sysop@pro-generic.cts.com (Matthew Montano) (05/18/89)
pnet01!crash!cs.ucla.edu!lange mentioned something to the effect: > Why does Apple insist on reinventing the wheel. Adobe can't be charging > *THAT* much for postscript. There is no doubt about it that Apple can afford (physically) to purchase the licenses for postscript and place them in the Mac //'s. Mind you the price of those units would be about $500 more. I think Adobe makes about $800 per laser printer sold with postscript, thats a LOT.. no wonder the founders of Adobe are weathy and rightfully so for their intelligent marketing. But really, why would Apple let a piece of the proprietry setup be controlled by a third party. Not one piece of the Apple // and Macintosh setup (system software, hardware etc.) is owned or copyrighted by another company. Running the entire ship means you control the entire ship, it's yours to do as you feel. IBM is severly constricted by Microsoft and their control over MS-DOS. NeXT pays many dollars to use postscript, mind you they have paid for Mach and other pieces of design or hardware. Apple would like to maintain control over their own products, to guide them into the future how they feel is right, whether you agree with this or not.. it WORKS. IBM and the clone market has really become a mess of incompatible products with a lack of true direction and control. Letting Adobe control a piece of the guarded system software/hardware design of an Apple machine would be deadly to the market. Matthew Montano - A TRUE apple guru, who will never give up his Apple //. ============================================================================== ProLine: sysop@pro-generic |DDN :crash!pnet01!pro-generic!sysop InterNet:sysop@pro-generic.cts.com|UUCP: hplabs!crash!pnet01!pro-generic!root ==============================================================================
nazgul@obsolete.UUCP (Kee Hinckley) (05/20/89)
In-Reply-To: info-apple@trout.nosc.mil, Thu, 18 May 89 11:13:42 EDT
controlled by a third party. Not one piece of the Apple // and Macintosh setup
(system software, hardware etc.) is owned or copyrighted by another company.
On the contrary. One piece is, and Apple will never let it happen
again. The Basic interpreter in the Apple ][ is licensed from
Microsoft. Ever wonder why Apple never put out a Basic for the
Mac? The rumour mill says that they were going to, and that in
fact the program does exist, but it would have competed with Microsoft
Basic on the Mac, and Microsoft threatened to pull the AppleSoft
license if they released.
Mind you this is all rumour, and one shouldn't believe what you
hear. But that's what it said in the article I read. And if
true that would certainly explain Apple's reluctance to let it
happen again.
-kee
Home: obsolete!nazgul@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
Work: nazgul@apollo.com
BBS: obsolete!pro-angmar!nazgul@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
or
nazgul@pro-angmar.cts.com (somewhat slower though)
617/641-3722 (300/1200/2400)
-------SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (05/21/89)
> But really, why would Apple let a piece of the proprietry setup be >controlled by a third party. Not one piece of the Apple // and Macintosh setup >(system software, hardware etc.) is owned or copyrighted by another company. On the other hand, while they own less than 50%, I believe Apple is Adobe's largest single stockholder. Apple probably owns enough to effectively exercise control if a proxy fight developed (John D. Rockefeller won a famous proxy fight involving Standard Oil while owning but 11% of the shares himself, or through his family). The situation is far from the same as the dispute with Bill Gates (who DOES own a controlling interest in Microsoft) over Mac Basic. IF Microsoft had attempted to void the license for Applesoft, they probably would have been vulnerable to an anti-trust complaint (Robinson-Patman is a REAL minefield :-) but the issue would have taken YEARS and LOTS of money to settle (easier just to let Microsoft have the market for language software). Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90] Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] (203) 486-5246 [FAX] (203) 486-2489 [PHONE] 41 49N 72 15W [ICBM] -+- I don't speak for my employer, though I frequently wish that I could (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (05/24/89)
In article <8905200427.AA23433@obsolete.UUCP> nazgul@obsolete.UUCP (Kee Hinckley) writes: >Basic on the Mac, and Microsoft threatened to pull the AppleSoft >license if they released. If Apple really was so stupid as to have signed a contract that gave the other side the option of annuling the agreement at their whim, then they deserve to suffer.
HHWON00@RICE.BITNET (05/24/89)
Actually, Apple did release a Basic for the Mac, cleverly named MacBASIC, but Microsoft also released their MBASIC for the computer also (almost the same time). The Microsoft BASIC more accepted than MacBASIC because, well, the name. A lot of people (at Apple, I hear) were VERY upset because of this. -Henry