NeXT failed [though we were about to go IPO in '96 when merger talks started] not because of it's BSD Unix underpinnings but because the market in 1996 was OEM strangleheld by Microsoft.
No vendor in their right mind [business wise] would bet their application futures by porting Windows based apps or Mac OS apps and invest in OPENSTEP, no matter how the cost was minimal.
Bill Gates strategically refused to port any app to NeXTSTEP, though we were in negotiations with them.
IBM was ready to dump OS/2 for NeXTSTEP when a top level OS/2 engineer rigged the demo with IBM Executives by putting NeXTSTEP in a virtual machine on top of the IBM Big Iron. We demoed it earlier running circles around OS/2 and any other UNIX System V based OS IBM had but one prick effed it all up.
Adobe pulled the plug on porting their suite to NeXTSTEP even though the benefits were proven.
In short, the dominant players were all in bed with each other and it wasn't until the Internet did the notion of alternative Operating Systems could become dominant leaders.
These same ass hats were blind-sided by the iPod/iTunes juggernaut and the return of Steve Jobs with all that NeXT IP.
They laughed it off as a one-off and mocked the idea of an iPhone. The rest is history.
Execution and keeping your cards close to your chest is the only way to make it in the industry. People will eff you left and right if they can. Bill Gates is the king of it.
Part of the problem with open source efforts such as Linux and Office clones is the shitty, nerdy interface. Great ideas, a lot of effort and hard to understand, complex interfaces. Check out Gimp, the open source alternative to Photoshop. It's very name means hobbled or a limp. Windows and panels galore...ugly, underlined menu names.
Apple made cool looking products that were easy to use. I'm not sure it would have mattered where the source of their inspiration came from. NeXT failed because their computers were too expensive. Even being incredibly ahead of their time and super easy to use, price killed their magic.
The resurgence of Apple was in being easy to use, cool, and prices that came down to earth to eventually match competitors.
Apple's challenge is to stay ahead of Android in terms of ease of use and coolness. Many people can recognize and will pay for nicely designed stuff.
For those of you who live on Mars, the way things work on planet Earth are as follows: he who makes the most money wins!
I don't like the notion of 'winning' because there isn't a end game. Whoever is making the most money now could be in second or third place 5-10 years from now. So what exactly was won?
Well they've forked it right? Which is practically the definition of co-opting something, which itself is as close to "stealing" as makes no difference. If the fork works, they could be considered to have taken something, bent it to their own uses and simultaneously (at least attempted) to torpedo the original.
Open has been successful though. Android took the feature phone and buried it. Everyone has been better off with Android on the cheaper phones …
I don't think this is true at all.
Android didn't "bury the feature phone." In fact, the rise of the smartphone "buried the feature phone," and the rise of the smartphone was pretty much completely led by iOS and Apple.
Android may have ended up replacing a lot of those feature phones but that isn't the same thing.
I'll start with the easy one. Where would those products be without the Internet? You do realize a humungous portion of the Internet runs on open source software, right? ...
Actually you have a very short memory here and are (mostly) incorrect. The iPod and iTunes were wildly successful without the Internet for a very long time. Up until very recently all of the devices mentioned were intended to be, and could be (mostly) run without using the Internet at all.
The original concepts behind them certainly had nothing to do with the Internet. iTunes was originally for ripping CD's and organising them onto your iPod which was attached with a cable.
You can't ascribe a $ value to something that doesn't have a price, then wrap it up nice and neatly and call it social surplus.
The fact that a dev turns around and sells it for $5 means its value is FIVE dollars not whatever number you pull out of your hat. If the dev could charge $10 do you think he/she would ? Of course they would. Then your social surplus would be what, 0 or would you try and up it because of lost Opportunity Cost just so that you can have a social surplus ?
What about if the dev sold it for $20 - does that mean that your social surplus is a negative number ? Is it now costing an economy to have something sell for what people are willing to pay for ?
My point being that it has to be able to be measured accurately - otherwise it's meaningless.
Value's relative in economics. If I would pay $10 for that $5 item, the value to me is $10, not the $5 the producer demands. There'd be no such thing as consumer surplus, otherwise.
There are almost as many hits in JSTOR for "social surplus" as "producer surplus." You may be right that the post to which you're responding defines the phrase simplistically, but the phrase is out there, and you've done the same thing for "value."
One day this smartphone holy war will be over.. I hope it is soon. I want to continue enjoying my iDevice without some oversized plastic clone-phone carrying individual telling me how much Apple sucks. I think they just like to complain about what someone else has since they are obviously not enjoying what they own.
The length (to date) of the Mac vs. PC holy war suggests you're being optimistic. And the fact that this very site routinely reports on bad news for Samsung and Google suggests that the war is two-sided.
One day this smartphone holy war will be over.. I hope it is soon. I want to continue enjoying my iDevice without some oversized plastic clone-phone carrying individual telling me how much Apple sucks. I think they just like to complain about what someone else has since they are obviously not enjoying what they own.
Of course, iPhone owners just go about enjoying their devices without ever mocking Android.
Actually you have a very short memory here and are (mostly) incorrect. The iPod and iTunes were wildly successful without the Internet for a very long time. Up until very recently all of the devices mentioned were intended to be, and could be (mostly) run without using the Internet at all.
The original concepts behind them certainly had nothing to do with the Internet. iTunes was originally for ripping CD's and organising them onto your iPod which was attached with a cable.
How soon they forget!
ITunes was NOT originally for organising ripped music onto iPods.
ITunes was NOT originally for organising ripped music onto iPods.
How soon YOU forget!
Even if they were it wouldn't change the fact that they've benefited from the Internet. The Internet is a huge addition to what they are today and what they have been for a long time.
Even if they were it wouldn't change the fact that they've benefited from the Internet. The Internet is a huge addition to what they are today and what they have been for a long time.
I don't disagree with that at all.
If nothing, the internet was instrumental in the distribution of iTunes from the beginning.
I'll start with the easy one. Where would those products be without the Internet? You do realize a humungous portion of the Internet runs on open source software, right?
I'm not sure I see where the disagreement is coming from. Are you suggesting that open source projects haven't helped to move the world forward?
Well, look at the history of the Tim Berners-Lee adnd what did he use? A NeXT Cube to build the first web server. Does that mean that everyone has to have a NeXT Cube to be on the internet? NO. Open Source kernel can be closed to become more focused on the direction for the OS.
Heck, Apple Developed Open CL so Apple participates in Open Source community for certain projects.. They are into Open Standards for things that makes sense, things like HTML 5 instead of something like Flash. For someone that likes Open Source, Flash was a major security problem and other problems for running on mobile devices which is why Apple and Microsoft pushed Adobe for using Open Standards like HTML 5.. Google dragged their feet since they wanted mobile devices to get access to the ad infested Flash videos on YouTube, so they could make some money. So they would let their users be at risk with a problematic Flash plug-in so their Android users could help them make money from YouTube.
Whatever the technology is, there are ways to paint the picture to look however you want. It just depends on who's painting the picture and if someone wants to have several different people painting a different picture to decide which one is a better and more realistic painting.
I've sat through so many vendor presentations through out my life and it's always interesting to hear different perspectives and some were more full of crap than others. I saw Novell give presentations on their Networking software and then Microsoft and it's just funny to see the differences in how they were pitching them when they were in heavy competition. I refused to bring the Microsoft rep out to my customer because they were saying things about NT that was just flat out BS. Microsoft had this whole security diatribe that was so pathetic like they just invented the perfect OS. A day later, I had a MCSE/CCIE/CNE sit with a Mac expert that also had a MCSE and the Mac guy told the other person that NT is NOT secure and that he made him a bet that he could compromise NT within 5 minutes from a Mac (Mac OS as this was before OS X came out). The guy took the bet. The Mac guy leaves and comes back 4 minutes later and asks the other to log into an NT workstation. Well, that login password was compromised and it's funny to see someone that has more certifications from Microsoft, Novell, CIsco, yada, yada than anyone in the geographic region. This guy would get billed out at $400 a hour to perform Cisco CCIE work and people would be happy to pay it. And he lost the bet to a Mac guy over NT Security. It was funny. Paint the picture that makes you happy and you'll find out someone may come around the corner painting a different picture that is better or at least closer to REALITY.
You know why Android is an exception? You know why it'll be successful? Because it is run by Google! A company that does not simply stack up cash but uses it to make the world a better place! It is a company that strives for innovation unlike Apple. I don't hate Apple because it is closed but because there are lower strides of innovation in the company. It looks only for profitability not a better world! Hardware fragmentation naturally occurs as the platform grows. Simply, look at Apple. How many idevices of different sizes and different hardware capacities does it have? If keeping closed is the only way to solve fragmentation of software. Then think again! Google will show you how to with rolling updates shortly!
I'm old enough to remember CP/M: it wasn't open, it was the product of Digital Research and MS-DOS was a fairly shameless clone of it, sort of like Linux is a Unix clone.
Second: NeXT was as "open" as Apple, the reason for NeXT's failure is the same as the reason for OS X' success: lack/existence of an installed base; the reason why OSX is not called NeXTstep is simply that Jobs needed to fool enough Apple fan boys into believing that it's a new version of Mac OS rather than the introduction of a new OS called NeXTstep. If you really want to know what OS you're running look at the Darwin version numbers which correspond to the equivalent NeXTstep release. NeXTstep was chock-full of proprietary technology, e.g. DPS, RenderMan, etc. Pretty much the opposite of open except at the lowest levels at which OSX is open, too.
I could go on, but I rather have a beer on a Saturday night than waste me time educating the clueless...
Because it is run by Google!
A company that does not simply stack up cash but uses it to make the world a better place!
It is a company that strives for innovation unlike Apple.
What are you on? I want some of it since it obviously transports you into an alternate universe...
Comments
No vendor in their right mind [business wise] would bet their application futures by porting Windows based apps or Mac OS apps and invest in OPENSTEP, no matter how the cost was minimal.
Bill Gates strategically refused to port any app to NeXTSTEP, though we were in negotiations with them.
IBM was ready to dump OS/2 for NeXTSTEP when a top level OS/2 engineer rigged the demo with IBM Executives by putting NeXTSTEP in a virtual machine on top of the IBM Big Iron. We demoed it earlier running circles around OS/2 and any other UNIX System V based OS IBM had but one prick effed it all up.
Adobe pulled the plug on porting their suite to NeXTSTEP even though the benefits were proven.
In short, the dominant players were all in bed with each other and it wasn't until the Internet did the notion of alternative Operating Systems could become dominant leaders.
These same ass hats were blind-sided by the iPod/iTunes juggernaut and the return of Steve Jobs with all that NeXT IP.
They laughed it off as a one-off and mocked the idea of an iPhone. The rest is history.
Execution and keeping your cards close to your chest is the only way to make it in the industry. People will eff you left and right if they can. Bill Gates is the king of it.
Part of the problem with open source efforts such as Linux and Office clones is the shitty, nerdy interface. Great ideas, a lot of effort and hard to understand, complex interfaces. Check out Gimp, the open source alternative to Photoshop. It's very name means hobbled or a limp. Windows and panels galore...ugly, underlined menu names.
Apple made cool looking products that were easy to use. I'm not sure it would have mattered where the source of their inspiration came from. NeXT failed because their computers were too expensive. Even being incredibly ahead of their time and super easy to use, price killed their magic.
The resurgence of Apple was in being easy to use, cool, and prices that came down to earth to eventually match competitors.
Apple's challenge is to stay ahead of Android in terms of ease of use and coolness. Many people can recognize and will pay for nicely designed stuff.
If that happens the true losers would be us the consumers.
I don't like the notion of 'winning' because there isn't a end game. Whoever is making the most money now could be in second or third place 5-10 years from now. So what exactly was won?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
How can you steal something that's open?
Well they've forked it right? Which is practically the definition of co-opting something, which itself is as close to "stealing" as makes no difference. If the fork works, they could be considered to have taken something, bent it to their own uses and simultaneously (at least attempted) to torpedo the original.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel
Open has been successful though. Android took the feature phone and buried it. Everyone has been better off with Android on the cheaper phones …
I don't think this is true at all.
Android didn't "bury the feature phone." In fact, the rise of the smartphone "buried the feature phone," and the rise of the smartphone was pretty much completely led by iOS and Apple.
Android may have ended up replacing a lot of those feature phones but that isn't the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW
I'll start with the easy one. Where would those products be without the Internet? You do realize a humungous portion of the Internet runs on open source software, right? ...
Actually you have a very short memory here and are (mostly) incorrect. The iPod and iTunes were wildly successful without the Internet for a very long time. Up until very recently all of the devices mentioned were intended to be, and could be (mostly) run without using the Internet at all.
The original concepts behind them certainly had nothing to do with the Internet. iTunes was originally for ripping CD's and organising them onto your iPod which was attached with a cable.
How soon they forget!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM
Pure economic Gobbeldy gook !
You can't ascribe a $ value to something that doesn't have a price, then wrap it up nice and neatly and call it social surplus.
The fact that a dev turns around and sells it for $5 means its value is FIVE dollars not whatever number you pull out of your hat. If the dev could charge $10 do you think he/she would ? Of course they would. Then your social surplus would be what, 0 or would you try and up it because of lost Opportunity Cost just so that you can have a social surplus ?
What about if the dev sold it for $20 - does that mean that your social surplus is a negative number ? Is it now costing an economy to have something sell for what people are willing to pay for ?
My point being that it has to be able to be measured accurately - otherwise it's meaningless.
Value's relative in economics. If I would pay $10 for that $5 item, the value to me is $10, not the $5 the producer demands. There'd be no such thing as consumer surplus, otherwise.
There are almost as many hits in JSTOR for "social surplus" as "producer surplus." You may be right that the post to which you're responding defines the phrase simplistically, but the phrase is out there, and you've done the same thing for "value."
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnL
One day this smartphone holy war will be over.. I hope it is soon. I want to continue enjoying my iDevice without some oversized plastic clone-phone carrying individual telling me how much Apple sucks. I think they just like to complain about what someone else has since they are obviously not enjoying what they own.
The length (to date) of the Mac vs. PC holy war suggests you're being optimistic. And the fact that this very site routinely reports on bad news for Samsung and Google suggests that the war is two-sided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnL
One day this smartphone holy war will be over.. I hope it is soon. I want to continue enjoying my iDevice without some oversized plastic clone-phone carrying individual telling me how much Apple sucks. I think they just like to complain about what someone else has since they are obviously not enjoying what they own.
Of course, iPhone owners just go about enjoying their devices without ever mocking Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Actually you have a very short memory here and are (mostly) incorrect. The iPod and iTunes were wildly successful without the Internet for a very long time. Up until very recently all of the devices mentioned were intended to be, and could be (mostly) run without using the Internet at all.
The original concepts behind them certainly had nothing to do with the Internet. iTunes was originally for ripping CD's and organising them onto your iPod which was attached with a cable.
How soon they forget!
ITunes was NOT originally for organising ripped music onto iPods.
How soon YOU forget!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53
For those of you who live on Mars, the way things work on planet Earth are as follows: he who makes the most money wins!
Untrue, on Mars or Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
ITunes was NOT originally for organising ripped music onto iPods.
How soon YOU forget!
Even if they were it wouldn't change the fact that they've benefited from the Internet. The Internet is a huge addition to what they are today and what they have been for a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW
Even if they were it wouldn't change the fact that they've benefited from the Internet. The Internet is a huge addition to what they are today and what they have been for a long time.
I don't disagree with that at all.
If nothing, the internet was instrumental in the distribution of iTunes from the beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW
I'll start with the easy one. Where would those products be without the Internet? You do realize a humungous portion of the Internet runs on open source software, right?
I'm not sure I see where the disagreement is coming from. Are you suggesting that open source projects haven't helped to move the world forward?
Well, look at the history of the Tim Berners-Lee adnd what did he use? A NeXT Cube to build the first web server. Does that mean that everyone has to have a NeXT Cube to be on the internet? NO. Open Source kernel can be closed to become more focused on the direction for the OS.
Heck, Apple Developed Open CL so Apple participates in Open Source community for certain projects.. They are into Open Standards for things that makes sense, things like HTML 5 instead of something like Flash. For someone that likes Open Source, Flash was a major security problem and other problems for running on mobile devices which is why Apple and Microsoft pushed Adobe for using Open Standards like HTML 5.. Google dragged their feet since they wanted mobile devices to get access to the ad infested Flash videos on YouTube, so they could make some money. So they would let their users be at risk with a problematic Flash plug-in so their Android users could help them make money from YouTube.
Whatever the technology is, there are ways to paint the picture to look however you want. It just depends on who's painting the picture and if someone wants to have several different people painting a different picture to decide which one is a better and more realistic painting.
I've sat through so many vendor presentations through out my life and it's always interesting to hear different perspectives and some were more full of crap than others. I saw Novell give presentations on their Networking software and then Microsoft and it's just funny to see the differences in how they were pitching them when they were in heavy competition. I refused to bring the Microsoft rep out to my customer because they were saying things about NT that was just flat out BS. Microsoft had this whole security diatribe that was so pathetic like they just invented the perfect OS. A day later, I had a MCSE/CCIE/CNE sit with a Mac expert that also had a MCSE and the Mac guy told the other person that NT is NOT secure and that he made him a bet that he could compromise NT within 5 minutes from a Mac (Mac OS as this was before OS X came out). The guy took the bet. The Mac guy leaves and comes back 4 minutes later and asks the other to log into an NT workstation. Well, that login password was compromised and it's funny to see someone that has more certifications from Microsoft, Novell, CIsco, yada, yada than anyone in the geographic region. This guy would get billed out at $400 a hour to perform Cisco CCIE work and people would be happy to pay it. And he lost the bet to a Mac guy over NT Security. It was funny. Paint the picture that makes you happy and you'll find out someone may come around the corner painting a different picture that is better or at least closer to REALITY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
ITunes was NOT originally for organising ripped music onto iPods.
How soon YOU forget!
was too!
You know why it'll be successful?
Because it is run by Google!
A company that does not simply stack up cash but uses it to make the world a better place!
It is a company that strives for innovation unlike Apple.
I don't hate Apple because it is closed but because there are lower strides of innovation in the company. It looks only for profitability not a better world!
Hardware fragmentation naturally occurs as the platform grows. Simply, look at Apple. How many idevices of different sizes and different hardware capacities does it have?
If keeping closed is the only way to solve fragmentation of software. Then think again!
Google will show you how to with rolling updates shortly!
I'm old enough to remember CP/M: it wasn't open, it was the product of Digital Research and MS-DOS was a fairly shameless clone of it, sort of like Linux is a Unix clone.
Second: NeXT was as "open" as Apple, the reason for NeXT's failure is the same as the reason for OS X' success: lack/existence of an installed base; the reason why OSX is not called NeXTstep is simply that Jobs needed to fool enough Apple fan boys into believing that it's a new version of Mac OS rather than the introduction of a new OS called NeXTstep.
If you really want to know what OS you're running look at the Darwin version numbers which correspond to the equivalent NeXTstep release.
NeXTstep was chock-full of proprietary technology, e.g. DPS, RenderMan, etc.
Pretty much the opposite of open except at the lowest levels at which OSX is open, too.
I could go on, but I rather have a beer on a Saturday night than waste me time educating the clueless...
What are you on? I want some of it since it obviously transports you into an alternate universe...