It seems clear that Apple did more than just adopt this new standard as a replacement for AppleTalk. In fact it is evident that AppleTalk (among other things) was a bit of an inspiration or catalyst for the ZeroConf stuff.
AppleTalks obsolescence was a catalyst to make a new alternative to IP for simple networks, yes.
And we see people from Sun, Microsoft, Apple and IBM working on the project.
I don't consider that Apple's innovation, it was a group effort, and I find it funny you don't mention the Microsoft guy involved.
I didn't mention any of the other guys either. I only mentioned (apparently correctly...chairing a key piece of the standard) that Apple had a strong role in its development. Doesn't negate the involvement of others. Though, interestingly, Apple was the first (and so far only) company to commercialize the standard. What is the innovation? Coming up with a standard or coming up with a standard and actually putting it to some use for real people?
Your standards for the sheer quantity and exclusive contribution until you can deem someone "innovative" are too high for anyone to match. Your zealotrous insistence that Apple doesn't innovate *ever* is equally damning as those zealots who count "dropping the floppy drive" as innovation (I suppose it is in a very technical sense though not in spirit). The whole "Mac zealotry" thing works both ways you know.
I supose this is just the old debate as to who invented the car: Otto, Daimler, Benz, Ford, Lambert, Cugnot, Da Vinci? It's never a clear, easy answer. Welcome to real history, where "firsts" usually build on other "firsts" and the "real" "firsts" aren't so easily credited or discredited. It's messy world out there, is it your job to clean it up for us?
What is the innovation? Coming up with a standard or coming up with a standard and actually putting it to some use for real people?
Coming up with the standard yourself that does something new or is a significant improvement.
Introducing a group effort that impacts the entire market.
ZeroConf rebranding does neither of these, IMO.
It's a very nice technology, but if we're going to expand the definition of innovation to "handly little features that were brought in from outside sources" then there is no way in hell you can keep Microsoft out of the innovators category.
--
BuonRotto:
Quote:
Your standards for the sheer quantity and exclusive contribution until you can deem someone "innovative" are too high for anyone to match.
I disagree. I think it's difficult to match because it should be. If we're going to lock Microsoft out then the standards are going to have to be high. We can't just act like Microsoft doesn't do anything.
Quote:
Your zealotrous insistence that Apple doesn't innovate *ever* is equally damning as those zealots who count "dropping the floppy drive" as innovation (I suppose it is in a very technical sense though not in spirit).
When have I once said that Apple doesn't innovate *ever*? I pointed out the iPod as an innovation. It took advantage of a new technology (the smaller HDs made by... Toshiba?) and made a product that had a huge impact on the computer market as a whole, not just the very small Mac world. And a product that actually served a function others couldn't, so innovative was the iPod that it has yet to truly be matched.
Dropping the floppy drive is nowhere close to an innovation. That's just ridiculous.
Quote:
Welcome to real history, where "firsts" usually build on other "firsts" and the "real" "firsts" aren't so easily credited or discredited. It's messy world out there, is it your job to clean it up for us?
I don't know about my job, but I will happily lambast Steve Jobs' prick attitude of "my shit doesn't stink and everyone just copies our work" and expose him as a hypocrite.
What a moron you are, do you not get the implied message that Steve is sending the world? He wants everyone from analysts, the user base, the normal PC user, Bill Gates, and anyone and everyone in between to see that Apple is serious about what they do. It is not an ego game or a test of will between Apple and MS, it is simply Steve making up for years or M$ media bias and bad press. Apple is in the position now where they can back up what they say and also not have to worry about saying it. They need to restore and possibly carve out a new image, and a badass confident one is not a bad idea.
I just watched part of the keynote again (the iChat AV) part and I missed this the first time I watched it, but Phil says something like, "Now I know how Alexander Graham Bell and Mr. Watson felt."
If I could find a bigger eye-rolling smiley I would use it.
I find such petulance somewhat immature and off-putting, especially from such a massive company.
Is there any *need* to be hostile towards MS?
Yes.
Everytime I am forced to open a Microsoft application (Word, Excel, Outlook Express) I start twitching. No really I do.
I'm convinced that Microsoft's R&D department actually research ways of making software harder to use! I can't think of any other application like Word, where all the things you regulary change are hidden away behind so many windows & menus. Who the hell needs to embed an animation or movie of all things in a word processing document? Can't figure out why your document isn't the right size even although you've set up all the Page Setup and Margins correctly? It's because Microsoft have hidden a Custom Page Size option, in one of the drop down boxes, within the Page Setup options window. You can't get to it from anywhere else, and chances are that when you are tearing your hair out with frustration it's the last place you're likely to look.
I personally don't have time to go trawling through every single option in Microsoft Word just in order to figure out why it's not doing what it says it should be doing. It's only because of the predatory, underhand way Microsoft grow their marketshare. Nobody with a choice ever chose Microsoft. Most Microsoft customers buy Microsoft because they want to be like everyone else.
I daydream of lining these clowns up, and shooting them all one by one with a ruddy great smile on my face. That might be a little immature, but I swear to God that I dream about it. Nothing would make me happier.
The *need* is that maybe someday, somebody somewhere will read a post about Microsoft and be discouraged from buying their software. Then it's all worthwhile - can you imagine how much further ahead the human race would be without Microsoft?
I don't even think there's a real problem with Mac fanatics being so blind and ignorant. It's when Jobs gets up there and does it that I really think it's idiotic and even offensive. For him to bluster about people copying Apple is an insult to my intelligence.
It's like being a fan of a sports team. The fans taunt each other, yeah, but if the head coach starts running up and down the sideline flipping off the other team that's irritating and pointless.
--
MajorMatt:
I would?
Perhaps if you didn't actually read my posts.
Above you I said:
The iPod counts (as an innovation) because it accelerated portable digital audio a great deal WRT computer integration.
"mp3 player" could mean iTunes or iPod, hell it could even mean Quicktime. I assumed you meant iTunes.
So what? It's a connection technology. BFD.
Their old easy-to-use system was so amazingly outdated they had to take someone else's years of work and make it pretty and easy-to-use. I don't mind they did, it's smart business and it has delivered a great OS. Just don't try to tell me they did something innovative.
Sprucing up someone else's work is not innovation. Piggybacking is not innovation. It's the smart way to do things most of the time, but it's not innovation.
The 1984 Macintosh was innovative, Apple has been milking that ever since. Why the hell do you think it's at the end of all their press releases?
"In 1984 Apple Computer..."
---
AppleLuva:
Name any major product that hasn't had a patch within its first three months of release! I guess those software updates and point releases of OSX don't really exist?
Did I not just download Keynote 1.1 or iTunes 4.1? I guess I'm not running 10.2.6.
I consider fatuous ignorance and lies to be insults to my intelligence. Being purposefully stupid is a personal attack.
I disagree. I think it's difficult to match because it should be. If we're going to lock Microsoft out then the standards are going to have to be high. We can't just act like Microsoft doesn't do anything.
Agreed, but the answer is to lock out Apple? No. You're just trolling for hits at this point. Be reasonable. If Apple invented the car, your argument in this thread would be that someone else invented the wheel, ergo no credit to them. You're pushing up the ante as people bring legit examples to you, just for the sake of being "right" in your own eyes. Very stubborn.
Quote:
When have I once said that Apple doesn't innovate *ever*? I pointed out the iPod as an innovation. It took advantage of a new technology (the smaller HDs made by... Toshiba?) and made a product that had a huge impact on the computer market as a whole, not just the very small Mac world.
You've discredited everything else thrown your way. Why the iPod is an innovation and much of the UI isn't I find quite curious. So Xerox Parc came up with the desktop concept. It was rough and upolished and they certainly didn't impact the market as a whole. Apple did all of that, just like the iPod did. I fail to see why one gets in the doors and the other doesn't. Same goes for Quartz, Firewire, USB maybe, the mouse for God's sake, Rendezvous, etc.
Quote:
Dropping the floppy drive is nowhere close to an innovation. That's just ridiculous.
I just watched part of the keynote again (the iChat AV) part and I missed this the first time I watched it, but Phil says something like, "Now I know how Alexander Graham Bell and Mr. Watson felt."
If I could find a bigger eye-rolling smiley I would use it.
Why the negativity? How often have you indulged in audio/video-chat before? Is it that hard to agree that this really IS videoconferencing for the rest of us (without expensive satellite uplinks or multiple duplex isdn connections).
Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. ...
By my definition Apple hasn't been doing nearly as much innovation as it claims.
--
der Kopf:
Quote:
Why the negativity? How often have you indulged in audio/video-chat before?
I've done it a couple of times through NetMeeting for work-related things, mainly testing that it would work for some professors. Then never did it again (and I don't think they did, either) because it isn't as special as it seems.
Quote:
Is it that hard to agree that this really IS videoconferencing for the rest of us (without expensive satellite uplinks or multiple duplex isdn connections).
I'm saying that it's not a big deal. It's the natural progression of a concept not invented by Apple that Mac users think is some big deal because they are so wrapped up in their little world. For people who have always wanted to videoconference but are too dumb/lazy to look for anything that Apple doesn't spoonfeed them then yes, this is a godsend.
But for those who really thought videoconferencing was special there have been options around for years. This is no sea change. Those who think this is new obviously never really cared about this before.
Expose is 10x cooler than this.
It's like the iSight is the first goddam webcam ever made when Phil Schiller says stupid shit like that. Alexander Graham Bell, are you ****ing kidding me?
And anyone who spends $150 on an iSight, has fun with it for a week and lets it gather dust from then on out, don't listen to me. You have fun. You have a blast. Just don't act shocked when I rightfully scoff at Apple's melodramatic megahype and expose it as the smoke and mirrors it is.
Why can't they just say "We've made videoconferencing really easy and intuitive!"?
No no no, we've got "It's going to change the way you use computers!"
BuonRotto:I'm back-pedaling by re-posting something I said earlier in the thread after you accused me of saying the opposite?
I said Apple has been milking the 1984 innovation for two decades and I'm 100% right.
You see, I think you have it all wrong. Apple is not milking anything because they keep innovating. If anything, companies like Gateway and Dell are milking the 1984 innovation because they dont do anything because they only exist because of Apple. Dont kid yourself, Apple innovates and does and should take credit for what they do.
It is agreed that they sugar coat things a little bit, for example, Steve gets excited about bringing mass video conferencing to the world. Ok, that is understandable because we all know his personality and that he is a salesman. He is trying to make us want this stuff, no doubt about that. But he also wont sell us crap, no doubt about that.
But for those who really thought videoconferencing was special there have been options around for years. This is no sea change. Those who think this is new obviously never really cared about this before.
Why can't they just say "We've made videoconferencing really easy and intuitive!"?
No no no, we've got "It's going to change the way you use computers!"
I've disagreed with about 95% of the arguments in your posts. It seems obvious that you have a chip on your shoulder for some reason. Perhaps you have too much invested in this cyber-confrontation to back down?
It is obvious that Apple is an innovative company. To claim otherwise will only ruin your reputation.
Back to video-conferencing:
The technology has been around for quite a while now. In fact, it has been the next big thing for at least two decade now. Hundreds of companies have tried and failed to implement a desirable, useable, and profitable system. So... Yes, apple isn't even close to the first in this area. But they are the first to make it so simple I can shamelessly recommend its use to my grandmother. That is innovative. If it weren?t, some other company would have already succeeded in providing video conferencing 'for the rest of us.'
Comments
IE Worm
From C|Net:
A vulnerability in Microsoft's Internet Explorer could result in the creation of a serious Internet worm, security experts have warned.
Read the story. Very interesting
Apple (reportedly) contributed heavily to this new standard...from their experience developing AppleTalk.
I was curious, a little research:
ZeroConf charter.
2 guys from Sun. 1 guy from IBM.
It seems like it came up as a replacement for AppleTalk, but not from Apple but from Mac users and developers.
---
curiousburb:
mmmmkay... that explains a lot about you.
I think your inability to grasp what the word "would" means speaks volumes about me. Especially when connected to an "if" clause.
My words:
If introducing something first is all it takes for innovation in this sense... ... Microsoft BOB would be an innovation.
And as if that wasn't easy enough to understand using the basic rules and functions of the English language, I helped you out even more with this: "
---
AppleLuva:
IT COULD CRASH THE BROWSER!
Originally posted by groverat
I was curious, a little research:
ZeroConf charter.
2 guys from Sun. 1 guy from IBM.
It seems like it came up as a replacement for AppleTalk, but not from Apple but from Mac users and developers.
I was basing my statement (perhaps incorrectly) on the following:
http://www.theideabasket.com/index.p...cleview/30/1/0
and the fact that Apple was the first company to actually do an implementation of it, and release it as open source as well.
Also, if you went a layer deeper on the link you sent, you'd find these:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/...nklocal-08.txt
http://files.zeroconf.org/draft-ietf...-linklocal.txt
http://files.stuartcheshire.org/draf...e-ipv4-acd.txt
It seems clear that Apple did more than just adopt this new standard as a replacement for AppleTalk. In fact it is evident that AppleTalk (among other things) was a bit of an inspiration or catalyst for the ZeroConf stuff.
And we see people from Sun, Microsoft, Apple and IBM working on the project.
I don't consider that Apple's innovation, it was a group effort, and I find it funny you don't mention the Microsoft guy involved.
Originally posted by groverat
AppleTalks obsolescence was a catalyst to make a new alternative to IP for simple networks, yes.
And we see people from Sun, Microsoft, Apple and IBM working on the project.
I don't consider that Apple's innovation, it was a group effort, and I find it funny you don't mention the Microsoft guy involved.
I didn't mention any of the other guys either. I only mentioned (apparently correctly...chairing a key piece of the standard) that Apple had a strong role in its development. Doesn't negate the involvement of others. Though, interestingly, Apple was the first (and so far only) company to commercialize the standard. What is the innovation? Coming up with a standard or coming up with a standard and actually putting it to some use for real people?
I supose this is just the old debate as to who invented the car: Otto, Daimler, Benz, Ford, Lambert, Cugnot, Da Vinci? It's never a clear, easy answer. Welcome to real history, where "firsts" usually build on other "firsts" and the "real" "firsts" aren't so easily credited or discredited. It's messy world out there, is it your job to clean it up for us?
What is the innovation? Coming up with a standard or coming up with a standard and actually putting it to some use for real people?
Coming up with the standard yourself that does something new or is a significant improvement.
Introducing a group effort that impacts the entire market.
ZeroConf rebranding does neither of these, IMO.
It's a very nice technology, but if we're going to expand the definition of innovation to "handly little features that were brought in from outside sources" then there is no way in hell you can keep Microsoft out of the innovators category.
--
BuonRotto:
Your standards for the sheer quantity and exclusive contribution until you can deem someone "innovative" are too high for anyone to match.
I disagree. I think it's difficult to match because it should be. If we're going to lock Microsoft out then the standards are going to have to be high. We can't just act like Microsoft doesn't do anything.
Your zealotrous insistence that Apple doesn't innovate *ever* is equally damning as those zealots who count "dropping the floppy drive" as innovation (I suppose it is in a very technical sense though not in spirit).
When have I once said that Apple doesn't innovate *ever*? I pointed out the iPod as an innovation. It took advantage of a new technology (the smaller HDs made by... Toshiba?) and made a product that had a huge impact on the computer market as a whole, not just the very small Mac world. And a product that actually served a function others couldn't, so innovative was the iPod that it has yet to truly be matched.
Dropping the floppy drive is nowhere close to an innovation. That's just ridiculous.
Welcome to real history, where "firsts" usually build on other "firsts" and the "real" "firsts" aren't so easily credited or discredited. It's messy world out there, is it your job to clean it up for us?
I don't know about my job, but I will happily lambast Steve Jobs' prick attitude of "my shit doesn't stink and everyone just copies our work" and expose him as a hypocrite.
Originally posted by groverat
Introducing a group effort that impacts the entire market.
ZeroConf rebranding does neither of these, IMO.
And my point, if you are paying attention, is that Apple did more than just "re-brand" something with Rendevous.
If I could find a bigger eye-rolling smiley I would use it.
Originally posted by groverat
I find such petulance somewhat immature and off-putting, especially from such a massive company.
Is there any *need* to be hostile towards MS?
Yes.
Everytime I am forced to open a Microsoft application (Word, Excel, Outlook Express) I start twitching. No really I do.
I'm convinced that Microsoft's R&D department actually research ways of making software harder to use! I can't think of any other application like Word, where all the things you regulary change are hidden away behind so many windows & menus. Who the hell needs to embed an animation or movie of all things in a word processing document? Can't figure out why your document isn't the right size even although you've set up all the Page Setup and Margins correctly? It's because Microsoft have hidden a Custom Page Size option, in one of the drop down boxes, within the Page Setup options window. You can't get to it from anywhere else, and chances are that when you are tearing your hair out with frustration it's the last place you're likely to look.
I personally don't have time to go trawling through every single option in Microsoft Word just in order to figure out why it's not doing what it says it should be doing. It's only because of the predatory, underhand way Microsoft grow their marketshare. Nobody with a choice ever chose Microsoft. Most Microsoft customers buy Microsoft because they want to be like everyone else.
I daydream of lining these clowns up, and shooting them all one by one with a ruddy great smile on my face. That might be a little immature, but I swear to God that I dream about it. Nothing would make me happier.
The *need* is that maybe someday, somebody somewhere will read a post about Microsoft and be discouraged from buying their software. Then it's all worthwhile - can you imagine how much further ahead the human race would be without Microsoft?
Originally posted by groverat
dfryer:
I don't even think there's a real problem with Mac fanatics being so blind and ignorant. It's when Jobs gets up there and does it that I really think it's idiotic and even offensive. For him to bluster about people copying Apple is an insult to my intelligence.
It's like being a fan of a sports team. The fans taunt each other, yeah, but if the head coach starts running up and down the sideline flipping off the other team that's irritating and pointless.
--
MajorMatt:
I would?
Perhaps if you didn't actually read my posts.
Above you I said:
The iPod counts (as an innovation) because it accelerated portable digital audio a great deal WRT computer integration.
"mp3 player" could mean iTunes or iPod, hell it could even mean Quicktime. I assumed you meant iTunes.
So what? It's a connection technology. BFD.
Their old easy-to-use system was so amazingly outdated they had to take someone else's years of work and make it pretty and easy-to-use. I don't mind they did, it's smart business and it has delivered a great OS. Just don't try to tell me they did something innovative.
Sprucing up someone else's work is not innovation. Piggybacking is not innovation. It's the smart way to do things most of the time, but it's not innovation.
The 1984 Macintosh was innovative, Apple has been milking that ever since. Why the hell do you think it's at the end of all their press releases?
"In 1984 Apple Computer..."
---
AppleLuva:
Name any major product that hasn't had a patch within its first three months of release! I guess those software updates and point releases of OSX don't really exist?
Did I not just download Keynote 1.1 or iTunes 4.1? I guess I'm not running 10.2.6.
I consider fatuous ignorance and lies to be insults to my intelligence. Being purposefully stupid is a personal attack.
Keep fighting that war you'll never win!
Ah, but lies are ok in your book remember?
Originally posted by groverat
I disagree. I think it's difficult to match because it should be. If we're going to lock Microsoft out then the standards are going to have to be high. We can't just act like Microsoft doesn't do anything.
Agreed, but the answer is to lock out Apple? No. You're just trolling for hits at this point. Be reasonable. If Apple invented the car, your argument in this thread would be that someone else invented the wheel, ergo no credit to them. You're pushing up the ante as people bring legit examples to you, just for the sake of being "right" in your own eyes. Very stubborn.
When have I once said that Apple doesn't innovate *ever*? I pointed out the iPod as an innovation. It took advantage of a new technology (the smaller HDs made by... Toshiba?) and made a product that had a huge impact on the computer market as a whole, not just the very small Mac world.
You've discredited everything else thrown your way. Why the iPod is an innovation and much of the UI isn't I find quite curious. So Xerox Parc came up with the desktop concept. It was rough and upolished and they certainly didn't impact the market as a whole. Apple did all of that, just like the iPod did. I fail to see why one gets in the doors and the other doesn't. Same goes for Quartz, Firewire, USB maybe, the mouse for God's sake, Rendezvous, etc.
Dropping the floppy drive is nowhere close to an innovation. That's just ridiculous.
We agree?
Why the iPod is an innovation and much of the UI isn't I find quite curious.
Did I say it wasn't an innovation?
He asked who did GUI first, I said Xerox Parc. And I'm right. Did I say it wasn't innovation on Apple's part? No.
Did I say IN THIS THREAD the following? The 1984 Macintosh was innovative...? Yes, I did.
The mouse is involved with the GUI, so it falls under the same category but not as its own thing.
Apple innovated the GUI, as I said before in this freaking thread.
Originally posted by groverat
I just watched part of the keynote again (the iChat AV) part and I missed this the first time I watched it, but Phil says something like, "Now I know how Alexander Graham Bell and Mr. Watson felt."
If I could find a bigger eye-rolling smiley I would use it.
Why the negativity? How often have you indulged in audio/video-chat before? Is it that hard to agree that this really IS videoconferencing for the rest of us (without expensive satellite uplinks or multiple duplex isdn connections).
You're backpedaling, playing a semantics game then, or just going off-topic in your arguments.
I'm back-pedaling by re-posting something I said earlier in the thread after you accused me of saying the opposite?
I said Apple has been milking the 1984 innovation for two decades and I'm 100% right.
June 26th 2003 press release. What's at the bottom?
Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. ...
By my definition Apple hasn't been doing nearly as much innovation as it claims.
--
der Kopf:
Why the negativity? How often have you indulged in audio/video-chat before?
I've done it a couple of times through NetMeeting for work-related things, mainly testing that it would work for some professors. Then never did it again (and I don't think they did, either) because it isn't as special as it seems.
Is it that hard to agree that this really IS videoconferencing for the rest of us (without expensive satellite uplinks or multiple duplex isdn connections).
I'm saying that it's not a big deal. It's the natural progression of a concept not invented by Apple that Mac users think is some big deal because they are so wrapped up in their little world. For people who have always wanted to videoconference but are too dumb/lazy to look for anything that Apple doesn't spoonfeed them then yes, this is a godsend.
But for those who really thought videoconferencing was special there have been options around for years. This is no sea change. Those who think this is new obviously never really cared about this before.
Expose is 10x cooler than this.
It's like the iSight is the first goddam webcam ever made when Phil Schiller says stupid shit like that. Alexander Graham Bell, are you ****ing kidding me?
And anyone who spends $150 on an iSight, has fun with it for a week and lets it gather dust from then on out, don't listen to me. You have fun. You have a blast. Just don't act shocked when I rightfully scoff at Apple's melodramatic megahype and expose it as the smoke and mirrors it is.
Why can't they just say "We've made videoconferencing really easy and intuitive!"?
No no no, we've got "It's going to change the way you use computers!"
Is Apple just bringing it to the mass market and making it easier to use, or did they do something here that's never been done before?
Originally posted by groverat
BuonRotto:I'm back-pedaling by re-posting something I said earlier in the thread after you accused me of saying the opposite?
I said Apple has been milking the 1984 innovation for two decades and I'm 100% right.
You see, I think you have it all wrong. Apple is not milking anything because they keep innovating. If anything, companies like Gateway and Dell are milking the 1984 innovation because they dont do anything because they only exist because of Apple. Dont kid yourself, Apple innovates and does and should take credit for what they do.
It is agreed that they sugar coat things a little bit, for example, Steve gets excited about bringing mass video conferencing to the world. Ok, that is understandable because we all know his personality and that he is a salesman. He is trying to make us want this stuff, no doubt about that. But he also wont sell us crap, no doubt about that.
Originally posted by groverat
But for those who really thought videoconferencing was special there have been options around for years. This is no sea change. Those who think this is new obviously never really cared about this before.
Why can't they just say "We've made videoconferencing really easy and intuitive!"?
No no no, we've got "It's going to change the way you use computers!"
I've disagreed with about 95% of the arguments in your posts. It seems obvious that you have a chip on your shoulder for some reason. Perhaps you have too much invested in this cyber-confrontation to back down?
It is obvious that Apple is an innovative company. To claim otherwise will only ruin your reputation.
Back to video-conferencing:
The technology has been around for quite a while now. In fact, it has been the next big thing for at least two decade now. Hundreds of companies have tried and failed to implement a desirable, useable, and profitable system. So... Yes, apple isn't even close to the first in this area. But they are the first to make it so simple I can shamelessly recommend its use to my grandmother. That is innovative. If it weren?t, some other company would have already succeeded in providing video conferencing 'for the rest of us.'