🚀 go-pugleaf

My apologies to everyone for adding yet another $0.02 to this subject.

In article <736@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
> Reason I'm adding my 2 cents worth - is that at least with myself,
> Apple is doing their overall reputation no good at all with this sort
> of conduct - using the courts to surpress competition from makers that
> may be less well-heeled, but turn out a product that is equal to or
> better than the original in terms of performance, and at a lower
> price.  It appears to me that Apple would rather not have others
> engage in a free market, instead they want to keep a lock on the
> market for themselves.  This would mean they have to spend less on
> R&D, be less concerned about product improvements, customer support,
> the whole ball of wax.  And they are then free to charge whatever they
> want, since there would be no similar products available for less
> money.

     I disagree with the definition of free market implied above:
nothing says your implementation of an idea is a free-for-all. In
the pharmaceuticals industry, a company retains the right to
monopolize a drug they developed for a number of years. And this is
potentially life-and-death stuff, not just a computer system among
many others on the market. I don't see any reason why Apple has to
relinquish its "trade tricks" or its hard earned position to "foster a
free market" (as it is defined above) when IBM would have sold its
employees by the pound to keep clone makers out of the market (anyone
saying otherwise should consider becoming an IBM evangelist!). I don't
see why Apple should continue R&D on the Macintosh OS to support other
hardware makers either! It is inevitable in a function-oriented market
like the microcomputer's that a clone maker will ALWAYS be able to
beat the price of the "original" and gouge into its market share: in
the macintoshe's case, it's even more true, I think, because the
macintosh IS its software, its user interface guidelines, its graphics
orientation and its desktop metaphore. The hardware itself is pretty
doggone bland, and serves only as a vehicle for the OS Apple makes!

I have a feeling that if Apple lets go of their look and feel bit,
they will become a software company. Their hardware is just NOT going
to compete with the clonemakers' cheapies, and they could end up
selling just the OS! I don't condone their attitude, but everyone has
his paranoia about viability, and is entitled to it.

 I do agree, obviously, that Apple's hardware is underpowered and
overpriced.  They should have had some custom I/O circuits and
coprocessors, etc...  But overall, their's is the best SYSTEM, and for
my personal use the DOS world can keep even the weitek coprocessor.

> I really wonder if the founders of Apple would have done so well, if
> the market climate when they started up was like the climate Apple is
> now creating?

Aie Aieaieaieaieaie (Phew). I think I have news for the author of the
above: THE CLIMATE WAS LIKE THAT WHEN APPLE STARTED the macintosh. IT
WAS EVEN WORSE from their point of view, because even the public was
skeptical, and MIS personnel wouldn't give the mac the time of day.
I'd like it to be proven that IBM did not try to retain control of the
DOS-PC market, if it were true!  An undeniable fact remains: Apple
opened the market wide for graphical user interfaces. But more about
their "effect on the climate" later.

> As for myself, I plan to (and have) avoided Apple products like the
> plague, and will continue to do so.

That is your right, it's laudable to make a stand. I myself could fill
a page with companies that I boycott, starting with Exxon: 't was my
favorite fuel :-( !

>  I also express my feelings to
>any clients - indicating that while the Apple products are no doubt
>well built, and of good quality, I think supporting a company with
>their attitude and way of doing business goes counter to everyone's
>best interests in the long run.

First off, I disagree that Apple's attitude is detrimental to its
clients' interests in the long run, but that's quick sand, so I'll
drop it, only pointing out that although their OS is not as nifty as
unix may be, they were the first microcomputer manufacturer to TRY to
tackle software obsolesence (Look at the IBM world and tell me if you
can switch safely from EGA to VGA... or to DOS 4.0 with applications
that don't support EMS!!!). I think they were first to inject long
term vision into this market (and they made mistakes that are
obvious!). They also proved to EVERYONE that computers ARE software,
that not-so-advanced hardware can still sell like hotcakes provided
you build it into a balanced system, and that computer makers had
better bend over backwards to make the user's life easier or perish.
What's so bad about this effect? I'd like to see anyone
"who-didn't-get-fired-because-he-recommended-IBM" look his clients
stuck-with-a-PC-XT-that-was-orphaned-by-its-parent-company in the eye
and then throw the first rock at Apple!!! (I am not denying anyone
that pleasure, though.)

 I am really disappointed in Apple's new big-corporation attitude
toward the attic hacker, as my only other post attests to it, but I
think everyone in the PC business wants to take the easy way. There is
nothing wrong or insurmountable ( just unbelievable risk :-)! ) about
making a machine with a graphical user interface, a mouse device and a
well rounded user-friendly look and feel, witness NeXT, but why does
everyone have to copy the Macintosh or rely on its ROMs and OS? You
want to sell PCs, make your own. That's what Apple did and they
lowered everone else's risk by establishing a precedent. Or is it that
Steve Jobs has three balls and the rest of humanity has two?

>  In short, I think Apple is doing a
>great job of earning themselves a LOUSY reputation.  And postings
>like the recent legal threat only supports that reputation.

I find it difficult for an individual to hypothesize about reputation,
which is a matter of public concensus, when 1) he is biased (which is
normal for all of us), 2) he seems to be working actively to create
that bad reputation, which is to say prophesizing and working to
fulfill the prophesy. If you were a lawyer called upon to defend Jack
the Ripper, you'd do your best to obtain his freedom, if that were his
constitutional right. A professional should step beyond personal
qualms to serve his CLIENTS best. I know I've had to recommend DOS
systems to people when I personally abhorre them, because if the
client wants just one thing and an IBM does it better, then that's it!
(All other requirements being taken into consideration of course).

>WISDOM: "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"
If that's wisdom, maybe Edwin Meese should be made Pope after all!

---------------End of Reply------------------------

As for the "legal threats", I chose not to take them personally, which
is what every sane individual should do, but rather as an accurate
expression of what Apple would to your "legal" body below the belt
line if they caught you at it. I have this to add: a free market is
not a picnic, and one should not personalize corporations too much
then start emotionally hating them.

I'd much rather see Apple go extinct than leave the world with another
sclerotic EISA architecture without innovation that gets canonized for
posterity, simply because enough HARDWARE manufacturers have too much
invested in it.

Hope everyone doesn't hate my guts by now.

A. Assaad
Grad. Student