was at Checkpoint Charlie then Kennedy museums in Berlin a few hours ago..
watched most of JFK's "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech there - powerful stuff from kinda long time ago.. before I was born at least..
it wasn't just black and white film, then, that made it seem so different I think
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Sorry for the typo.
Actually, the story is a bit sadder than that...
I went to work for IBM in the Riverside, CA Branch Office in November 1963. Immediately, I went to a 2-week class on the IBM 1410 at the IBM building on Wilshire Blvd. (next to the Ambassador Hotel) in LA.
Our class ended early that Friday so I drove the 60 miles back to the Riverside Branch. It was a real weird drive -- cars weaving all over the freeway or pulling off to the side (my car didn't have a radio)...
When I got to the Branch, there were no cars in the parking lot, the back door was ajar, but there was nobody in the building...
I walked around a while and eventually went into the copier/TeleType room...
On the TT was the message that JFK had been assassinated a hour earlier...
I remember thinking: "How can this happen in America?"
Less than 5 years later, RFK was assassinated at the Ambassador Hotel...
Yes, you can. You just need to read about the IBM monopoly and anti-trust cases.
(What is it with the lack of mentality in so many people?)
Apple is nowhere near the place where IBM and Microsoft have been.
The two major monopoly/anti-trust suits against were:
1) tie-in -- requiring users of IBM Machines (they were leased to customers) to use only punched cards manufactured by IBM
2) monopoly for having 97% of the mainframe computer installed base.
The first was settled when Tom Watson, Jr. signed a "consent decree" conceding the issue while admitting no wrong.
The second was dismissed by the Judge finding that IBM had done nothing illegal, rather had attained its market position by providing the best products, marketing services and support.
The two major monopoly/anti-trust suits against were:
1) tie-in -- requiring users of IBM Machines (they were leased to customers) to use only punched cards manufactured by IBM
2) monopoly for having 97% of the mainframe computer installed base.
The first was settled when Tom Watson, Jr. signed a "consent decree" conceding the issue while admitting no wrong.
The second was dismissed by the Judge finding that IBM had done nothing illegal, rather had attained its market position by providing the best products, marketing services and support.
It is not illegal per se to have a monopoly. Once a monopoly position has been determined to exist, the corporation is restricted in its activities.
IBM was under intense scrutiny by the U.S. DOJ until 2001, when the 49-year-old consent decree was dissolved. "IBM has since aggressively sought to protect its hold over the mainframe [market] by buying or striking deals with small competitors who raise antitrust concerns."
"Sperry Rand... filed a patent infringement suit against Honeywell in 1967. Honeywell responded in the same year with an antitrust suit charging that the Sperry Rand-IBM cross-licensing agreement was a conspiracy to monopolize the computer industry, and also that the ENIAC patent was fraudulently procured and invalid."
Most households haven't done business with IBM's mainframe division, so don't expect your parents or their friends to remember much of this. Ask them instead about the soaring price of long-distance service before the break-up of AT&T.
Apple has not been determined to have a monopoly in any particular market. Apple does, however, hold several patents, which are a government sanctioned form of monopoly over the technology or designs at hand. As stated earlier, Apple is nowhere near where IBM, AT&T and Microsoft have been.
I don't know much about IBM, but I for one don't much like like to be a customer to a business that places profit above creating a valuable product or service. You could argue that's the nature of business, but I don't agree, and I think the difference is a focus on making a quick buck right now, versus building a great product for the future.
Jobs was famous for never giving dividends, and there's articles all the time about how "undervalued" apple is for investors. Tim's position remains to be seen, but I hope that sees valuable products as the primary focus at apple.
ER, sorry... i am confused. Are you talking about Apple or IBM?
Apple does not place profits above creating a valuable product/service?
are you telling me Mac Pro's are not valuable? MB(A/P)? Mac mini's?
there products all have very large profit margins.... they always have; granted they have a different OS and longer battery life, looks nice, etc, etc.
IBM has made/is making/is investing/did invest/researched/is reseaching in hundreds, if not thousands of things that help people.
As a note, i hope you don't buy only apple (and like/love Apple) because that is slightly hypocritical if your are talking about IBM.
I do not know about IBM of that time, but for 20+ years IBM has done things that help more people in many different ways that Apple.
ER, sorry... i am confused. Are you talking about Apple or IBM?
Apple does not place profits above creating a valuable product/service?
are you telling me Mac Pro's are not valuable? MB(A/P)? Mac mini's?
there products all have very large profit margins.... they always have; granted they have a different OS and longer battery life, looks nice, etc, etc.
IBM has made/is making/is investing/did invest/researched/is reseaching in hundreds, if not thousands of things that help people.
As a note, i hope you don't buy only apple (and like/love Apple) because that is slightly hypocritical if your are talking about IBM.
I do not know about IBM of that time, but for 20+ years IBM has done things that help more people in many different ways that Apple.
I am sorry but can you provide reliable proof of the profit margin claim of yours?
And do you seriously expect me to believe that a product which has superior design, high grade material, attention to details and cutting edge manufacturing techniques has a relatively much higher profit margin when compared to products that has photo-copier design, cheap slap-on plastics and attention to placement of advertising logo stickers, which costs the same if not more?
Your reality distortion field just made your later (otherwise sounding) points moot.
Steve Jobs is flipping off that IBM logo because, per Steven Levy in his book "Hackers", IBM was the archetypal anti-hacker corporation...you know, closed vs. open, suit-wearing vs. grungy, dogmatic vs. liberal, etc. Apple and its ethos, back in the Homebrew Computer Club days was intrinsically opposed to IBM and its ilk.
tl;dr - Jobs & Woz (and a few others) were handed the anti-IBM torch which was lit during the 50s at MIT. Hence, fuck IBM.
I went to work for IBM in the Riverside, CA Branch Office in November 1963. Immediately, I went to a 2-week class on the IBM 1410 at the IBM building on Wilshire Blvd. (next to the Ambassador Hotel) in LA.
Our class ended early that Friday so I drove the 60 miles back to the Riverside Branch. It was a real weird drive -- cars weaving all over the freeway or pulling off to the side (my car didn't have a radio)...
When I got to the Branch, there were no cars in the parking lot, the back door was ajar, but there was nobody in the building...
I walked around a while and eventually went into the copier/TeleType room...
On the TT was the message that JFK had been assassinated a hour earlier...
I remember thinking: "How can this happen in America?"
Less than 5 years later, RFK was assassinated at the Ambassador Hotel...
Not sure if you check your private messages here at AI, so I'll just motivate ya from here... but I was dead serious when I said I'd buy your book if ya wrote one.
What's it gonna take?
Think about it.... many folks here, and "out there" including myself... would eat it up, if not only for the nostalgia... but you do have a concise and humorous way with words.
Not sure if you check your private messages here at AI, so I'll just motivate ya from here... but I was dead serious when I said I'd buy your book if ya wrote one.
What's it gonna take?
Think about it.... many folks here, and "out there" including myself... would eat it up, if not only for the nostalgia... but you do have a concise and humorous way with words.
I am sorry but can you provide reliable proof of the profit margin claim of yours?
And do you seriously expect me to believe that a product which has superior design, high grade material, attention to details and cutting edge manufacturing techniques has a relatively much higher profit margin when compared to products that has photo-copier design, cheap slap-on plastics and attention to placement of advertising logo stickers, which costs the same if not more?
Your reality distortion field just made your later (otherwise sounding) points moot.
the parts that are in a MBP, for example, as it is there largest product in the MAC line, all parts are all attainable (with equivalent graphics or better) in computers that cost 100's of dollars less. Are you telling me that having an nice case, better screen and different OS is worth 400-500+ dollars?
the MBA has a high profit margin, but everyone making ultrabooks does.
now. toshiba $600 same specs as MBP 13' (cheapest) add in 9 cell battery and windows ultimate, 300-400 difference.
sony, matching more expensive model w/ windows ultimate; 140 dollars less (from high price windows manufacturer)
Lenovo, $1400 w/ windows ultimate/9cell battery. high end MBP=2100; 700 difference.
HP, 1420 (with 1080p display+ windows ultimate/9 cell battery) VS $1800 entry MBP. 380 dollar difference
MBP 17= 2500; (and the screen wins!!! ): besides HP's new envy 17' it was impossible to get something with same cpu/etc. The HP comes out to 1850. that 750 dollars.
Now, do i like Apple's line of PC's? Yes i do!
Do i think they are very pricy and have a very high profit margin? Yes i do!
Do i have an Apple PC? No i do not; they were/are to expensive =.=!
Are you telling me that having an nice case, better screen and different OS is worth 400-500+ dollars?
We're telling you that decades of studies have been done that show cost of ownership of Macs is much lower than PCs, so the up-front price has very little to do with anything.
Quote:
the MBA has a high profit margin, but everyone making ultrabooks does.
No, reports say that everyone but Apple struggles to make even a fraction of Apple's profit, and they all have much higher retail prices.
We're telling you that decades of studies have been done that show cost of ownership of Macs is much lower than PCs, so the up-front price has very little to do with anything.
No, reports say that everyone but Apple struggles to make even a fraction of Apple's profit, and they all have much higher retail prices.
Here is the quote i originally replied to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteRabbit
I don't know much about IBM, but I for one don't much like like to be a customer to a business that places profit above creating a valuable product or service. You could argue that's the nature of business, but I don't agree, and I think the difference is a focus on making a quick buck right now, versus building a great product for the future.
Jobs was famous for never giving dividends, and there's articles all the time about how "undervalued" apple is for investors. Tim's position remains to be seen, but I hope that sees valuable products as the primary focus at apple.
Apple does make great products for the future, sometimes.
However, what i am saying is that instead of giving more people the ability to buy their products, they have very high prices. Their products are good, but BECAUSE APPLE WANTS MORE MONEY they demand higher prices.
Window's computers may have a high cost of ownership over the long term, but who is getting that extra money? It is not the companies that manufactured the computers.
If apple really wanted their product to become very valuable for the future, and help people, they would sell them at lower profit margins, lets say they get half as much margin... that's still more than 90-95%+ of margins on computers other companies sell (directly to consumer.)
Apple could let many more people enjoy a computing experience, because it is easier to do things than a Mac than with windows if you haven't used one a lot.
However, what i am saying is that instead of giving more people the ability to buy their products?
Anyone has the ability to buy an Apple product. Ever heard of saving your money?
Quote:
Their products are good, but BECAUSE APPLE WANTS MORE MONEY they demand higher prices.
Yeah, and Microsoft and Dell just want to plant daisies.
Quote:
Window's computers may have a high cost of ownership over the long term, but who is getting that extra money? It is not the companies that manufactured the computers.
And that's their fault. Must be why their companies aren't worth as much as Apple.
Quote:
If apple really wanted their product to become very valuable for the future?
You're not going to find a computer, phone, or tablet with a greater resell value than a Mac.
Quote:
and help people,
? Um?
Quote:
Apple could let many more people enjoy a computing experience?
"Let". What are you implying? This?
Apple isn't "hoarding" Macs. Apple "doesn't let" people buy Macs to the same extent that grocery stores "don't let" people pay $5 for $100 worth of food.
However, what i am saying is that instead of giving more people the ability to buy their products, they have very high prices. Their products are good, but BECAUSE APPLE WANTS MORE MONEY they demand higher prices.
. . .
If apple really wanted their product to become very valuable for the future, and help people, they would sell them at lower profit margins, lets say they get half as much margin... that's still more than 90-95%+ of margins on computers other companies sell (directly to consumer.)
1) The first part is clearly not true since Apple is selling more computers than ever and beating sales trends compared to the entire market.
2) The second part is also false because R&D and procuring quality components in a large scale costs a lot of money so lowering profit margins would jeopardize future products not add value.
Comments
watched most of JFK's "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech there - powerful stuff from kinda long time ago.. before I was born at least..
it wasn't just black and white film, then, that made it seem so different I think
Sorry for the typo.
Actually, the story is a bit sadder than that...
I went to work for IBM in the Riverside, CA Branch Office in November 1963. Immediately, I went to a 2-week class on the IBM 1410 at the IBM building on Wilshire Blvd. (next to the Ambassador Hotel) in LA.
Our class ended early that Friday so I drove the 60 miles back to the Riverside Branch. It was a real weird drive -- cars weaving all over the freeway or pulling off to the side (my car didn't have a radio)...
When I got to the Branch, there were no cars in the parking lot, the back door was ajar, but there was nobody in the building...
I walked around a while and eventually went into the copier/TeleType room...
On the TT was the message that JFK had been assassinated a hour earlier...
I remember thinking: "How can this happen in America?"
Less than 5 years later, RFK was assassinated at the Ambassador Hotel...
Yes, you can. You just need to read about the IBM monopoly and anti-trust cases.
(What is it with the lack of mentality in so many people?)
Apple is nowhere near the place where IBM and Microsoft have been.
The two major monopoly/anti-trust suits against were:
1) tie-in -- requiring users of IBM Machines (they were leased to customers) to use only punched cards manufactured by IBM
2) monopoly for having 97% of the mainframe computer installed base.
The first was settled when Tom Watson, Jr. signed a "consent decree" conceding the issue while admitting no wrong.
The second was dismissed by the Judge finding that IBM had done nothing illegal, rather had attained its market position by providing the best products, marketing services and support.
AFAIK, IBM never lost a major suit.
The two major monopoly/anti-trust suits against were:
1) tie-in -- requiring users of IBM Machines (they were leased to customers) to use only punched cards manufactured by IBM
2) monopoly for having 97% of the mainframe computer installed base.
The first was settled when Tom Watson, Jr. signed a "consent decree" conceding the issue while admitting no wrong.
The second was dismissed by the Judge finding that IBM had done nothing illegal, rather had attained its market position by providing the best products, marketing services and support.
It is not illegal per se to have a monopoly. Once a monopoly position has been determined to exist, the corporation is restricted in its activities.
http://www.ccianet.org/CCIA/files/cc...erstandIBM.pdf
IBM was under intense scrutiny by the U.S. DOJ until 2001, when the 49-year-old consent decree was dissolved. "IBM has since aggressively sought to protect its hold over the mainframe [market] by buying or striking deals with small competitors who raise antitrust concerns."
http://www.cbi.umn.edu/collections/inv/cbi00001.html
"Sperry Rand... filed a patent infringement suit against Honeywell in 1967. Honeywell responded in the same year with an antitrust suit charging that the Sperry Rand-IBM cross-licensing agreement was a conspiracy to monopolize the computer industry, and also that the ENIAC patent was fraudulently procured and invalid."
Most households haven't done business with IBM's mainframe division, so don't expect your parents or their friends to remember much of this. Ask them instead about the soaring price of long-distance service before the break-up of AT&T.
Apple has not been determined to have a monopoly in any particular market. Apple does, however, hold several patents, which are a government sanctioned form of monopoly over the technology or designs at hand. As stated earlier, Apple is nowhere near where IBM, AT&T and Microsoft have been.
I don't know much about IBM, but I for one don't much like like to be a customer to a business that places profit above creating a valuable product or service. You could argue that's the nature of business, but I don't agree, and I think the difference is a focus on making a quick buck right now, versus building a great product for the future.
Jobs was famous for never giving dividends, and there's articles all the time about how "undervalued" apple is for investors. Tim's position remains to be seen, but I hope that sees valuable products as the primary focus at apple.
ER, sorry... i am confused. Are you talking about Apple or IBM?
Apple does not place profits above creating a valuable product/service?
are you telling me Mac Pro's are not valuable? MB(A/P)? Mac mini's?
there products all have very large profit margins.... they always have; granted they have a different OS and longer battery life, looks nice, etc, etc.
IBM has made/is making/is investing/did invest/researched/is reseaching in hundreds, if not thousands of things that help people.
As a note, i hope you don't buy only apple (and like/love Apple) because that is slightly hypocritical if your are talking about IBM.
I do not know about IBM of that time, but for 20+ years IBM has done things that help more people in many different ways that Apple.
ER, sorry... i am confused. Are you talking about Apple or IBM?
Apple does not place profits above creating a valuable product/service?
are you telling me Mac Pro's are not valuable? MB(A/P)? Mac mini's?
there products all have very large profit margins.... they always have; granted they have a different OS and longer battery life, looks nice, etc, etc.
IBM has made/is making/is investing/did invest/researched/is reseaching in hundreds, if not thousands of things that help people.
As a note, i hope you don't buy only apple (and like/love Apple) because that is slightly hypocritical if your are talking about IBM.
I do not know about IBM of that time, but for 20+ years IBM has done things that help more people in many different ways that Apple.
I am sorry but can you provide reliable proof of the profit margin claim of yours?
And do you seriously expect me to believe that a product which has superior design, high grade material, attention to details and cutting edge manufacturing techniques has a relatively much higher profit margin when compared to products that has photo-copier design, cheap slap-on plastics and attention to placement of advertising logo stickers, which costs the same if not more?
Your reality distortion field just made your later (otherwise sounding) points moot.
tl;dr - Jobs & Woz (and a few others) were handed the anti-IBM torch which was lit during the 50s at MIT. Hence, fuck IBM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_Computer_Club
that and something along the lines of this:
http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/
&c, etc.
Steve was just pointing at the I Buy Mac's sign.
His index finger was hurt from typing on an Apple II keyboard.
I had the same finger problem later pointing at the More Sh*t sign in
C-at-tell.
And here I was thinking it stood for:
It
Built
Microsoft
And here I was thinking it stood for:
It
Built
Microsoft
IBM's OS2 project got MS going but Excel for Mac released in September of 1985 really "built" MS to what it became in 1991.
Footnote- BTW MS bought the Excel program from independent programers, it wasn't done in-house.
Don't think Steve was pointing out that in 2011 IBM means "I Beat Micro$oft"
IBM's OS2 project got MS going but Excel for Mac released in September of 1985 really "built" MS to what it became in 1991.
Footnote- BTW MS bought the Excel program from independent programers, it wasn't done in-house.
Don't think Steve was pointing out that in 2011 IBM means "I Beat Micro$oft"
I realize that.
Just having a little joke.
Sorry for the typo.
Actually, the story is a bit sadder than that...
I went to work for IBM in the Riverside, CA Branch Office in November 1963. Immediately, I went to a 2-week class on the IBM 1410 at the IBM building on Wilshire Blvd. (next to the Ambassador Hotel) in LA.
Our class ended early that Friday so I drove the 60 miles back to the Riverside Branch. It was a real weird drive -- cars weaving all over the freeway or pulling off to the side (my car didn't have a radio)...
When I got to the Branch, there were no cars in the parking lot, the back door was ajar, but there was nobody in the building...
I walked around a while and eventually went into the copier/TeleType room...
On the TT was the message that JFK had been assassinated a hour earlier...
I remember thinking: "How can this happen in America?"
Less than 5 years later, RFK was assassinated at the Ambassador Hotel...
Not sure if you check your private messages here at AI, so I'll just motivate ya from here... but I was dead serious when I said I'd buy your book if ya wrote one.
What's it gonna take?
Think about it.... many folks here, and "out there" including myself... would eat it up, if not only for the nostalgia... but you do have a concise and humorous way with words.
Just sayin'...
Not sure if you check your private messages here at AI, so I'll just motivate ya from here... but I was dead serious when I said I'd buy your book if ya wrote one.
What's it gonna take?
Think about it.... many folks here, and "out there" including myself... would eat it up, if not only for the nostalgia... but you do have a concise and humorous way with words.
Just sayin'...
I also would pay to read this book.
Do we have a publication date?
I am sorry but can you provide reliable proof of the profit margin claim of yours?
And do you seriously expect me to believe that a product which has superior design, high grade material, attention to details and cutting edge manufacturing techniques has a relatively much higher profit margin when compared to products that has photo-copier design, cheap slap-on plastics and attention to placement of advertising logo stickers, which costs the same if not more?
Your reality distortion field just made your later (otherwise sounding) points moot.
the parts that are in a MBP, for example, as it is there largest product in the MAC line, all parts are all attainable (with equivalent graphics or better) in computers that cost 100's of dollars less. Are you telling me that having an nice case, better screen and different OS is worth 400-500+ dollars?
the MBA has a high profit margin, but everyone making ultrabooks does.
now. toshiba $600 same specs as MBP 13' (cheapest) add in 9 cell battery and windows ultimate, 300-400 difference.
sony, matching more expensive model w/ windows ultimate; 140 dollars less (from high price windows manufacturer)
Lenovo, $1400 w/ windows ultimate/9cell battery. high end MBP=2100; 700 difference.
HP, 1420 (with 1080p display+ windows ultimate/9 cell battery) VS $1800 entry MBP. 380 dollar difference
MBP 17= 2500; (and the screen wins!!!
Now, do i like Apple's line of PC's? Yes i do!
Do i think they are very pricy and have a very high profit margin? Yes i do!
Do i have an Apple PC? No i do not; they were/are to expensive =.=!
Have always been intrigued by this bit of history.
Are you telling me that having an nice case, better screen and different OS is worth 400-500+ dollars?
We're telling you that decades of studies have been done that show cost of ownership of Macs is much lower than PCs, so the up-front price has very little to do with anything.
the MBA has a high profit margin, but everyone making ultrabooks does.
No, reports say that everyone but Apple struggles to make even a fraction of Apple's profit, and they all have much higher retail prices.
We're telling you that decades of studies have been done that show cost of ownership of Macs is much lower than PCs, so the up-front price has very little to do with anything.
No, reports say that everyone but Apple struggles to make even a fraction of Apple's profit, and they all have much higher retail prices.
Here is the quote i originally replied to:
I don't know much about IBM, but I for one don't much like like to be a customer to a business that places profit above creating a valuable product or service. You could argue that's the nature of business, but I don't agree, and I think the difference is a focus on making a quick buck right now, versus building a great product for the future.
Jobs was famous for never giving dividends, and there's articles all the time about how "undervalued" apple is for investors. Tim's position remains to be seen, but I hope that sees valuable products as the primary focus at apple.
Apple does make great products for the future, sometimes.
However, what i am saying is that instead of giving more people the ability to buy their products, they have very high prices. Their products are good, but BECAUSE APPLE WANTS MORE MONEY they demand higher prices.
Window's computers may have a high cost of ownership over the long term, but who is getting that extra money? It is not the companies that manufactured the computers.
If apple really wanted their product to become very valuable for the future, and help people, they would sell them at lower profit margins, lets say they get half as much margin... that's still more than 90-95%+ of margins on computers other companies sell (directly to consumer.)
Apple could let many more people enjoy a computing experience, because it is easier to do things than a Mac than with windows if you haven't used one a lot.
However, what i am saying is that instead of giving more people the ability to buy their products?
Anyone has the ability to buy an Apple product. Ever heard of saving your money?
Their products are good, but BECAUSE APPLE WANTS MORE MONEY they demand higher prices.
Yeah, and Microsoft and Dell just want to plant daisies.
Window's computers may have a high cost of ownership over the long term, but who is getting that extra money? It is not the companies that manufactured the computers.
And that's their fault. Must be why their companies aren't worth as much as Apple.
If apple really wanted their product to become very valuable for the future?
You're not going to find a computer, phone, or tablet with a greater resell value than a Mac.
and help people,
? Um?
Apple could let many more people enjoy a computing experience?
"Let". What are you implying? This?
Apple isn't "hoarding" Macs. Apple "doesn't let" people buy Macs to the same extent that grocery stores "don't let" people pay $5 for $100 worth of food.
However, what i am saying is that instead of giving more people the ability to buy their products, they have very high prices. Their products are good, but BECAUSE APPLE WANTS MORE MONEY they demand higher prices.
. . .
If apple really wanted their product to become very valuable for the future, and help people, they would sell them at lower profit margins, lets say they get half as much margin... that's still more than 90-95%+ of margins on computers other companies sell (directly to consumer.)
1) The first part is clearly not true since Apple is selling more computers than ever and beating sales trends compared to the entire market.
2) The second part is also false because R&D and procuring quality components in a large scale costs a lot of money so lowering profit margins would jeopardize future products not add value.