Discussion:
Off the air for now
(too old to reply)
Garance A Drosehn
1997-09-03 17:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Well, given Apple's belief that it can not compete when making
hardware, my enthusiasm for this whole adventure has diminished
dramatically. As much as I like NeXTSTEP and the MacOS, I'm just
not interested in hearing Jobs whine about how Apple needs to screw
it's customers. I can't help but think that if Apple is willing
to turn it's back on the idea of clones, that it will also be quite
willing (when the time comes) to back out of it's promise about
free YellowBox runtimes for WindowsNT. At that point we will also
hear how Apple can't compete, and how *we* are all leeches unless
we fork over a few hundred dollars per machine for the honor of
running whatever it is that Apple is selling.

Based on that, I think I'll just unsubscribe from the rhapsody
lists for now. Maybe it will be great when Rhapsody is released,
and I'll probably get a copy for myself in January, but I see no
reason to waste my time trying to promote any Apple products on
this campus. Based on that, I don't need any advance info on what's
going to happen, because I'm not going to sell it to anyone anyway.
It appears that all Apple intends to do is milk it's current
customers for all the money it can, and that doesn't sound
exciting to me.

Pity that such excellent technology is in a company which *itself*
believes it can not compete. It has all kinds of brains when it
comes to programming, and zero imagination when it comes to business.
Even the buy-out of Power Computing could have been a good thing,
if Apple had some intelligent plans based on it. However, the
actions Apple has chosen make it clear that it's only "idea" is
that "lack of competition is good".

Steve needs to check his reality-distortion field. It ain't working
any more. I've read all his excuses for this move. I don't believe
them (or maybe, more accurately, "I just don't care"). Yes, Apple
is a business. RPI is a business too. If Apple as a company is
unable to compete, then why should RPI buy into it?

Well, anyway, I'm just not interested in Rhapsody at the moment,
and I have other work to do. See ya.

---
Garance Alistair Drosehn = ***@eclipse.its.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer (MIME & NeXTmail capable)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy NY USA
Allen L. Mann
1997-09-03 18:45:06 UTC
Permalink
>I'm just
>not interested in hearing Jobs whine about how Apple needs to screw
>it's customers.

Well, this is the first time I've disagreed with Garance on this list.

Just which of Apple's customers are they screwing. Apple does not view
people who buy clones as _its_ customers, just as IBM does not
consider Compaq owners _its_ customers. (Correct me if this is a bad
analogy.) People seem to think that by buying a clone they are helping
Apple.

As for Garance's apparent fear that Apple bought Power just to keep it
off the market, I too share that fear. I certainly hope that is not
the case. Perhaps I have more faith that Power¹s G3s (or something
equally as cool) will make it into Apple¹s product line. I also hope
that by selling direct, Apple will be able to improve its
price/performance ratio. Some have remarked that NeXT was paid $400
million to take over Apple. I hope similar things will be said about
Apple's purchase of Power Computing. Perhaps I am being naïve.

In hindsight, I am glad that I decided to buy a Mac instead of a
clone. And I would like Apple to preserve my investment. No one else
can. I hope the new Board can pull it off. I don't want Apple to
become another IBM.

Allen

Buy Mac OS 8 Now!
http//:www.macos.apple.com/macos8/
Garance A Drosehn
1997-09-03 20:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Allen L. Mann <***@acofi.edu> writes:
> Garance writes:
> > I'm just not interested in hearing Jobs whine about how Apple
> > needs to screw it's customers.
>
> Well, this is the first time I've disagreed with Garance on this
> list.

Well, there's always a first time... :-)

> Just which of Apple's customers are they screwing.

Their MacOS customers. The people buying the operating system.
The same way Microsoft has Windows95 customers for every Wintel
PC which is sold.

Now, a buyout of PowerComputing did not *have* to mean that any
Apple customers would be screwed, but if you combine that event
with Apple's other announcements then it seems pretty discouraging
to me. Not only did they neuter PowerComputing, but they have now
explicitly said
1) they have no plans to ever do CHRP
2) they have no plans to ever license anyone to do
MacOS-compatable laptops.

Now, who else are they screwing? I'd also include some subset of
the Apple-hardware customers. Those customers who are pushed to
buy hardware which has multiple sources are now left in an unpleasent
situation. If Apple is going to shut down any company who actually
competes with them, then they really are a single source (even if
there is some nominal claim to multiple sources).

> Apple does not view people who buy clones as _its_ customers,
> just as IBM does not consider Compaq owners _its_ customers.
> (Correct me if this is a bad analogy.) People seem to think
> that by buying a clone they are helping Apple.

It is a bad analogy. IBM makes zero dollars off an IBM-compatable
machine. Apple makes $50, plus whatever it makes when those
customers upgrade to a newer version of the MacOS. It would be
fine with me if Apple wanted more from each clone license, but I
don't know the exact figures Apple wanted or that the clone makers
were willing to spend.

But even granting that analogy, Apple made a lot of people happy
when it talked about free runtimes for YellowBox/WinNT. Given the
new climate at Apple, it's hard to have any confidence in that
promise. Certainly customers who get YellowBox/WinNT for free are
less of a client to Apple than customers who buy a Mac-clone, and
there is some indication that Jobs considers the clone-makers as
"leeches". Why do you think he'll think any different about those
developers who take advantage of the YellowBox API's?

Whatever the situation, I really do find that my interest in all
of this has decreased dramatically. This action from Apple gives
ammunition to every Wintel advocate on my campus, and I don't see
one damn reason why I should continue promoting macs if Apple
itself is giving ammunition to the competition.

(the *real* competition, which is Win95 and WinNT, and not some
MacOS clone maker)

---
Garance Alistair Drosehn = ***@eclipse.its.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer (MIME & NeXTmail capable)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy NY USA
Jonathan Hendry
1997-09-03 20:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Garance wrote:

>(the *real* competition, which is Win95 and WinNT, and not some
>MacOS clone maker)

This is the real issue. Apple's complaining that the cloners didn't
expand 'the market'. The problem is that 'the market' isn't the
'mac hardware' market. Nobody really cares about hardware; it's a
commodity. Apple still thinks people do. I think Apple was surprised
that so many people bought 'mere clones' instead of their 'vaunted'
Apple-brand hardware.

The market at issue is the MacOS market. Apple hasn't done much to
expand the MacOS market lately. Obviously, you can only sell MacOS-only
computers to people who want to run MacOS. If new MacOS customers aren't
appearing, you can't expand the market for MacOS-based computers.

MacOS is not a PowerComputing product. It's an Apple product. Thus,
it's Apple's responsibility to expand the MacOS market. At
best, PowerComputing and the other clones can market that their
computers are better for running MacOS. That's the same way
Intel PC's are marketed. The only hardware that's marketed
differently are server machines, or specially designed industrial
models (rack-mount, environment-hardened, etc).

Had Apple been working harder to expand the MacOS market, there would have
been room for the cloners to expand into. Instead, Apple let the MacOS
market remain the same size, which meant that the cloners would by
default eat into Apple's marketshare.

(In fact, PowerComputing's bundling of BeOS was more of a market-expansion
than Apple's managed in quite a while!)

I'm with Garance, anyway. I've half a mind to cancel my Apple developer
membership, in an exceedingly demonstrative way. Freaking morons in
Cupertino ought to be moving away from hardware rather than digging
in.

- Jon
Charles F. Waltrip
1997-09-03 21:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Garance A Drosehn wrote:
>
> Allen L. Mann <***@acofi.edu> writes:
[...]
> > Just which of Apple's customers are they screwing.
>
> Their MacOS customers. The people buying the operating system.
> The same way Microsoft has Windows95 customers for every Wintel
> PC which is sold.

I don't think a significant price differential between customers
buying Apple hardware/software bundles vs. those buying only
Apple software is much of a problem *BUT* as to your next
point...

> Now, a buyout of PowerComputing did not *have* to mean that any
> Apple customers would be screwed, but if you combine that event
> with Apple's other announcements then it seems pretty discouraging
> to me. Not only did they neuter PowerComputing, but they have now
> explicitly said
> 1) they have no plans to ever do CHRP
> 2) they have no plans to ever license anyone to do
> MacOS-compatable laptops.
>
> Now, who else are they screwing? I'd also include some subset of
> the Apple-hardware customers. Those customers who are pushed to
> buy hardware which has multiple sources are now left in an unpleasent
> situation. If Apple is going to shut down any company who actually
> competes with them, then they really are a single source (even if
> there is some nominal claim to multiple sources).

...Apple is screwing themself. When you only have 5% of the
market
(and slipping), then, as you point out, you need people to
believe they aren't locked into a sole source. PowerComputing
was a credible second source. It is also essential to conform to
a standard so that people making a sizeable commitment to your
hardware can believe that they can run something else on that
hardware if they need to (AIX; OS/2; Windows NT). Apple needs to
buy that kind of insurance for their customers even though the
premium is a share of their market. As to laptops, they need
some other companies out there trying things out and keeping the
competitive juices flowing.

[...]

>
> But even granting that analogy, Apple made a lot of people happy
> when it talked about free runtimes for YellowBox/WinNT. Given the
> new climate at Apple, it's hard to have any confidence in that
> promise. Certainly customers who get YellowBox/WinNT for free are
> less of a client to Apple than customers who buy a Mac-clone, and
> there is some indication that Jobs considers the clone-makers as
> "leeches". Why do you think he'll think any different about those
> developers who take advantage of the YellowBox API's?

Exactly. This is just one more thing like firing Amelio that
leaves everyone unsure of just what they can count on from Apple.
The same was true of NeXT. Same old problems: great technology
and lousy management. I've been taking a wait-and-see position.
I'm still waiting. Amelio had me reaching for my wallet but now
it's back in my pocket except for what I spend on Java.

But I'll still keep poking my head in and watching what's going
on. Hope I'll still see you around as I enjoy your posts.

Chuck
Opinions expressed are my own.
Tuan Truong
1997-09-04 01:03:17 UTC
Permalink
At 01:25 PM 9/3/97 -0700, Garance A Drosehn wrote:
>
>But even granting that analogy, Apple made a lot of people happy
>when it talked about free runtimes for YellowBox/WinNT. Given the
>new climate at Apple, it's hard to have any confidence in that
>promise. Certainly customers who get YellowBox/WinNT for free are
>less of a client to Apple than customers who buy a Mac-clone, and
>there is some indication that Jobs considers the clone-makers as
>"leeches". Why do you think he'll think any different about those
>developers who take advantage of the YellowBox API's?
>
Maybe he believes that the operating system and hardware platform
wars are over. He wants to fight the object wars now.

>Whatever the situation, I really do find that my interest in all
>of this has decreased dramatically.
>
I'm sour on the deal as well. But as long as Apple produces better
hardware and software in an area they can dominate, they'll survive.
They know what their financials are and what the company mission
is. It's sort of tough for me to criticize the decision without
knowing these facts.

If their product is good and something I would like to use, then
I would buy it. But your advocacy, or lack thereof, of the platform
seems strange considering the advocacy of pre-clone Apple and
post-clone Apple. They are in the same boat they were in years
ago.

>(the *real* competition, which is Win95 and WinNT, and not some
>MacOS clone maker)
>
The competition is over. You could say Apple lost when Microsoft
was able to move all those DOS users to Windows with Win 3.0. It
looks like Apple believes that as well, and Jobs has said as
much. Maybe Apple is shoring itself up as a company that provides
computing tools for the education and creation content markets.

I was beginning to think that the PPC was really gaining ground
too, but then Intel announces 450 MHz Pentium IIs for Fall '98.
For a few moments, I was thinking of getting a PPC machine. In
any case, there isn't much that Apple can offer over them now,
except maybe speed, integration, and elegant designs. But that's
a niche market.


-Tuan
Ronald C.F. Antony
1997-09-04 07:30:32 UTC
Permalink
> Maybe he believes that the operating system and hardware platform
> wars are over. He wants to fight the object wars now.

It's all just words. Hardware is a commodity, but objects depend on
a software infrastructure. You can't fight the object war, without being
a serious contender in the OS and desktop war.

The reason why MS Office owns the productivity software market is not
because its better, it's not because it was there first. It is plain
because of two things:
a) MS has the money to market products
b) MS has an advantage of codeveloping and integrating their apps along
with the OS.

If Apple thinks they can win over MS in the Object wars (which MS killed
before they started by bad-mouthing OO technology and pushing "component
technology" like VBX instead), then they are just plain stupid. MS
has the same advantages in the Object war as they have in the development
tools and application software markets.

Apple looses the war because it lacks competitive spirit, not because the
war really needs to be over. Apple should read Sun Tsu and von Clausewitz,
they should get an idea of what "total war" means.
In WWII the US wanted to win, and they put everything behind the effort, so
they won. In Vietnam, they tried to fight a "limited, humane" war, something
that neither exists, nor is winnable. Apple is fighting with the same
"totality, integrity, strategy and cohesiveness" that the US showed
in Vietnam (and thus lost the war). Apple has no will to fight a real war,
since they believe its already lost. Too much bickering, not enough support
behind the troops, constantly changing directions, etc.
Apple needs a do-or-die spirit, not a "do until it hurts a little and then
change to something else that's less painful" management.
Maybe the Apple board should watch some movies like "Patton" and
"Apocalypse Now" in order to get inspired. They all leave the impression
of a few Boomers with mid-life crises. :-(

Ronald
David Cake
1997-09-04 02:36:56 UTC
Permalink
For me, I have mixed feelings on the deal.
Power where quite open on the fact that they were interested in
stealing Apples customers more than growing the market overall. They saw
their competition as Apple, they advertised in Mac markets, and so on. And
yes, they were good at it. But if it really was costing Apple money
everytime Power sold a box, as Apple contends (and lets face it, no one
outside Apple management is really in a position to answer that clearly,
and they are hopelessly biased, so we will never know), then it really
would have been stupid of Apple to continue. And to be honest, Power quite
possibly backed themselves into a corner by playing serious hard ball with
Apple, in a way that cloners like UMAX didn't.
And I do think that acquiring the Power assets will aid Apple in
other ways - going out of their way to acquire Powers manufacturing and
direct sales expertise is a tacit admission from Apple that direct sales
and build to order are good ideas that they should have been working
towards for a long while (Apples bundling policy has been woefully
inadequate for many users for a long time), and that is good for Apple
customers.

But the remaining licencing clouds are the real problem. CHRP
licencing is something they NEED to resolve positively, whether they know
it or not - not least because unless they can resolve the same issues to
sell Rhapsody for Intel machines at a relatively cheap yet profitable
price, their Rhapsody strategy begins to look a lot like 'repeat most of
NeXTs mistakes on a bigger scale'. And CHRP is their only chance to make
licencing work - reducing Apples responsibilities for board design and
ASICs and such (reducing cost of licencing for Apple dramatically), while
freeing up the cloners to really innovate.

And laptops are where they need that innovation most. Their current
ones are great - but they have a lot of places where they fall behind PCs
as well. I want clone laptops with bigger screens, I want tiny ones, I want
everything PC laptops offer PLUS the speed they can't.

Now, unlike Garance, I'm certainly not going to abandon Apple any
time soon. When it gets right down to it, if Rhapsody was out there and I
was working with anything else (including MacOS) I'd feel like I'd been
cheated into doing things the hard way. I want to work with Rhapsody, it
excites me, I've wanted Rhapsody even before I knew what it was called -
even before the NeXT buyout, I wanted it to happen.
But if Apple back away entirely from cloning, AND somehow manage to
hold their PC Rhapsody business together, I could certainly see myself (in
a year or so, when most of my apps are Rhapsody) changing to Intel
hardware, and I'm perhaps not the only one. Then Apple faces the same
problems, but with a lot less control.

I feel the crucial clone company is not Power, but Motorola. Lets
see how Apple handles them.


On a positive note, I suspect Jobs and the rest are quite
consciously making all the hard decisions on these things now, in order to
be able to present their new 'marketing based' CEO with a pile of great
products to ship rather than a pile of big problems to solve like Amelio
had.

Cheers

David

PS Tuan Truong - I've heard a lot of things from Intel about their
marvellous plans, but so far the gap seems to be widening despite their
plans. I wouldn't give up on PowerPC just on Intels word. What will kill
the hardware is faster cheaper chips being only available in expensive
Apple systems.


David Cake
Certified Apple Engineer
Centre for Water Research
University of Western Australia
Tuan Truong
1997-09-04 05:15:22 UTC
Permalink
At 07:38 PM 9/3/97 -0700, David Cake wrote:
>
> But the remaining licencing clouds are the real problem. CHRP
>licencing is something they NEED to resolve positively, whether they know
>it or not - not least because unless they can resolve the same issues to
>sell Rhapsody for Intel machines at a relatively cheap yet profitable
>price, their Rhapsody strategy begins to look a lot like 'repeat most of
>NeXTs mistakes on a bigger scale'. And CHRP is their only chance to make
>licencing work - reducing Apples responsibilities for board design and
>ASICs and such (reducing cost of licencing for Apple dramatically), while
>freeing up the cloners to really innovate.
>
Innovation driven by clones or competition is bugging me a little bit.
The Intel world has had it for awhile, but the primary innovator seems
to be Intel and Microsoft. Really can't think of what sort of hardware
innovation Dell, Gateway or Compaq has brought about. Who knows, maybe
the PPC world doesn't mirror it.

I seem to recall Jobs saying (at the WWDC fireside chat) that the cloners
can use whatever hardware they want, and Apple should be a licensee and
a licenser of everything. Of course, the oft repeated statement of clones
being leeches came right after that. Wonder if, after Amelio was ousted,
he got to see Apple's financial condition and saw that Apple was in much
worse shape then he anticipated?

> And laptops are where they need that innovation most. Their current
>ones are great - but they have a lot of places where they fall behind PCs
>as well. I want clone laptops with bigger screens, I want tiny ones, I want
>everything PC laptops offer PLUS the speed they can't.
>
Personally, I think laptops, of all varieties, are terrible. You get
a hugely expensive machine that weighs a bloody ton, is slow, small
screen, power management that hinders, and more often than not, is
unstable. Clone notebooks, and clone desktops, would be nice though,
but apparently Apple isn't willing to give up being an exclusive hardware
only or software only company.

> On a positive note, I suspect Jobs and the rest are quite
>consciously making all the hard decisions on these things now, in order to
>be able to present their new 'marketing based' CEO with a pile of great
>products to ship rather than a pile of big problems to solve like Amelio
>had.
>
One thing I've been relatively impressed with is that they seem to be
bringing in what they want to do in focus. They aren't trying to challenge
Wintel on all fronts, which is stupid. Concentrating on content
creation sounds like a pretty good move.

>PS Tuan Truong - I've heard a lot of things from Intel about their
>marvellous plans, but so far the gap seems to be widening despite their
>plans. I wouldn't give up on PowerPC just on Intels word. What will kill
>the hardware is faster cheaper chips being only available in expensive
>Apple systems.
>
The new AGP systems are a bit of a crock now w/o Windows support or real
game support. However, I suspect they'll eventually refine it to be
good enough. With a virtual lock on software, good enough truly is good
enough. As for the gap, I don't think its going to be wide enough. I
thought Intel was going to move to the mide 300MHz range next year, but
the new 400+ MHz cpus were a surprise. I don't think it matters how fast
Apple hardware is, nothing is going to kill Wintel's monopoly. Seems
that whoever can solve the legacy software issues wins. If you don't
run Win32, you're a niche player.

Overall, I was somewhat impressed with PPC cpus themselves, but moreso
the hardware designs that are rumored. A dual-trimedia dual-PPC system
with proper bus supports sounds pretty nice. It's simple (therefore
cheap) and there really wouldn't be a need to include sound, modem,
or even video hardware. If Apple ships a Rhapsody system like this
coming Spring I would consider it; one with an uber-personality
card of course. Wonder if the DSPs can be put to other uses if you
get a nice sound card or faster video card?

Anyways, anyone willing to throw some bones out about the Rhapsody
DR status?


-Tuan
Ronald C.F. Antony
1997-09-04 08:00:34 UTC
Permalink
> Innovation driven by clones or competition is bugging me a little bit.
> The Intel world has had it for awhile, but the primary innovator seems
> to be Intel and Microsoft. Really can't think of what sort of hardware
> innovation Dell, Gateway or Compaq has brought about. Who knows, maybe
> the PPC world doesn't mirror it.

These days, you're right. But what launced PCs was the competition in
the clone market. Back then, things weren't all included on the
motherboard, and you had people compete for the fastest serial boards,
the fastest disk controlers, the best graphics boards, the best sound
cards, the best AT motherboard chip sets, the best motherboard designs,
etc.

Of course, with intel buying C&T, serial boards etc. on the motherboard,
and intel supplying the majority of OEM motherboards, the competition
really has come to a grinding halt on that level. The only area where
you still see subtle innovation is in the server market, where DEC, ALR
et al. still produce proprietary designs in order to boost performance
and reliability.

These days we're approaching the computer on a chip, and intel makes
the chip, so competition and innovation has been localized as far as
hardware goes. MS owns the software part of the pie.

In that sense is the hardware war as much over as is the desktop war.
If Apple stops competing for the desktop, because Win* won, they should
stop competing in hardware because intel won. In short, with Apple's
mentality, there is about as much space for them in the market as
for Commodore's Amiga, that also tried to make it in the "creative,
video and content creation" market, just to have a few more months
on the life line until PCs had caught up.

Niche markets become ever smaller, as hardware and software become
more advanced. Mainframes, SGI, Apple, etc. they are all fighting
a loosing battle against PCs as long as they try to survive in some
profitable, exclusive niche that allows them to be overall uncompetitive.

A niche makes only sense as a beach head to start a massive attack
on a broad front. A niche must be a start, not a goal. Apple's
language points towards the fact that they consider the niche a goal
rather than a first target of attack in a long line of brutal and
relentless attacks.

Ronald
David Cake
1997-09-04 05:58:27 UTC
Permalink
>Innovation driven by clones or competition is bugging me a little bit.
>The Intel world has had it for awhile, but the primary innovator seems
>to be Intel and Microsoft.

I expect Apple to continue to be the primary innovator in PPC
hardware - but no the only. And a lot of what I see the clones adding isn't
'real' innovation - I see the clones adding things to the market that Apple
could support but chooses not too - laptops with big screens, for example.
Which doesn't make it any less valuable to the mac market.
You could argue that some of the Mac cloners have bought real
innovation already, even with their limited access to hardware design -
Daystar certainly seemed to be the big force pushing for multi-processing,
for example.


>> And laptops are where they need that innovation most. Their current
>>ones are great - but they have a lot of places where they fall behind PCs
>>as well. I want clone laptops with bigger screens, I want tiny ones, I want
>>everything PC laptops offer PLUS the speed they can't.
>>
>Personally, I think laptops, of all varieties, are terrible.

They are getting a LOT better. With an external monitor and
keyboard, laptops are very attractive, providing you have the cash. Sure,
they are expensive, but there are a reasonable amount of people out there
prepared to spend a lot of cash to get a good match to their needs.

[Intel performance]
> I don't think it matters how fast
>Apple hardware is, nothing is going to kill Wintel's monopoly. Seems
>that whoever can solve the legacy software issues wins. If you don't
>run Win32, you're a niche player.
>
I can live with being in a relatively large (5%-10%) niche if the
hardware I'm getting is actually better. I value the time I save, and in
the Unix centric circles I move in I find Win32 is often just as much a
barrier as MacOS. Will the gap in hardware speed be enough to really
challenge Intel for the number one spot? I care only that the gap is big
enough that PPC survives in the long term.
If there is one lesson learnt from the Spindler era at Apple, it is
that you don't chase market share - you make good products, and make a
profitable business of making those good products, and sometimes market
share comes to you - but if it doesn't, you still have a good business. I
think Apple sees clones as basically chasing market share at the expence of
profit - but I think they should see CHRP as a way to make a business from
good (software) products, because CHRP boxes have the potential to be
better than our current hardware.

>Overall, I was somewhat impressed with PPC cpus themselves, but moreso
>the hardware designs that are rumored. A dual-trimedia dual-PPC system
>with proper bus supports sounds pretty nice.

I like the tri-media idea a lot - and I really hope it lives up to
its promise. I would love to see the Gossamer hardware soon.

> Wonder if the DSPs can be put to other uses if you
>get a nice sound card or faster video card?
>
I hope so, and I would be surprised if they can't. I know a
musician and OpenStep guru friend who is very interested to see if the
Staccato Systems stuff will run on it.

Cheers

David

David Cake
Certified Apple Engineer
Centre for Water Research
University of Western Australia
Ronald C.F. Antony
1997-09-03 19:41:18 UTC
Permalink
The news are really discouraging. Apple pursues a strategy that let's it
survive being incompetitive, rather than focusing on how to become
competitive.

If Apple had wanted fair licensing, then they should just have split off
their own hardware division, figure out the true cost of the software,
and license it to their own division on the same terms as to the cloners.
That would have been fair for all, even if the license costs had been higher.

Then software and hardware each had been competing on their own merits.

If they already bought Power Computing, they should have bought it lock,
stock and barrel, and should have sold mail-order direct under the Power
Computing name with either PPC or intel CPUs, and should have reserved
the Apple name for the machines sold through the channel.
But that didn't happen either.

Apple knows that they can twist Motorola's and IBM's arms, since if they
don't like Apple's move, Apple can switch to intel CPUs and Motorola and
IBM are screwed with the PPC effort. With Rhapsody, switching to intel
is quite easy, as we all know... UMAX they figure is too small to do harm.

It's plain pathetic!

If now the free runtime deal is revoked, then you can kiss Apple goodbye.

Apple had all the right cards: with OpenStep (the API) as target development
platform, they could address almost 100% of the market: Win*, MacOS and
Rhapsody. That should have given them the brainshare of the developer market.
With Rhapsody intel, switching existing hardware infrastructures to the
Mac software platform would have been possible in an economical way.
With Rhapsody servers Apple could have been successfully undercutting NT
and could have created heat where it hurts MS most. With MCA development
on OpenStep and with Media and Publishing Apple would have a dual entryway
into the Enterprise market. With developers targetting OpenStep, sooner or
later all important business apps would have been available under Rhapsody,
i.e. with Rhapsodies improved network management etc. switching from Win*
to an Apple platform would have been viable for the first time in many
years. In short, Apple had all the cards, to become a serious contender in
the Enterprise server, Web, application and later even the desktop markets.

However, with a strategy that puts proprietary before open, fat and
uncompetitive before lean and competitive, and that prefers single source
over choice, Apple just killed itself in the Enterprise.

Great, so they have some short term profits by limited competition and
they have some retarded focus on the internet and media fad markets.
Guess what, MS is not going to sleep. Withing a couple of years that
market will be as eroded as is now the common desktop market.
MS will probably keep Apple alive and borderline profitable to have some
pet competition to squelch the FTC and the Justice Department, and Jobs
and the other board members will get their salaries just fine.

Big deal. I don't get my salary, so what do I care? What I do care about
that the whole platform just lost a lot of value. Next thing we know, they
will start suing the FSF over implementing non-published parts of the
OpenStep API, and thus kill the last interesting software project
going somewhere.

Things looked really good up to the point they fired Amelio.
MacOS 8 was selling like hot cakes, overall Mac marketshare was stable with
a tendency to go up, etc. Costs were down. Things were all on the right
track, with the only thing missing a clear, contractual statement to
free runtime licensing, and the new products on the market.

Now most things are shattered... We have a silly agreement with MS.
Big deal, as if MS would easily toss away the profit they make from
selling Office to Mac users and open themselves up to an anti-trust
suit! The 150mm is peanuts, given that Apple had over $1bn in cash.
With the Java pact, they gave some well deserved ass-whipping to
Netscape and SUN, but the only real winner was MS; Apple, SUN, and
Netscape were the loosers, by shifting the standard from SUN's into
MS' hands. MS patents, that may be semi-useful in terms of preventing
litigation, but most software patents would never stand in court
anyway, at least not if the lawyers and judges had any clue what it's
all about.
And now this pretty much open statement, admitting that Apple is incapable
of keeping a tight ship and being competitive.
MS can compete. Apple is smaller, but that means they have to be better
and try harder. It cannot mean that they will be more expensive, since
that is the best way to disappear from the market. Computers, with a
technology half-life of six months, are mostly bought on price.
Anyone who makes non-private purchase decisions doesn't give a damn about
"nice technology" since in a few months it's equally outdated as the
not-so-nice technology. If Apple cannot compete on price, if they cannot
sell their software licenses for the same price as MS, and if they cannot
sell their hardware for the same price as PC clones, then they better
liquidate now, and sell their assets, while there is still some value
in them, rather than going down the long, slow road of decline like
Commodore or Atari etc. and dragging us all along.

Makes me feel like an asshole. I talked some people into doing a WO based
solution, in light of a new Apple (choice, competition, cross-platform).
Now it turns out Rhapsody-intel is on the back-burner (maybe is even off
the burner, given that they don't want to license their technology),
Mac clones are out, free runtime licenses are in limbo, and the web project
is seriously delayed because of bugs in EOF and WOF, with no new release
nearby.

Makes me all really happy...

Ronald
Patrick Taylor
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Hi Ronald,

>Maybe the Apple board should watch some movies like "Patton" and
>"Apocalypse Now" in order to get inspired. They all leave the impression
>of a few Boomers with mid-life crises. :-(

Uhmmm ... you must have been watching a different Apocalypse Now than I
saw. I don't think it's a particularly inspirational movie for anyone in
the heart of a crisis. Unless you mean "don't get off the boat, never get
off the boat." Sad to say it ... but we've been off the boat for a while.
What do you do next is the question.

>If now the free runtime deal is revoked, then you can kiss Apple goodbye.

<snip>

>>Makes me feel like an asshole. I talked some people into doing a WO based
>solution, in light of a new Apple (choice, competition, cross-platform).
>Now it turns out Rhapsody-intel is on the back-burner (maybe is even off
>the burner, given that they don't want to license their technology),
>Mac clones are out, free runtime licenses are in limbo, and the web project
>is seriously delayed because of bugs in EOF and WOF, with no new release
>nearby.

And where does this come from? Who ever said the runtime deal was in any
danger? It seems to have gone from a question to a certainty over the
course of a couple of emails ... this has to stop! We really don't need
someone yelling "We're all gonna die!" right now.

1. Rhapsody Intel is not on a backburner ... jeez, the product doesn't even
officially exist YET! What I've heard was that the majority of Apple's
marketing would go toward pushing Rhapsody on PPC (surprise, the reason
they bought Next was to create a new OS for the PPC platform!). This is far
from being on a backburner ... especially considering how little Next did
to push OPENSTEP/Mach (which at the time of the purchase was dead ... not
on a backburner).

2. The runtime licenses are not in limbo. Hey! The Product doesn't even
exist yet ... Apple has mentioned NOTHING about the runtime licenses that
would ever suggest they were changing their position on the issue. And
there haven't been any rumors suggesting so either until you and Garance
mentioned it.

3. There is an upgrade for WebObjects due within a month (according to
Wiley Hodges).

I can understand that you are upset about Power Computing but that is no
reason to cause a panic by spreading misleading comments.

Take a deep breath and get over the licensing thing.

Patrick

______________________________________________________________

Patrick Taylor
Kingston, Ontario, CANADA
mailto:***@post.kosone.com


Check out my columns at:

NewTech @ MacSpectre
http://macspectre.macintosh.net/NewTech/

Stepwise
http://www.stepwise.com/

"Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water! And
east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them
like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now,
uh... you tell me what you know."
--Groucho Marx
Ronald C.F. Antony
1997-09-04 18:41:03 UTC
Permalink
> 1. Rhapsody Intel is not on a backburner ... jeez, the product doesn't even
> officially exist YET! What I've heard was that the majority of Apple's
> marketing would go toward pushing Rhapsody on PPC (surprise, the reason
> they bought Next was to create a new OS for the PPC platform!). This is far
> from being on a backburner ... especially considering how little Next did
> to push OPENSTEP/Mach (which at the time of the purchase was dead ... not
> on a backburner).

It has been more than once stated that Rhapsody/Intel comes AFTER
YellowBox NT on the priority list for Apple. I consider this backburner,
particularly if you give less priority to your FULL environment than
you give to some supplant. People who use Rhapsody/Intel are likely
to switch at some point in time to PPC if it has a performance
advantage, people on YellowBox/NT will not. Pushing YellowBox/NT over
Rhapsody/Intel is another one of these "the desktop war is lost" kind
of statements. Of course Apple should push YellowBox/NT, since it is
the shoehorn for Rhapsody/Intel and later Rhapsody/PPC, BUT that means
they should be equally prominent, and Rhapsody/Intel should not take
the backseat. I hear more about SUN's Java from Apple than about
Rhapsody/Intel.


> 2. The runtime licenses are not in limbo. Hey! The Product doesn't even
> exist yet ... Apple has mentioned NOTHING about the runtime licenses that
> would ever suggest they were changing their position on the issue. And
> there haven't been any rumors suggesting so either until you and Garance
> mentioned it.

No, they did not mention it. However it is months since the first
announcements, still made under Amelio's reign. Developers who need to
plan a strategy need some details. These have not been coming, similar
to how the details on new clone-licensing have not been coming, until
licensing was called off. Even worse, if cloners paying Apple somewhere
between $50-$100 (my guess) per license are considered "leeches" guess
what all the users of NT are considerd who will run OpenStepAPI based
apps without paying a cent, except for the few hunderd dollars per
development seat that the app developers pay for the development
environment? So if Apple is hell bent on making short term profit, rather
than expanding their mind and market share for the long term, then this
free runtime license deal must hurt them really badly. With a free runtime
you have basically all the benefits of OpenStep based apps running on
Windows platforms without paying a cent to Apple.

I think this is necessary to get the application development base shifted
from MS tools to OpenStep API, which is important if Apple wants to have
a decent number of apps and allow for easy migration from Win* to Rhapsody.

However if they think the desktop war is lost, then they will not count and
strategize towards such a migration and increas in market share. In essence,
the whole thing must look to the financial guys like a loosing proposition,
similar to the clones on which they "lost several hunderd dollars a piece".

> 3. There is an upgrade for WebObjects due within a month (according to
> Wiley Hodges).

What about EOF? That's where more critical bugs sit.

> I can understand that you are upset about Power Computing but that is no
> reason to cause a panic by spreading misleading comments.

Yes it is, since only a unified uproar is generally heard up there in
management ivory tower. You wouldn't believe how many e-mails I have
gotten over the years from Apple and NeXT employees saying that they
like my postings, but that, given their position, they can't write
something like it themselves. Who blames them? Point is, there are
people within NeXT and Apple who do think, but obviously their voices
are not heard where it counts. Ultimately it's the customers who
determine a companies fate by buying or not buying. If Apple gets the
idea that they royally pissed off everyone, it may at least influence
their stance in respect to Motorola, U-MAX, etc. in case there are
still any talks in progress.

> Take a deep breath and get over the licensing thing.

It's pretty difficult to get over the fact that Apple just became a
single source vendor. There are a bunch of potential customers I can
immediately write off, since they do not allow for single source
products. It's time someone donates a huge pile of cash to the
GNUStep people to fund some serios development there.

Ronald
mmalcolm crawford
1997-09-05 07:44:23 UTC
Permalink
Ronald wrote:

> It has been more than once stated that Rhapsody/Intel comes AFTER
> YellowBox NT on the priority list for Apple.
>
When? Where?

I could imagine someone saying that YellowBox/NT will be *available* before
Rhapsody/Intel, because YellowBox/NT is effectively already a shipping
product, whereas Rhapsody isn't yet on general release.

Really, this hysteria is becoming just a tad tiresome.
Let's just sit back and wait to see what the big picture is.

Best wishes,

mmalc.
Dave Klingler
1997-09-04 20:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Patrick said:
> Ron said:

> 1. Rhapsody Intel is not on a backburner ... jeez, the product doesn't even
> officially exist YET! What I've heard was that the majority of Apple's
> marketing would go toward pushing Rhapsody on PPC (surprise, the reason
> they bought Next was to create a new OS for the PPC platform!). This is far
> from being on a backburner ... especially considering how little Next did
> to push OPENSTEP/Mach (which at the time of the purchase was dead ... not
> on a backburner).

I'll point out right now that Jobs' decision not to license MacOS for CHRP
clones is incompatible with the idea that Rhapsody/Mach will be offered for
Intel clones. I don't believe Jobs is planning to keep Rhapsody for Intel
around longer than it takes to get the developers up to speed. I think he's
planning two products: Rhapsody for Apple PowerMac and OPENSTEP for Win95/NT.

The alternative is that he's flying by the seat of his pants and he hasn't
yet realized the ramifications of what he's doing. I noticed that CHRP is
misspelled in his leaked memo to Apple employees. I'm not sure he knows
what CHRP is, how long people have been working on it (how much money they've
spent) or how his decision affects it.

> 2. The runtime licenses are not in limbo. Hey! The Product doesn't even
> exist yet ... Apple has mentioned NOTHING about the runtime licenses that
> would ever suggest they were changing their position on the issue. And
> there haven't been any rumors suggesting so either until you and Garance
> mentioned it.

Not to put too fine a point on the issue but anyone here who has dealt with
NeXT over the years realizes that Steve can change his mind more often than
his clothing. Once he does no one can get to him, and the facts often get
changed to fit his opinion. NeXT charged for runtime licenses before Apple
bought them. The notion of Apple giving away runtime licenses might just as
well be replaced by the notion that Apple must charge for every runtime in
order to return to profitability. That's how Steve's mind works.

Do I sound negative?

> 3. There is an upgrade for WebObjects due within a month (according to
> Wiley Hodges).
>
> I can understand that you are upset about Power Computing but that is no
> reason to cause a panic by spreading misleading comments.
>
> Take a deep breath and get over the licensing thing.

I haven't gotten over it yet, and I got a call at 6:30 this morning from a
customer who started the conversation not with "hello", but with "Dave, I
can't take it any more. I'm switching to NT."

> "Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water! And
> east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them
> like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now,
> uh... you tell me what you know."
> --Groucho Marx

Wonderful quote. At various times I have known that NeXT was an educational
company, NeXT was a marketing company, NeXT was a business workstation
company, NeXT was a desktop publishing company, NeXT was a Web company.
I've been told by NeXT specifically not to "waste my time" producing
non-vertical applications for NeXTStep/OpenStep not long after I was told
to "get out there and turn out that killer app!"

Steve makes my teeth spin.

Dave Klingler
Gondolin Software
Tuan Truong
1997-09-04 23:31:48 UTC
Permalink
At 10:09 AM 9/4/97 -0700, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
>> Maybe he believes that the operating system and hardware platform
>> wars are over. He wants to fight the object wars now.
>
>It's all just words. Hardware is a commodity, but objects depend on
>a software infrastructure. You can't fight the object war, without being
>a serious contender in the OS and desktop war.
>
Isn't this a little antithetical to the promise of Java and Yellow Box?
I'm more than willing to use Mail.app, OmniWeb, or NewsFlash on a Win
NT machine. [In fact that might be the best way since I like to play
games, plus the pesky problem of my employer being Wintel.]

They (JavaSoft, Apple) are trying to win over developers to their
development environment. And the last time I checked, these
environments can deploy on large portions of the desktop, portable,
and server market, irregardless of hardware or operating system.

>The reason why MS Office owns the productivity software market is not
>because its better, it's not because it was there first. It is plain
>because of two things:
>a) MS has the money to market products
>b) MS has an advantage of codeveloping and integrating their apps along
> with the OS.
>
MS Office is considered the best suite of office software. I wouldn't
discount that advantage. Much like IE is better than NS.

But that isn't necessarily why they are so dominant. Brand name
recognition and loyalty to the brand is another major factor. Item b
is important. How would you propose to break this monopoly? Faster
hardware? Intel is keeping pace. Better apps? MS has the best office
suite, browser, perhaps programming packages, and pretty much will lock
all the games to Windows with DirectX. Plus the most important
factor, they've got the legacy software.

>Apple looses the war because it lacks competitive spirit, not because the
>war really needs to be over. Apple should read Sun Tsu and von Clausewitz,
>they should get an idea of what "total war" means.
>
Apple isn't fighting a "war" in this sense. While the principles of
war from Sun Tsu or others are very useful in running a business, the
concepts of *war* and *business* aren't exactly the same. The goal of
a war is to conquer resources, exert ones' philosophy, or to remain
alive. The goal of a business is to be profitable. The difference is
relatively subtle. You can in business, be very profitable with 5 or
10 percent marketshare. A war is typically a binary proposition.

Apple will be fine as long as they are profitable, and that's all that
needs to be done.

-Tuan
Ronald C.F. Antony
1997-09-05 00:21:20 UTC
Permalink
you wrote:
> At 10:09 AM 9/4/97 -0700, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
> >> Maybe he believes that the operating system and hardware platform
> >> wars are over. He wants to fight the object wars now.
> >
> >It's all just words. Hardware is a commodity, but objects depend on
> >a software infrastructure. You can't fight the object war, without being
> >a serious contender in the OS and desktop war.
> >
> Isn't this a little antithetical to the promise of Java and Yellow Box?
> I'm more than willing to use Mail.app, OmniWeb, or NewsFlash on a Win
> NT machine. [In fact that might be the best way since I like to play
> games, plus the pesky problem of my employer being Wintel.]

Java, YellowBox and Clones are about the same: openness, competition,
multiple sources, vendor independence. The pact with MS that subverts
the 100% pure Java initiaive and the nuking of the clone market shows
that Apple is no longer interested in such a strategy and tries to
be profitable in a niche (as long as MS doesn't attack that niche),
and to suck off the captive customers by charging premium prices on
proprietary products. That's why at this point I don't believe in
free YellowBox runtimes anymore.

> They (JavaSoft, Apple) are trying to win over developers to their
> development environment. And the last time I checked, these
> environments can deploy on large portions of the desktop, portable,
> and server market, irregardless of hardware or operating system.

JavaSoft and Apple have at this point about as cozy a relationship
as MS and JavaSoft. SUN pissed off NeXT and Apple by dropping support
for OpenStep, and Apple struck back by supporting MS' effort to let
Java degrade into yet-another-programming language, (which may not
even be such a bad thing). The point is, if you tally up the score,
as usual, Bill is the winner.

> >The reason why MS Office owns the productivity software market is not
> >because its better, it's not because it was there first. It is plain
> >because of two things:
> >a) MS has the money to market products
> >b) MS has an advantage of codeveloping and integrating their apps along
> > with the OS.
> >
> MS Office is considered the best suite of office software. I wouldn't
> discount that advantage. Much like IE is better than NS.

Many, many test I read wrote about how bloated, bug ridden and overly
feature ladden MS Office is, while competing suites offered better
interfaces, better scripting environments, better groupware features,
etc. etc. Nonetheless MS won out. So quality and superiority is hardly
the real issue.

> But that isn't necessarily why they are so dominant. Brand name
> recognition and loyalty to the brand is another major factor. Item b
> is important. How would you propose to break this monopoly?
> Faster hardware? Intel is keeping pace.

Well, the point of PPC was that it would be cheaper and faster. If they
can't do that, drop PPC and cash in on the advantage of being able to
sell hardware as cheaply as the rest of the PC clone vendors. PPC is
not a goal in itself. If it cannot deliver on the promise, dump it,
switch to something that is really faster (Alpha) or join the crowd
(intel).

> Better apps? MS has the best office suite, browser, perhaps programming
> packages,

Rhapsody and YellowBox are key here: It is the cheapest environment to
develop once and to deploy on all desktop systems. That, if used correctly,
will move the application base over time such that pretty much all important
apps will be available under Rhaposdy, even first under Rhapsody.
The programming tools that Apple now has are way superior to what MS has
to offer. OmniWeb, (with Java missing) beats otherwise any other browser
commonly used. By the time Rhapsody ships Java will be part of it, thus
Browsers will be better on Rhapsody. Of course, Apple is stupid enough
and will probably bundle the MS IE on Rhapsody as well...
The thing is Apple cannot gain back the desktop in a few months, but they need
the goal, and then take a big strategy and execute it in many small steps.
Saying that the war is over will not do that.

> and pretty much will lock all the games to Windows with DirectX.

Rhapsody will offer similar features, and the QTML will have offerings that
will game software companies use it as a target. With YellowBox and QTML
portable to Win*, Apple has a chance in this market, too.

> Plus the most important factor, they've got the legacy software.

As I said, dilligent hard work. Sent out hordes of people to try to convince
the software companies to build new versions of the software based on
YellowBox API. Give away development seats. Sacrifice some revenue for
future applicationi availability, etc. But again, that will only work if
they want to fight the war.

> >Apple looses the war because it lacks competitive spirit, not because the
> >war really needs to be over. Apple should read Sun Tsu and von Clausewitz,
> >they should get an idea of what "total war" means.
> >
> Apple isn't fighting a "war" in this sense. While the principles of
> war from Sun Tsu or others are very useful in running a business, the
> concepts of *war* and *business* aren't exactly the same. The goal of
> a war is to conquer resources, exert ones' philosophy, or to remain
> alive. The goal of a business is to be profitable. The difference is
> relatively subtle. You can in business, be very profitable with 5 or
> 10 percent marketshare. A war is typically a binary proposition.

The goal in business is to dominate ones market and thus to be able to
dictate the direction in which the business is going and thus to be
able to leverage on the strengths on has, rather than having to follow
the competition on their terms. The mere fact that MS does not have to
waste time and resource on being MS compatible, because they set the
standard, exemplifies this. Apple has to get to a place where it sets
the standard, and MS and the others have to follow at high cost.
A 5% market share will not get them there. Being simply profitable is
an ok attitude for a small business like a flower shop. Big companies
are always either growing, fending off shrinkage, or receeding.
While the war never ends, unless a company goes out of business, there
is only one winning strategy, and that is expansion and the will to
dominate ones market. MS understands that, and that's why they spend
huge amounts of money to expand, fortify their positions, create
brand name recognition, etc. and sacrifice profit, all in exchange
for future returns. MS is one of the few high-tech companies who
while tactically agile, never looses sight of it's long term goal:
market dominance at all cost, because that's where the money is.
Apple has/tries to satisfy Wall Street on a quarter to quarter basis
and thus isn't willing to make the decisions that it takes to buy
market share and future big returns.
The resources you conquer in business are customers, i.e. income streams,
the philosophy one exerts in business is to set the standards, and to
stay alive in business is being profitable.
Apple is digging a trench, in an area where active fighting is currently
somewhat limited. As if MS' smart bombs couldn't reach them there.

> Apple will be fine as long as they are profitable, and that's all that
> needs to be done.

Same as the soldiers in the trench will be fine until the artilery starts
hitting. Survival is not good enough. Lack of shooting does not indicate
peace. Apple can live, rather than survive, once Rhapsody on all platforms
combined has a marketshare of about 50%, and Apple hardware, if they are
still in that business, has a solid 15-20% of the market. That should
be Apples goal. The way to get there should be YellowBox, cheap servers,
cross-platform solutions, Java, the Web, media/publishing and custom
application development.

Ronald
Charles F. Waltrip
1997-09-05 17:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
>

[...]

> Java, YellowBox and Clones are about the same: openness, competition,
> multiple sources, vendor independence. The pact with MS that subverts
> the 100% pure Java initiaive and the nuking of the clone market shows
> that Apple is no longer interested in such a strategy and tries to
> be profitable in a niche (as long as MS doesn't attack that niche),
> and to suck off the captive customers by charging premium prices on
> proprietary products. That's why at this point I don't believe in
> free YellowBox runtimes anymore.
>

I don't see the pact with Microsoft as subverting 100% pure
Java. Apple still says they're supporting 100% pure Java. It's
not clear what the pact with Microsoft will actually provide but
it was expressed in terms of deciding what features they would
both support. Since Apple still says they will support the YB
APIs in their Java VM, there is the chance that Microsoft will
too. If not, would Apple retaliate by not supporting ActiveX?
I've hashed those issues in other posts -- no point in re-hashing
them. However, if the Microsoft VM does support the YB APIs (and
the Apple VM supports the ActiveX APIs), there are two
possibilities: the libraries/runtimes will be optional; or they
will be included in the distribution along with the VM. If they
are distributed with the VM, then I suspect they will indeed be
free. If not, I suspect Apple would like to charge but, if they
try to do so, they will face some real problems. Mainly, Java
applet or application developers would have to choose between
writing for a free ActiveX or 100% pure Java API vs. an API that
might be there only if they pay a license fee or the user pays
for the runtime. I'm only guessing here, but I'd say that the
advantage would be with the free stuff 8^}

Yet, Apple needs to make some money somehow. Do they go back to
the NeXT model of $5K for user + developer in order to develop
apps? Or do they charge for the YB runtime? Or do they charge
developers a per copy license fee?

Here's a thought. Build a license server into the YB runtime. If
someone charges for an application that uses YB, they can use the
license server (via a key from Apple) to assure that a valid
license key (purchased by the user from the application vendor)
is in use. This would allow free use of the YB by non-commercial
software AND, though not free to the vendor, would provide a
value-added mechanism for the vendor to assure that her software
was not being pirated. Assuming that these fees were on the
order of $5 per user (or a small percentage of the sale price),
the vendor would be getting significant value from the YB runtime
both in terms of the most powerful and productive API and in
protection against piracy.

But we can't imagine that Apple can just make money off of
hardware and developer tools (they'd have to charge more than we
can afford to pay). Developers really don't want them competing
with them in the applications market. And nobody wants the free
applications market closed off. If Apple really does enable
developers to enter the mass application market via their
cross-platform capabilities, they need to get some payoff from
the volume. The model I propose above is one way to address all
of those issues. Any other candidate models anyone cares to
propose?

Chuck
Opinions expressed are my own.
Charles F. Waltrip
1997-09-08 21:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
>
> > I don't see the pact with Microsoft as subverting 100% pure
> > Java. Apple still says they're supporting 100% pure Java.
>
> The issue is thus: Apple will support a superset of 100% pure
> Java, as will M$. Both Apple and M$ will due to the agreement
> support the same superset.

I haven't been able to find anything definitive on this
agreement.
Everything I've seen since Jobs announced it has been, well, uh,
vague.
Ronald C.F. Antony
1997-09-09 06:55:16 UTC
Permalink
you wrote:
> Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see the pact with Microsoft as subverting 100% pure
> > > Java. Apple still says they're supporting 100% pure Java.
> >
> > The issue is thus: Apple will support a superset of 100% pure
> > Java, as will M$. Both Apple and M$ will due to the agreement
> > support the same superset.
>
> I haven't been able to find anything definitive on this
> agreement.
> Everything I've seen since Jobs announced it has been, well, uh,
> vague.
Pat McCormick
1997-09-05 14:42:23 UTC
Permalink
I thought this list would be useful to find out about the status and
technical details of the Rhapsody operating system.

Instead, all I've read since joining are opinions about Steve Jobs and
other Apple employees and otherwise self-absorbed and pompous
dissertations which provide no information.

Here's a clue: nobody cares about thoughts or opinions except the
author (this note not withstanding).

If we're going to be of any use to ourselves and each other, we should
be diging for and posting information. We want to use this new system,
and we want to become informed.

If we as users do this seemingly sensible thing, perhaps we'll be
helping Apple in the process, rather than using this group to whine
about Apple, and only damage its already bruised reputation.

If you don't plan on using Rhapsody don't stay on as a member only to
repeatedly post you're reasons. Leave the discussion to those who plan
on using the product.

I won't return to this discuss until it matures into a technical
resource as it was advertised. This won't happen until
useless-opinions-***@omnigroup.com is formed.

Meanwhile, I'm off to find a technical discussion.

See ya,
Pat McCormick
Ideasite
mmalcolm crawford
1997-09-05 14:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Pat wrote:
> I thought this list would be useful to find out about the status and
> technical details of the Rhapsody operating system.
>
I think you should be subscribed to rhapsody-dev instead.

However the level of alarmism exhibited on this list recently has been
rather disappointing.

> If we're going to be of any use to ourselves and each other, we should
> be diging for and posting information. We want to use this new system,
> and we want to become informed.
>
> If we as users do this seemingly sensible thing, perhaps we'll be helping
> Apple in the process, rather than using this group to whine about Apple,
> and only damage its already bruised reputation.
>
Agreed.

Best wishes,

mmalc.
Ronald C.F. Antony
1997-09-05 22:52:17 UTC
Permalink
you wrote:
> Instead, all I've read since joining are opinions about Steve Jobs and
> other Apple employees and otherwise self-absorbed and pompous
> dissertations which provide no information.

They provide the information, in particular to members of the press and
of Apple Computer, lurking on this list that some people, including myself,
are not happy at all with recent decisions, that that these decisions have
pissed off not only us, but also our and thus Apple's customers.

> Here's a clue: nobody cares about thoughts or opinions except the
> author (this note not withstanding).

Here's a clue: I don't care who cares. I care that people at Apple
hear one way or another what I think about this. Public opinion making
works still best, as recent UPS action has shown again.

> If we as users do this seemingly sensible thing, perhaps we'll be
> helping Apple in the process, rather than using this group to whine
> about Apple, and only damage its already bruised reputation.

My interest in helping Apple is zero. I use Apple's (or better NeXT's)
products since 9 years for only one reason alone: I like them and they
help me. If Apple steps on my toes I do all I can to step on theirs.
It's called tis-for-tat and is still one of the most successful strategies
to provoke cooperative behavior in people that really couldn't care less
about each other. Apple doesn't care about me, I don't care about them.
They care about their business, I care about mine. The only way I can
hope to influence their behavior in such a way that they don't hurt my
business is by trying to do everything I can to hurt their business
in exchange for them hurting mine. Other than that I give them all of the
feedback they can hope for. At least until the introduction of WebObjects
NeXT got probably more feedback from me than from any other individual
outside of their own company. So my behavior is strictly oriented towards
that which increases the chances of Apple behaving in a way that I like.
I have little power, but I will not let it go by unused. If you don't
like that, too bad.

> If you don't plan on using Rhapsody don't stay on as a member only to
> repeatedly post you're reasons. Leave the discussion to those who plan
> on using the product.

I plan to use it, but several of my (potential) customers no longer
plan to use it after they heared the recent news.

> I won't return to this discuss until it matures into a technical
> resource as it was advertised. This won't happen until
> useless-opinions-***@omnigroup.com is formed.
>
> Meanwhile, I'm off to find a technical discussion.

This is not a technical list, but a TALK list, to discuss any and all
rhapsody related topics. Apples decisions on licensing are clearly
related, as are Apples strategic decisions and their implications for
the marketplace and Apples position therein.

Ronald
Richard Guilford
1997-09-06 14:00:13 UTC
Permalink
At 6:44 AM -0700 9/5/97, someone wrote:


>I thought this list would be useful to . . .>Instead, all I've read . . .
>
>Here's a clue: nobody cares about thoughts or opinions except the
>author (this note not withstanding).
>
>If we're going to be of any use to ourselves and each other, we should . . .
>
>If we as users do this seemingly sensible thing, perhaps we'll be
> . . .
>If you don't plan on . . . Leave the discussion to those who . . .
>I won't return to this discuss . . . until . . .

>Meanwhile, I'm off . . .
>

Maybe just missing in action.

Rick Guilford
MacLean, Seaman, Laing & Guilford
POBox 4279
East Lansing, MI 48826-4279
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...