs also stayed at Apple and could pull off the Macintosh Office/SuperMac, essentially NeXT within Apple. It just took an extra decade to get there.
Note that today, the top selling office apps for iOS are from Apple. As well perhaps the most impressive mobile apps on any platform: iMovie & GarageBand.
Now THAT is a very interesting what-if. I think Apple had an opportunity there. I remember when Microsoft Office wasn't even a thing, but separate productivity apps that were lagging IBM/Lotus in the productivity race. And this was in the 1990s. I don't know why Apple never ported the Lisa's productivity suite over to Mac (I assume it had more to do with internal animosity between the Mac and Lisa divisions than some deal Sculley made with Microsoft). And frankly, there was strife between the Apple II division and Mac, and the Apple II had AppleWorks. Hmm... Food for speculation
But, this is atrocious.
Do you know what atrocious mean? Yeah, why? Because People should be free to WORK on pretty much any product they need to, to make money, to feed, cloth, and shelter themselves.
Someone should not be able to make a "Doll house by Apple" and then say you can't make a "Doll house by Microsoft", anyone should be able to create, make, or build, and then sell and buy FOOD.
Trademark, Patent, Copyright... everyday of my life, as "The walls of the room seem to alter angles Elongating and shrinking alternately"
Read more: Bauhaus - Departure Lyrics | MetroLyrics
MAC Guy for 25 , WIN Guy for 10 , GNU Guy for 5
To me as long as you say, "This" by "Your Name Here"
You can make it as Art! cause it all comes down to what is Art.
Laters...
Originally Posted by rezwits
Someone should not be able to make a "Doll house by Apple" and then say you can't make a "Doll house by Microsoft"
Why? Why do they have the right to steal someone else's name?
So you're Bob. And you have a repair shop. You call it "Bob's Autos". Then Frank comes along and puts his store up right next to yours. "Bob's Autos: By Frank". You're fine with that?
…anyone should be able to create, make, or build, and then sell and buy FOOD.
I think you're confusing the name of Apple Inc. with something else.
Trademark, Patent, Copyright... everyday of my life, as "The walls of the room seem to alter angles Elongating and shrinking alternately"
Read more: Bauhaus - Departure Lyrics | MetroLyrics
What in the world are you talking about?
MAC Guy for 25 , WIN Guy for 10 , GNU Guy for 5
Doesn't matter.
To me as long as you say, "This" by "Your Name Here" You can make it as Art!
Well, you aren't the law.
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/512616/how-smart-watches-and-phablets-fulfill-a-20-year-old-prophecy-about-ubiquitous-computing/"
I actually made this prediction in the early 80's.
Never give up trying. There are a a few that can be saved…
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53
Couple things---
1. Having an idea isn't as important as being able to produce a salable product from it.
That is a common refrain but simply not true. It is a remarkable accomplishment to successfully produce and sell a product. But that happens often. Clearly, some companies do it better than others.
Coming up with a truly original and society-changing idea, however, is something that simply happens rarely and is orders of magnitude more significant than production.
I am guessing you were around and involved at the time, I enjoy and appreciate your input immensely.
BTW, I am hoping Apple sucks Claris back in and delivers a 'PFS' for iWorks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Well, you aren't the law.
Definition of Law?
An invisible force created by SOME men, enforced by OTHER men, to allow SOME men to get what (anything) they want.
Pathetic
Cause see this is the problem. If something is yours protect it yourself... CREATE a Technology if you must, to protect it, copy protection etc.
Don't ask others to enforce your will. So yeah weak...
oh and take your 25,000 post and go ahead...
Originally Posted by rezwits
Definition of Law?
You don't get to say what is and is not patentable, copyrightable, trademarkable, or protectable.
An invisible force created by SOME men, enforced by OTHER men, to allow SOME men to get what (anything) they want. Pathetic. Cause see this is the problem. If something is yours protect it yourself... CREATE a Technology if you must, to protect it, copy protection etc. Don't ask others to enforce your will. So yeah weak… oh and take your 25,000 post and go ahead...
This reads like Time Cube. A lot like Time Cube. And if you had any manner of actual argument, you would have left off that last line.
While a lot of what Microsoft did was clearly unethical, and very destructive to Apple at the time, Apple wouldn't be where it is now without the knocks it was dealt in the past. If Microsoft hadn't caused so much damage there would never have been an opportunity for Steve Jobs to return. Even a sugar water salesman could sell the Mac in a world with no serious competitors. No Steve, no OSX, iPod, iPhone, iPad etc. Arguably we have Microsoft to thank for the great technologies we use now. They just didn't write any of them
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You don't get to say what is and is not patentable, copyrightable, trademarkable, or protectable.
This reads like Time Cube. A lot like Time Cube. And if you had any manner of actual argument, you would have left off that last line.
Ok, here's the overall idea here
We don't get to say what is and is not patentable, copyrightable, trademarkable, or protectable.
And the last line is because unless it is the Year 2,500+ talking to someone with 25,000+ post is a WASTE of my time. I am not going to go back and forth with you for 10 post each.
EOL
Originally Posted by rezwits
Ok, here's the overall idea here
We don't get to say what is and is not patentable, copyrightable, trademarkable, or protectable.
… Except no, that's not how it works.
And the last line is because unless it is the Year 2,500+ talking to someone with 25,000+ post is a WASTE of my time. I am not going to go back and forth with you for 10 post each.
What part of "leave it off" was confusing to you?