IPhone users: Apple has a kill-switch...

[rpadula]

The premise that despite its undying devotion to its consumers, that Apple stomps on clone vendors to protect "the quality of the user experience", as opposed to protecting its exorbitant margins on hardware.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maIgu_7oLm0
"I went to the clone vendors and I said, guys, we're gonna go broke doing this..."​

Well, YouTube is blocked here at work, but I'd say BOTH premises are true. Yes, Apple protects its margins (although I'm not entirely sure I'd use the word "exhorbitant"), AND also keeps up their user experience by controlling hardware. I don't think it's an "as opposed to" situation at all.

Well, in that case, this will be a wonderful differentiator for their hardware, allowing them to preserve the current high margins, while those seeking the lowest prices have the option of buying the clone.

Those seeking lower prices can shop elsewhere. Yes, that is marketing segmentation. And why should they have to license their technology to outside vendors? Lots of companies don't.

It's not like Apple is developing the chipsets, these are all off-the-shelf.

Ahahahahaha! *wipes tear from eye* You don't do hardware, do you? There's more to designing a product than slapping some chips down on a circuit board.

I mentioned Nokia and Sony Ericsson as examples of "business decisions" to not manufacture phones for the CDMA market, not as chipset designers. Apple is not the only one where you can't choose any carrier you want. BTW, Nokia exited the chip design business about a year ago.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Thanks. I try to stay balanced. Believe me, I used to love playing around inside the guts of PCs in college. Back when you had to resolve IRQ conflicts yourself, like a real man!! I'm just not interested in struggling to get things working anymore, so I was willing to pay more than bare minimum price and go back to Apple. And I enjoy it immensely. (I also cut down my family tech support calls down to ZERO when I gave my dad my old Mac )

 

[ReverendSlappy]

It's unreasonable because there are lots of other OSes that you can run on a regular PC. Yes, you can run them on a Mac as well, but you're paying more for the Mac because of what comes with OS X, not because the hardware is in some way worth it.

That's absolutely a double standard: Why is it okay that I can't buy a piece of hardware without paying for a piece of software (which is actually untrue, obviously) but I can't buy a piece of software without paying for a piece of hardware?

Anyone who buys a Mac to run Linux or BSD is wasting their money.

Says you.

Nope. The difference is that Windows has a monopolistic market share, and Mac OS X does not.

So now Microsoft should be punished because... people bought more copies of Windows?I thought this was America.

Monopoly power imposes requirements on the seller that do not normally apply. Microsoft demonstrably and provably broke those requirements.

Again, says you.

You did not have to pay Apple any money because you bought a computer with a different OS on it. Before the government stopped the practice, you did have to pay Microsoft to buy a machine with OS/2 installed on it. That kind of anti-competitive practice killed OS/2.

But -- again -- if I want to run OS X, Apple says I have to pay them -- and nobody else -- for hardware too. How is that not anti-competitive? It's the flip-side of the same coin, and while I don't have a beef with Apple, I do have a beef with the inability of some folks to just admit that they're being obviously and simply hypocritical.

 

[rpadula]

Yes, but that's boring at least, and probably eeeeeeeeeeevil somehow. Apple's kill switch is (looking for a Jobs Reality Distortion Field term... hmmm... let's go with) revolutionary.

Sleep deprive much?

The BB kill switch is not eeeeevil. It's there to prevent sensitive data from getting into the wrong hands. I believe a Citi(?) guy sold his used one on Ebay a few years back and it turned out to still have of have all sorts of confidential company info on it when it got to the buyer. Oops.

I don't think anybody drank enough Kool-Aid to call the app kill switch revolutionary. In fact, the online reaction was distrust because it was figured out by people nosing around inside the iPhone's software. Dem bloggers don't like things that "phone home" without their knowledge...

 

[ggroves]

But -- again -- if I want to run OS X, Apple says I have to pay them -- and nobody else -- for hardware too. How is that not anti-competitive? It's the flip-side of the same coin, and while I don't have a beef with Apple, I do have a beef with the inability of some folks to just admit that they're being obviously and simply hypocritical.

I agree with the Reverend. Apple is just as anti-competetive as Microsoft, they just don't get called out on it. The cult-like following creates this mindset.

Greg

 

[jmaynard]

That's absolutely a double standard: Why is it okay that I can't buy a piece of hardware without paying for a piece of software (which is actually untrue, obviously) but I can't buy a piece of software without paying for a piece of hardware?

Apple's not in the software business. Apple's in the hardware business. There are lots of OSes you can't buy without buying the appropriate hardware to run them on.

So now Microsoft should be punished because... people bought more copies of Windows?I thought this was America.

Microsoft broke the law to gain their monopoly position. This is not just my opinion; it's the ruling in at least two cases in federal court. They coerced manufacturers into paying them for a copy of Windows on every machine they sold, whether or not it was actually installed. This is demonstrated fact. It's also blatantly illegal (see "tying"). In so doing, they destroyed a viable (and, IMAO, superior) competitor.

Monopoly power imposes requirements on the seller that do not normally apply. Microsoft demonstrably and provably broke those requirements.

Again, says you.

No, says the Sherman Antitrust Act and the courts that have ruled that Microsoft broke it.

But -- again -- if I want to run OS X, Apple says I have to pay them -- and nobody else -- for hardware too. How is that not anti-competitive? It's the flip-side of the same coin, and while I don't have a beef with Apple, I do have a beef with the inability of some folks to just admit that they're being obviously and simply hypocritical.

For someone that claims to have no beef with Apple, you sure spend a lot of time bashing them.

It's not anti-competitive because it's common in the industry. Microsoft's illegal agreements with third-party computer manufacturers were not. That's the difference, and that's why there's no double standard.

 

[rpadula]

Edit: And for what it's worth, I'm fairly certain that the organizations I've worked for in the last 6 years or so haven't been stuck paying for a Windows Server license when buying new hardware... Hmm... Yeah, ever.

Whaaa? I thought we were talking about Joe Sixpack buying a computer here. You know damn well that bulk business licensing is different. (BTW, Apple also offers unlimited Leopard Server licenses).

That's absolutely a double standard: Why is it okay that I can't buy a piece of hardware without paying for a piece of software (which is actually untrue, obviously) but I can't buy a piece of software without paying for a piece of hardware?

So now Microsoft should be punished because... people bought more copies of Windows?I thought this was America.

Yes, this is America. And in America, to be found guilty of the anti-competitive practice of tying, one of the criteria is "the seller has sufficient market power in the market for the tying product," which Microsoft had and Apple does not.

I now invoke Obi Heed Kenobi as my only hope, for IANAL.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Apple's not in the software business. Apple's in the hardware business.

Then what's OS X? And how much are you paying for it every time you buy a Mac?

There are lots of OSes you can't buy without buying the appropriate hardware to run them on.

True, but none of them are aimed at the consumer market. To paraphrase: I've seen Solaris. I've worked with Solaris. OS X is no Solaris.

Microsoft broke the law to gain their monopoly position. This is not just my opinion; it's the ruling in at least two cases in federal court. They coerced manufacturers into paying them for a copy of Windows on every machine they sold, whether or not it was actually installed. This is demonstrated fact. It's also blatantly illegal (see "tying"). In so doing, they destroyed a viable (and, IMAO, superior) competitor.

OS/2 went the way of the dodo because it wasn't superior. Period: If it were "superior", no amount of fiddling would have sunk it.

For someone that claims to have no beef with Apple, you sure spend a lot of time bashing them.

I'm not "bashing" anybody. I'm holding Apple to the same (absolutely ridiculous) standard that you all hold Microsoft.

It's not anti-competitive because it's common in the industry. Microsoft's illegal agreements with third-party computer manufacturers were not. That's the difference, and that's why there's no double standard.

No, the only difference here is that instead of paying two different companies, you're forced to pay one (Apple) twice: Once for the hardware, and once for the OS. You just don't see it -- for the hypocritical reasons I've already explained.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Whaaa? I thought we were talking about Joe Sixpack buying a computer here. You know damn well that bulk business licensing is different. (BTW, Apple also offers unlimited Leopard Server licenses).

As a matter of fact, you're right: "Joe Sixpack" is exactly who we're talking about. With PCs, I can select from a virtually unending list of components, assemble them in a virtually unending list of configurations, run a virtually unending list of operating systems, and wind up with a virtually unending list of options that are as specific or as wide as I need for a given purpose. Apple people, on the other hand, are given a few drop-down lists to choose from, pay God knows how many times what the stuff is worth, and praise Apple for the opportunity to be spoon-fed whatever Apple tells them they need.

That, I think, is the difference: I run PCs because I'm a geek. I am not a user.

Yes, this is America. And in America, to be found guilty of the anti-competitive practice of tying, one of the criteria is "the seller has sufficient market power in the market for the tying product," which Microsoft had and Apple does not.

And my point is if you think Apple wouldn't do -- or hasn't already done (see DRM) -- the exact same things if it had "sufficient market power" to do so, you're kidding yourself.

 

[mantakos]

Ahahahahaha! *wipes tear from eye* You don't do hardware, do you?

Nice try, but your guesses about my resume didn't work out this time. I think I still have my old corporate-issue Ericsson logowear somewhere around here.

The incremental development costs of producing a CDMA iphone are far from prohibitive. Before getting hitched to AT&T, Apple was in talks with Verizon:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm

On other topics, of course Apple doesn't demonstrate the same monopolistic practices in the desktop world that Microsoft does. It's hard to be a good monopoly with 7% market share. Nobody cares that you can't buy Apple hardware without paying for Mac/OS, just like nobody cares whether Zune's DRM is proprietary.
-harry

 

[ReverendSlappy]

On other topics, of course Apple doesn't demonstrate the same monopolistic practices in the desktop world that Microsoft does. It's hard to be a good monopoly with 7% market share. Nobody cares that you can't buy Apple hardware without paying for Mac/OS, just like nobody cares whether Zune's DRM is proprietary.
-harry

Bingo.

 

[rpadula]

Nice try, but your guesses about my resume didn't work out this time. I think I still have my old corporate-issue Ericsson logowear somewhere around here.

In that case, I apologize. Are you sure you weren't management though? That comment sounded an awful lot like "all you have to do it throw a few chips together" late last night.

The incremental development costs of producing a CDMA iphone are far from prohibitive. Before getting hitched to AT&T, Apple was in talks with Verizon:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm

Yeah, I know. But wow, talk about a bad example, though. Verizon is pretty reviled for their clampdown of their phones' Bluetooth capabilities. Contact syncing only for you! Pay lots of money to get your grainy cellphone snapshots to your computer!

I'm still not understanding the hate I'm sensing here for Apple. Every company has to allocate resources and prioritize projects. I'm just going to finish by stating I enjoy my Mac and OS X much more than I do Windows on a PC.

Carry on...

 

[jmaynard]

Then what's OS X? And how much are you paying for it every time you buy a Mac?

It's part of the package. You buy a whole package from Apple. There's no demand for Macs without Mac OS X. There's plenty of demand for Windows-class PCs without Windows.

True, but none of them are aimed at the consumer market. To paraphrase: I've seen Solaris. I've worked with Solaris. OS X is no Solaris.

This has nothing to do with your argument. It's not just Solaris, either: HP/UX, AIX, i5/OS, the late lamented MPE/iX, the list goes on - in fact, just about every OS except Windows is in this category.

OS/2 went the way of the dodo because it wasn't superior. Period: If it were "superior", no amount of fiddling would have sunk it.

Wrong. OS/2 was sunk purely because of Microsoft's illegal monopoly tactics. The biggest problem with it was that it was a bear to install...but manufacturers were prohibited from preinstalling it because if they did, Microsoft would have tripled the price of Windows for them. This is all in the public record, not just my accusation.

OS/2 did things in 1995 without even having to think about them that Windows didn't achieve until 2000 at the very earliest. Format a floppy while doing something else? No problem! Run several programs at the same time, even if some of them are CPU hogs? Easy! Stable, secure, reliable? No contest!

In the end, Microsoft killed OS/2 by breaking the law. You ask me to trust them?

I'm not "bashing" anybody. I'm holding Apple to the same (absolutely ridiculous) standard that you all hold Microsoft.

Apple has not broken any antitrust laws. Microsoft has. That alone demands that they be held to a higher standard.

As a matter of fact, you're right: "Joe Sixpack" is exactly who we're talking about. With PCs, I can select from a virtually unending list of components, assemble them in a virtually unending list of configurations, run a virtually unending list of operating systems, and wind up with a virtually unending list of options that are as specific or as wide as I need for a given purpose. Apple people, on the other hand, are given a few drop-down lists to choose from, pay God knows how many times what the stuff is worth, and praise Apple for the opportunity to be spoon-fed whatever Apple tells them they need.

The result: Apple products just work. Windows systems do not; they have to be tinkered with and fiddled around with and occasionally slapped upside the head.

That, I think, is the difference: I run PCs because I'm a geek. I am not a user.

I'm both. I've got geek credentials I'll stack up against anyone's. My main Internet-facing server is a DEC Alphaserver 4000 running Gentoo Linux (for which I was a developer for a while; I did a lot of the work to make the Alpha port work under the current distribution generator). I'm the project manager of an open-source project that provides an emulator for IBM mainframe systems that runs on Linux, OS X, and, yes, Windows. I've been playing and working with computers for over 30 years, starting with one I built myself at 17 (and still own, and even run occasionally).

I run Apple systems for two reasons: 1) My desktop and primary laptop are tools. I need to be able to sit down in front of them and get real work done. I don't need to be fiddling around with them. I need to turn them on and know they'll run perfectly. I don't get that from Windows. I certainly don't get that from Linux. 2) OS X is Unix-based. That means that it's built on an OS with decades of solid, robust performance, with security designed in from the beginning, and with reliability a design goal, not an afterthought.

And my point is if you think Apple wouldn't do -- or hasn't already done (see DRM) -- the exact same things if it had "sufficient market power" to do so, you're kidding yourself.

The only reason Apple does DRM is because the record companies forced them to. If it weren't for the RIAA's insane adherence to anoutmoded business plan, the DRM wouldn't be there. Apple's on record as saying this.

The incremental development costs of producing a CDMA iphone are far from prohibitive. Before getting hitched to AT&T, Apple was in talks with Verizon:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm

True. What are the incremental costs of producing two different phones at the same time? Those aren't trivial.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

I'm still not understanding the hate I'm sensing here for Apple. Every company has to allocate resources and prioritize projects.

I know you weren't talking to me, but just for the record: I don't "hate" Apple. I don't even dislike them. My first job was at a company that ran Apple, I used a MacBook Pro almost exclusively at work a few years ago, I own two iPods (a Nano and a Touch)... So I don't "hate" them; paying them would be an odd thing to do if I did.

What I can't stand is the seemingly ceaseless bit of Kabuki theater in which Apple plays the hero and Microsoft/RIM/IBM/Whoever is the big-bad villain. It's a bunch of hooey, period, and that childish little narrative paired with the baseless hype that surrounds every Apple product announcment (or, heck, speculation thereof) is getting real tired. Fast.

I'm just going to finish by stating I enjoy my Mac and OS X much more than I do Windows on a PC.

Carry on...

Fair enough!

 

[mikea]

...OS/2 went the way of the dodo because it wasn't superior. Period: If it were "superior", no amount of fiddling would have sunk it.

OS/2 went the way of the dodo becuase Microsoft decided they didn't like sharing a single dollar with IBM so they cut them out, used what they had learned on OS/2 on IBM's dime, along with what they could ...ummmm... borrow from BSD and VMS and invented Windows and Windows NT....making sure along the way that somehow Microsoft applications knew of ways to run more reliably than other vendors. Then they packaged 4 business applications in an all-in-one "office" suite pricing it at less than a single application, temporarily...until most business had all of their documents locked in the Microsoft Office proprietary file formats, at which time the price jumped to more than what the 4 parts cost in the market in the first place, only now you couldn't just get the one(s) you needed.

Then....every 18 to 24 months you ship a new version of the Office apps with a new file format and every single time make it so the older versions can't open the files created with the new one, even when you supposedly save it in the old format...but give assurance taht you're working feverishly on the compatibility problem and you'll have a fix in 6 to 9 months but in the meantime why don't just buy the upgrade for the whole company????? and it works every time. Add in that you stop supporting the previous version and warn your customers proudly that the old version has massive security flaws that you're not fixing.... so why don't you just buy the upgrade for the whole company...and it works every time.

That way you get to sell the same software to the same customers again every two years. If other manufacturers worked way there would be consumer riots in the streets.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

It's part of the package. You buy a whole package from Apple.

Right... But you don't buy a "package" from Dell? Come on.

There's no demand for Macs without Mac OS X.

Comparatively, there's virtually no demand for Macs period.

But demand isn't the point: I can build a PC and run tons of OSs on it. Apple won't let me run OS X unless I pay their hardware tax.

There's plenty of demand for Windows-class PCs without Windows.

Really? Then explain Windows' market share. Oh, right, right, it's all because of the "monopoly" again. Convenient.

This has nothing to do with your argument. It's not just Solaris, either: HP/UX, AIX, i5/OS, the late lamented MPE/iX, the list goes on - in fact, just about every OS except Windows is in this category.

Bzzzt. Even Solaris runs on x86. "Just about every OS except Windows"? Mmmyeah, no. I could list about a dozen here that are not hardware dependent like OS X.

Wrong. OS/2 was sunk purely because of Microsoft's illegal monopoly tactics. The biggest problem with it was that it was a bear to install...but manufacturers were prohibited from preinstalling it because if they did, Microsoft would have tripled the price of Windows for them. This is all in the public record, not just my accusation.

Strike 2. OS/2 went TU because IBM couldn't get their act together. As an ex-IBMer, I can attest to that 100%.

OS/2 did things in 1995 without even having to think about them that Windows didn't achieve until 2000 at the very earliest. Format a floppy while doing something else? No problem! Run several programs at the same time, even if some of them are CPU hogs? Easy! Stable, secure, reliable? No contest!

It did those things, sure. But it couldn't, you know, uh, print on more than a few printers, for example. And it was supposed to compete with Windows 3.0? No contest indeed.

In the end, Microsoft killed OS/2 by breaking the law. You ask me to trust them?

No, IBM killed OS/2 by not figuring out soon enough that open hardware was the way to go and by not getting enough hardware support. Period. Blaming Microsoft for IBM's (many, many, many, many, many) shortcomings with OS/2 and Warp is just childish.

Apple has not broken any antitrust laws. Microsoft has. That alone demands that they be held to a higher standard.

Of course they haven't. It's tough to be a monopoly when hardly anybody buys what they're selling.

The result: Apple products just work. Windows systems do not; they have to be tinkered with and fiddled around with and occasionally slapped upside the head.

Mmmyeah, no. Every Windows system I have -- every one -- "just works". Every one, and I run 4 at home and, um, let's just say many more at work. If you're tinkering or fiddling, then you already screwed something up.

I'm both. I've got geek credentials I'll stack up against anyone's. My main Internet-facing server is a DEC Alphaserver 4000 running Gentoo Linux (for which I was a developer for a while; I did a lot of the work to make the Alpha port work under the current distribution generator). I'm the project manager of an open-source project that provides an emulator for IBM mainframe systems that runs on Linux, OS X, and, yes, Windows. I've been playing and working with computers for over 30 years, starting with one I built myself at 17 (and still own, and even run occasionally).

I run Apple systems for two reasons: 1) My desktop and primary laptop are tools. I need to be able to sit down in front of them and get real work done. I don't need to be fiddling around with them. I need to turn them on and know they'll run perfectly. I don't get that from Windows.

If you don't get that from Windows, then like I said above, you are doing something wrong. Not Microsoft. I get that every time and have gotten that every time. And it's not hard.

And again: The "desktop as tool" idea is exactly what I'm talking about. In that instance, you're being a user. Nothing more.

I certainly don't get that from Linux.

True... I'd like very much for a real Linux option to emerge. It just hasn't happened yet.

2) OS X is Unix-based. That means that it's built on an OS with decades of solid, robust performance, with security designed in from the beginning, and with reliability a design goal, not an afterthought.

If you think those aren't design goals of other OSs -- Windows included -- then I'd say you're dramatically mistaken. Dramatically.

The only reason Apple does DRM is because the record companies forced them to. If it weren't for the RIAA's insane adherence to anoutmoded business plan, the DRM wouldn't be there. Apple's on record as saying this.

So how does Rhapsody do it, then? You don't think Apple's DRM is the only variety out there, do you? Why do they lock consumers into their platform? I thought that's "anti-competitive".

 

[ReverendSlappy]

OS/2 went the way of the dodo becuase Microsoft decided they didn't like sharing a single dollar with IBM so they cut them out, used what they had learned on OS/2 on IBM's dime, along with what they could ...ummmm... borrow from BSD and VMS and invented Windows and Windows NT....making sure along the way that somehow Microsoft applications knew of ways to run more reliably than other vendors. Then they packaged 4 business applications in an all-in-one "office" suite pricing it at less than a single application, temporarily...until most business had all of their documents locked in the Microsoft Office proprietary file formats, at which time the price jumped to more than what the 4 parts cost in the market in the first place, only now you couldn't just get the one(s) you needed.

Then....every 18 to 24 months you ship a new version of the Office apps with a new file format and every single time make it so the older versions can't open the files created with the new one, even when you supposedly save it in the old format...but give assurance taht you're working feverishly on the compatibility problem and you'll have a fix in 6 to 9 months but in the meantime why don't just buy the upgrade for the whole company????? and it works every time. Add in that you stop supporting the previous version and warn your customers proudly that the old version has massive security flaws that you're not fixing.... so why don't you just buy the upgrade for the whole company...and it works every time.

That way you get to sell the same software to the same customers again every two years. If other manufacturers worked way there would be consumer riots in the streets.

OS/2 went bye-bye because Microsoft made a better product. Period. IBM dropped the ball with hardware support, they couldn't make up their mind about open architecture, and refused to cooperate with OEMs -- who, by the way, were looking to partner with an OS developer. These are all IBM's shortcomings and failures that everybody ignores. Everybody always points to Microsoft bundling Windows with new PCs as why OS/2 died and forgets the fact that for virtually all consumers at the time, Windows was good and OS/2 sucked.

 

[mantakos]

Apple has made it very clear what few things they will not approve...

Well, quoting from the developer license:

"You understand and agree that Apple may, in its sole discretion ... reject Your Application for distribution for any reason"
​

Can't get much clearer than that.
-harry

 

[SkyHog]

Well, when Apple decided to start using the Intel chipset, people were excited to finally be able to run both Windows and OSX.

Where can I buy a Mac with just Windows, and not OSX?

There's a demand....that's why the Mac changed.....

My point isn't that "Well Apple does it, so can Microsoft." My point is that Apple is not the savior of all things computer, and they actually do the same shifty practices that Microsoft does. Microsoft just doesn't have the fanboys to defend every move it makes.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

My point isn't that "Well Apple does it, so can Microsoft." My point is that Apple is not the savior of all things computer, and they actually do the same shifty practices that Microsoft does. Microsoft just doesn't have the fanboys to defend every move it makes.

That's exactly it: When one company paints themselves as David and all the others as Goliath, they're doing it on purpose. They know nobody roots for Goliath.

But I think it's clear (based on market share, for example) that most people just don't buy the whole "good vs. evil" narrative. And for good reason: It's fiction... a type of sales pitch more befitting a political campaign or a preacher than a technology company.

 

[Bob Noel]

You are grossly oversimplying the microsoft vs apple "contest".... you have
totally ignored marketing and pricing as forces in achieving market share.
It appears that you think that microsoft has the marketshare simply because
their products are superior.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

You are grossly oversimplying the microsoft vs apple "contest".... you have
totally ignored marketing and pricing as forces in achieving market share.
It appears that you think that microsoft has the marketshare simply because
their products are superior.

A product's "superiority" is based on all those things, and is specific to the desired use. For example, by many purely technical measures, Oracle is superior to SQL Server. But a lot of those measures may not matter to me, and Oracle is more expensive. So in that case, SQL Server may be the "superior" product in that it's more right for the solution I need. Same goes for Windows vs. OS X vs. Fedora Core vs. AIX vs. whatever.

Marketing matters too, sure, but I think it's hard to argue that Apple has done a poorer job of that than Microsoft or anyone else.

 

[mikea]

OS/2 went bye-bye because Microsoft made a better product. Period. IBM dropped the ball with hardware support, they couldn't make up their mind about open architecture, and refused to cooperate with OEMs -- who, by the way, were looking to partner with an OS developer. These are all IBM's shortcomings and failures that everybody ignores. Everybody always points to Microsoft bundling Windows with new PCs as why OS/2 died and forgets the fact that for virtually all consumers at the time, Windows was good and OS/2 sucked.

Oh. Yeah. Windows up version 3.1 would actually run for almost an hour if you had the same Compaq 386 PC they wrote it on, for anything else you usually never got more than 4 mouse clicks into an application before it blowed up real good.

I personally dropped like $2500 on an early Windows backup program that came with Windows 2.0 runtime and never, never, never, ever worked to do a complete backup. In a few years they finally got a version they should have shipped. I guess I didn't need to do a backup for those years, much less get something useful for my $2500.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Oh. Yeah. Windows up version 3.1 would actually run for almost an hour if you had the same Compaq 386 PC they wrote it on, for anything else you usually never got more than 4 mouse clicks into an application before it blowed up real good.

I personally dropped like $2500 on an early Windows backup program that came with Windows 2.0 runtime and never, never, never, ever worked to do a complete backup. In a few years they finally got a version they should have shipped. I guess I didn't need to do a backup for those years, much less get something useful for my $2500.

Fair enough, and don't get me wrong: I ain't claiming that 3.0 or 3.1 was the bee's knees. But what I am saying is that while Microsoft was helping in the development of device drivers for tons of different pieces of hardware out there, IBM was sitting there with their fingers in their noses, trying to figure out how to use OS/2 to lock consumers into IBM hardware and whether or not they wanted to go from 286 and 16-bit protected mode to 386 and 32 bit (which they didn't until OS/2 2.0 which was, what, four years later). That turned out to be a really bad idea for IBM at that time.

IBM's strategic miscalculation and Microsoft's open architecture gambit had much more to do with OS/2's demise than did anything even bordering on anti-competitive (if there even was anything anti-competitive at that time... and I don't believe there was). That's my only point: This "Microsoft killed OS/2 by being monopolistic" line is hooey. Microsoft killed OS/2 by employing a better strategy and building a better (not awesome... better) product than IBM did. Period.

 

[jmaynard]

Fair enough, and don't get me wrong: I ain't claiming that 3.0 or 3.1 was the bee's knees. But what I am saying is that while Microsoft was helping in the development of device drivers for tons of different pieces of hardware out there, IBM was sitting there with their fingers in their noses, trying to figure out how to use OS/2 to lock consumers into IBM hardware and whether or not they wanted to go from 286 and 16-bit protected mode to 386 and 32 bit (which they didn't until OS/2 2.0 which was, what, four years later). That turned out to be a really bad idea for IBM at that time.

OS/2 2.0 was out before Windows 3.1. By that time, IBM had made all of the right decisions, and 2.0 and later versions were quite good, reliable, secure, and viable. Yeah, OS/2 1.x sucked - but IBM had replaced it before the time you're talking about.

The problem was that manufacturers were falling all over themselves to write Windows device drivers, but wouldn't do the same for OS/2 unless IBM paid them. This was a direct result of Windows being preinstalled.

Microsoft killed OS/2 by employing a better strategy and building a better (not awesome... better) product than IBM did. Period.

Horse exhaust. OS/2 2.0 and later was infinitely better than Windows versions before Win2K. I ran OS/2 because I couldn't get Windows to do what I thought it should: run more than one thing at a time without either locking up or crashing.

 

[jmaynard]

I personally dropped like $2500 on an early Windows backup program that came with Windows 2.0 runtime and never, never, never, ever worked to do a complete backup. In a few years they finally got a version they should have shipped. I guess I didn't need to do a backup for those years, much less get something useful for my $2500.

The reason I switched to the Mac was that it did something simply and painlessly that I'd been trying for years to do under Windows. I'm a fan of the cartoon series Animaniacs. I've got every episode on VHS. I wanted to get them into some digital format so I wouldn't wear out the tapes. I tried three separate times to do the job with hardware on Windows. Nothing I tried worked properly, or reliably. I wasn't doing it on the cheap, either: I built up two separate high-end PCs in the process of trying it, and spent a few thousand bucks on hardware and software.

At a meeting one day, I was shown a DVD that someone had created. I asked him how, and he told me he'd done it on his Mac. After further discussion, I went out and bought one of the first 15-inch iMacs (the one that looks like a lamp; you can see it in the pictures on the City Pages slideshow), a Firewire video capture device, Final Cut Pro, and DVD Studio Pro. I plugged it all in, and it worked the very first time. It kept working, too, all the way through the project. No hassle, no fiddling, no tweaking, just plug and play. I've NEVER had that experience with anything on Windows. It quickly displaced the Windows 2000 workstation on my desktop, and in not too much longer, displaced the SGI Indigo2 that sat next to it.

That's why people buy Macs: They want something that will Just Work.

 

[jmaynard]

But I think it's clear (based on market share, for example) that most people just don't buy the whole "good vs. evil" narrative. And for good reason: It's fiction... a type of sales pitch more befitting a political campaign or a preacher than a technology company.

So, I guess you advocate letting a convicted bank robber work as a teller at your bank? That's the analogous situation: Microsoft is a convicted illegal monopolist, and just like there are jobs a thief will never again be trusted to hold, so, too, there are some things a convicted monopolist should never again be trusted to do.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

OS/2 2.0 was out before Windows 3.1. By that time, IBM had made all of the right decisions, and 2.0 and later versions were quite good, reliable, secure, and viable. Yeah, OS/2 1.x sucked - but IBM had replaced it before the time you're talking about.

But by that point, Microsoft had already shipped tens of thousands of copies of 3.0. The die had already been cast; IBM missed the boat.

The problem was that manufacturers were falling all over themselves to write Windows device drivers, but wouldn't do the same for OS/2 unless IBM paid them. This was a direct result of Windows being preinstalled.

Baloney. IBM didn't want other manufacturers involved at all. That was their (horrible) decision, not Microsoft's.

Horse exhaust. OS/2 2.0 and later was infinitely better than Windows versions before Win2K. I ran OS/2 because I couldn't get Windows to do what I thought it should: run more than one thing at a time without either locking up or crashing.

Bzzzt. The reality is Windows 386/2.1 (vintage 1988) was capable of multitasking DOS apps, while OS/2 wasn't able to do that until OS/2 2.0 -- four years later. So I think you're indulging in a bit of revisionist history: It was OS/2 that was in the "DOS box", not Windows. Sorry, but you've got it backwards.

And in any case, consumers at the time didn't care about how "superior" some small segments of the technology community (mistakenly) thought OS/2 was. They couldn't do what they wanted with it (like, you know, print), but they could with Windows. That OS/2 disappeared shouldn't surprise anybody, and it certainly didn't have anything to do with any impropriety on Microsoft's part.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

That's why people buy Macs: They want something that will Just Work.

And those people are called "users".

 

[ReverendSlappy]

So, I guess you advocate letting a convicted bank robber work as a teller at your bank? That's the analogous situation: Microsoft is a convicted illegal monopolist, and just like there are jobs a thief will never again be trusted to hold, so, too, there are some things a convicted monopolist should never again be trusted to do.

Mmmyeah, no that analogy doesn't even come close to working.

 

[rpadula]

And those people are called "users".

You keep bringing this up. I'm curious what your definition and profile of a non-user is...

 

[ReverendSlappy]

You keep bringing this up. I'm curious what your definition and profile of a non-user is...

It's the same as the difference between somebody who takes their car to the dealership for an oil change and and those who do it themselves.

(I was tempted to call it the difference between somebody who flies a Cessna and homebuilder, but that analogy isn't quite right.)

 

[rpadula]

It's the same as the difference between somebody who takes their car to the dealership for an oil change and and those who do it themselves.

(I was tempted to call it the difference between somebody who flies a Cessna and homebuilder, but that analogy isn't quite right.)

More technical details and examples, please. I can handle it.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

More technical details and examples, please. I can handle it.

Like Jay said above: Mac users want to buy something, plug it in, turn it on, and "use" it... Boom-done. To be fair, of course so do many Windows users.

But wider PC users like myself don't do that. I figure out what I want to do with a given machine, spec out the components from case and power supply to mobo to memory all the way up, build it, audition a few OSes and pick one, then mix and match software until I've got what I want. Different story.

The wider view is you can't do that with a Mac. You can do it with a PC.

 

[dmccormack]

Holy cow this is an old, old argument...

I've been on all three sides professionally and avocationally -- Mac, Windows/PC, Linux/Unix.

The Us vs Them marketing ploy has been around a long, long time (Dr Pepper, Avis, 7Up, etc).

Shocker.

The Macintosh was certainly revolutionary when it first appeared -- a fully integrated system that used WYSIWG and a Point and Click interface. At the same time "IBM PC" users were struggling with Formatting codes (Remember Enable?).

Yet PCs were sold as open systems, extensible with hardware or code. Businesses wanted very specific functions, and a huge cottage industry base of software developers was willing and able to develop custom code, while many Mom and Pop computer shops could tailor the hardware package to the buyer.

Apples sold their hardware and software at "Boutiques," at premium prices.

Apple continued to focus on the education market, while MS worked the business and government markets.

Another differentiator that helped tip the balance of PC over Mac platforms was the number of available games. Game developers had full access to the OS, while Mac game developers were saddled with the Apple Developer Guidelines.

I agree that the "We're superior because we bought macs" campaign is tiresome. I'm impressed with the Mac Air, some of the interface and apps, but can't say the difference sin User Experience are as great as they were in 1986 through 1995.

 

[mikea]

...
That's why people buy Macs: They want something that will Just Work.

Zactly. The bottom line wisdom from the Tron Guy.

I decided the same. I figure Microsoft owes me about 3-4 months of my lifetime spent rebooting, hacking and waiting for POST-boot, mostly at work but plenty for my personal systems. I'm not giving any more of my remaining lifetime.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

OS/2 went the way of the dodo because it wasn't superior. Period: If it were "superior", no amount of fiddling would have sunk it.

OS/2 crapped out because IBM thought MS was working with them on it, while they were in reality secretly developing windows on the side, and only developed software for windows, and... Oh, by the way, we're introducing windows, sorry 'bout ya, IBM!

No, the only difference here is that instead of paying two different companies, you're forced to pay one (Apple) twice: Once for the hardware, and once for the OS. You just don't see it -- for the hypocritical reasons I've already explained.

blah blah. Every system I've bought since 1999, as soon as I'm done configuring it on apple.com, I go to dell.com and configure a system as close to the same as I possibly can. Apple has been slightly cheaper (usually $50-$100) every time. I don't buy the "Macs are expensive" thing at all. Yes, part of the purchase price of my Mac goes to R&D on Mac OS X. So?

The incremental development costs of producing a CDMA iphone are far from prohibitive. Before getting hitched to AT&T, Apple was in talks with Verizon:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm

And Verizon gave their normal party line, which basically is that they don't actually like their users to have all the features the phone is capable of because they want to nickel and dime them. It's exactly why I left Verizon in the first place (switched to a Sony Ericsson on AT&T).

Apple continued to focus on the education market, while MS worked the business and government markets.

Another differentiator that helped tip the balance of PC over Mac platforms was the number of available games. Game developers had full access to the OS, while Mac game developers were saddled with the Apple Developer Guidelines.

Actually, Apple wanted very much for the Mac to be taken seriously as a business machine. So much, that they did everything they could to stifle game development the first few years. (Look at how well THAT worked out. ) The first Mac game was "Through the Looking Glass," by Apple's Steve Capps.

Unfortunately, Apple never put the promised marketing effort into Alice. They were in a quandary because the market didn't understand the graphical user interface as a productivity enhancement yet; graphics meant games, so the Mac had to live down an initial reputation as being unsuitable for business tasks. Apple didn't exactly want to promote a game for the Mac at the time, no matter how sensational, so Alice never quite reached as wide an audience as it deserved.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

OS/2 crapped out because IBM thought MS was working with them on it, while they were in reality secretly developing windows on the side, and only developed software for windows, and... Oh, by the way, we're introducing windows, sorry 'bout ya, IBM!

They weren't "secretly" developing Windows. They were already selling it when they partnered with IBM in OS/2. In that way, IBM was like all the other manufacturers who approached Microsoft back then: They wanted an operating system to put on their hardware. The only difference was that IBM also wanted to lock people in to their hardware. That was the flawed thinking, and once Windows took off and OS/2 didn't, dropping it was a no-brainer and the right decision for Microsoft. It was IBM's poor strategy that led to that... too bad for them.

Yes, part of the purchase price of my Mac goes to R&D on Mac OS X. So?

So the point is if I buy an Apple and want to run, say, Ubuntu on it, I can't avoid the "OS X tax". And if I want to run OS X, I can't avoid the "Apple hardware tax".

Are the above points a little senseless? Yeah, a little. But these are the same planks that routinely trotted out to senselessly slam Microsoft. Turnabout is fair play.

 

[t0r0nad0]

For the love of God, why can't we ever have a mac/iPod/iPhone thread on this board that doesn't devolve into a 4-plus page ****ing match between mac, windows, and Linux? Look, they're all good in their own way, and different people have different preferences. There, I just summed up eight pages of posts from two threads in one post. Now can we just agree to disagree and move on to something else?

 

[jmaynard]

For the love of God, why can't we ever have a mac/iPod/iPhone thread on this board that doesn't devolve into a 4-plus page ****ing match between mac, windows, and Linux? Look, they're all good in their own way, and different people have different preferences. There, I just summed up eight pages of posts from two threads in one post. Now can we just agree to disagree and move on to something else?

Well, when someone tells me I'm an irrational fanboy because I act based on my experiences, I tend to get a bit offended.

 

[ScottM]

Well, when someone tells me I'm an irrational fanboy because I act based on my experiences, I tend to get a bit offended.

I thought you were a cager