skingers

danox said:

9secondkox2 said:

Great news. Bungie benefits and gamers benefit.

Bungie is an insanely great developer these days. Perhaps the single best house on the market.

Great buy. 

Hardly, nothing but crap will come out of it….The state of gaming is the same as Music, Movies, and TV most of it bad……game play has died, picking your kids allowance ie…the parents credit card is the only thing happening these days…..

Really cannot agree with this.  Sony first party games like The Last of Us, Horizon Zero Dawn, and God of War have been some of the best games and story telling within games ever.  Bungie as part of the Sony stable is great news for them and gaming in general. 

crowley said:

skingers said:

I don't believe this story.  Jobs was the guy that Killed Mac clones and made OSX upgrades free.  Money grubbing by putting his baby on the beigest of beige boxes just does not seem consistent with his demonstrated record.

Vertical integration had burned Steve badly at Next, and the Mac was not in a healthy place; I'm not at all surprised that he was considering licensing options.  The clones didn't work, but a partnership with a major player like Dell would have been a very different proposition.

And don't forget Steve's own words:

If I were running Apple, I would milk the Macintosh for all it's worth – and get busy on the next great thing.

The man changed his mind.

And he did milk the Mac for all it was worth but it did not include licensing it to Dell or anyone else.  The Mac was not in a healthy place because Apple was not in a healthy place but it was the four quadrant Mac based strategy that got it back to healthy and part of that was killing off the clones. So, no, I still don't believe this account, Steve was all about owning the whole widget, a philosophy you can trace all the way to M1 based Macs today.  

thedba said:

skingers said:

I don't believe this story.  Jobs was the guy that Killed Mac clones and made OSX upgrades free.  Money grubbing by putting his baby on the beigest of beige boxes just does not seem consistent with his demonstrated record.

Let me introduce to you the Motorola Rokr E1.



Also known as the "iTunes phone". 
From Wikipedia:  Launched on September 7, 2005, in San Francisco, California, the E1 is the first phone to be integrated with Apple's iTunes music player. 

This phone was released and failed obviously, years after the proposal to Michael Dell. 

Also let's not forget this.  

Steve Jobs wanted Sony's Vaio computers to run Mac OS X

Conclusion: Michael Dell's account is pretty consistent with other deals SJ made or tried to make back then. 

Sorry Vaio was not the equivalent of Dell.  It was the closest to the Mac design philosophy you could get on Windows.  This one I can believe.

I don't believe this story.  Jobs was the guy that Killed Mac clones and made OSX upgrades free.  Money grubbing by putting his baby on the beigest of beige boxes just does not seem consistent with his demonstrated record.

tylersdad said:

mark fearing said:

I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...

I don't see how claims of the App Store being a monopoly are ridiculous. If I own an iPhone, I have one place and one place only to buy the apps for my phone: the App Store. Can I buy a phone from a different manufacturer? Sure. But that was the case years ago as well when Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows because their position in the market essentially gave them an unfair advantage in the browser wars. People had the opportunity to buy Linux and Apple machines. There were alternative operating systems for those who didn't want Internet Explorer, but EU regulators still made MS remove IE from Windows. 

The argument against Internet explorer was that Microsoft was using its near complete domination of PC market share (it was well over 95% back then) to gain an unfair advantage in the burgeoning browser wars.  Yes you "could" buy a Mac as pretty much the only other realistic choice but almost no one did in practice, statistically speaking.  This is not the case with the smartphone market where Apple doesn't even have 50% market share.  Not only are Apple not a market share monopoly, they aren't even half of the market, in fact they are behind Samsung as we speak at about 26% to Samsung's 27.  The only way you can call Apple a "monopoly" is if you actually declare the iPhone itself a "market" which of course is nuts. Toyota is a monopoly in the "Toyota Camry Market" for example.  So yes, calling Apple a monopoly is just bonkers.