tm2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Terence David Murphy) (05/01/88)
In fear of contributing to the childish discussion that has been going on with the list of things IBM did before everyone else, I have a few things to say: a) an analogy. Recently Isuzu has been advertising themselves as the first carmakers of Japan. Does this mean that Isuzu is better than all the other Japanese cars? Even though I don't have much experience with Isuzus, I will point out that most car magazines and Consumer Reports have never praised Isuzus too highly as compared to the rest of the Japanese cars. Hopefully you can see how this analogy applies to these lists of things that IBM did before other manufacturers. b) a few facts about capitalism. In this capatilistic society that we live in (or most of us, since there are international posters on this board), history never means anything. What matters is what exists NOW. (the future doesn't seem to mean much either, because it tends to be a bunch of promises (vaporware) and you have no guarantee of what it will really be like.) So with various people in support of IBM continuing to post these lists, these people are emphasizing the past of IBM (something that doesn't really matter) when they should be talking about IBM today (I'm making it sound like there's been hundreds of these when I've only seen three but things like this tend to stand out in my mind because of their similarity to posts on local Apple II and other bulletin boards that always turn into very unproductive arguments). This is leading me to conclude that you have nothing to say about the benefits of IBMs today except for "sticking with Big Blue." Hardly sounds like a reason to buy a computer to me. And when you're writing your responses to this bulletin, I urge you to think them through calmly because I love a well thought out argument and hate childish rampages that these previous bulletins I'm talking about are most likely going to start. c) a little something to calm you down again. I see Apple doing something very similar to this argument of "we did it first" with their lawsuits against Microsoft and HP. I have yet to meet (or hear from) a "computer consumer" that agrees with these lawsuits. I wish Apple would just sit down and realize that there is always going to be competition out there and the way to win isn't by sueing them but by doing it better than them. So, if you're listening Apple, consider this a challenge to make "easy to use" computers better than everyone else. That's all it takes to compete against these other companies, not lawsuits. If you agree with me, I urge you to sit down and write a letter to Apple and send it to as many places in Apple as you can find (maybe somebody might actually read it). Also, POST THE LETTER HERE! I figure if we can't get them to realize how silly they've been getting lately directly, then maybe we can do it indirectly with active arguments here that someone at Apple will be forced to notice eventually. Along the lines of this idea, I would like to just mention a number of things that I feel are damaging to Apple's future: 1) These lawsuits. see above 2) a low end computer is needed for competition with IBM clones. The other thing consumers look at besides the computer that exists today is the bottom line: price. 3) how about printer drivers and cables for other serial printers? Why force us into buying Apple products, I personally think they're good enough to have a market by themselves (the Imagewriter // is one of the best 9-pin printers I've ever used) and shouldn't have a prefabricated market from all the Macintosh owners. 4) the current policy with charging for replacement fans for the SE. Hopefully, if I can get onto this board when I go home, you'll be seeing a proposal to Apple up here trying to explain how a policy like this can damage their future. 5) dealer knowledge. I've yet to find a knowledgable Apple dealer, and would love it if they started a dealer education program. I know my roommate bought an Atari 800 over an Apple II about 7 years ago on this basis, and I'm sure it still affects sales today. The list goes on and on, so fill in the details and tell Apple. They need to become a consumer-oriented company if they want to make "the computer for the rest of us" and they're ignoring us, which will hurt them in the long run. So don't be shy. Since I ended this bulletin in the fashion that I did, I would like to point out that IBM has more problems than Apple does along these lines, and if you support IBM and have an attitude like my attitude towards Apple (i.e. I would really like to see them succeed but they shouldn't do it like this), then do the same thing (i.e. tell them). But it might be more effective if you posted the letters to an IBM board if they're based around IBMs. Terence Murphy tm2f+@andrew.cmu.edu Disclaimer: disclaimers are only for people with money.
Eric_Shockwave-Rider_Larson@cup.portal.com (05/02/88)
Several writers have commented that the recent Apple lawsuit is somehow bad for the US microcomputer industry, and that IBM is somehow better than Apple because of it. Included were comments that Apple should compete by innovating, not by protecting what they have. I disagree with most of this. Apple has already contributed mightily to the microcomputer world through innovation, and continues through it's rapid improvement of the Macintosh user interface. Multifinder, Hypercard, the Script Manager, Resources, Desk Accessories, have all made the life of Mac users more comfortable and fun in very recent history. And there is no sign that the pace is slackening. What we do see is everybody trying to copy Apple, and rip-off what they have already done. My question is: Why shouldn't Apple derive the benefits of their innovation? Certainly the free cloning of such works cannot stimulate further innovative work, as it detracts from the economic benefits of such work. New product development is terribly risky. What company is going to fund R&D if they know that the results of their work will be stolen immediately? This is why we have intellectual property rights protected by law in the first place. It wasn't too long ago when the Wall Street mavens were criticizing Apple for not coming out with another clone, or when the company was in serious danger of folding completely. Where, pray tell, would the microcomputer world be today without Apple?? There is nothing preventing Microsoft from developing a new expression of the mouse/windows/icon paradigm first developed at SRI/PARC; nobody is claiming that Apple has the rights to those concepts, merely the expression that they implement in the Macintosh. To imply that the "look and feel" lawsuit threatens innovation is folly, except perhaps if Apple is to lose. THEN we will have death of innovation, for who will dare produce something new??? In particular I gag at the concept that IBM is somehow better for the US microcomputer industry than Apple. IBM is the company that specializes in Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, vertical selling, and use of its marketing power to supress innovation. By making an easily clonably open architecture machine it has helped by standardizing the market. But where is the innovation in the MS-DOS world? The only innovation in the MS-DOS world is the innovative ways that off-shore manufacturers are coming up with to cut hardware prices.
uh@bsiao.UUCP (Uul Haanstra) (05/02/88)
in article <IWSapMy00WE58a00-l@andrew.cmu.edu>, tm2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Terence David Murphy) says: > > In fear of contributing to the childish discussion that has been going on with > ... Fear not! You ARE contributing to the etc. PLEASE STOP! -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Uul Haanstra, Postbank N.V. Amsterdam ...!mcvax!bsiao!uh Pb 21009 1000 EX AMSTERDAM +31-20 584 3312
wilson@ji.Berkeley.EDU (James E. Wilson) (05/03/88)
In article <5003@cup.portal.com> Eric_Shockwave-Rider_Larson@cup.portal.com writes: >the Macintosh. To imply that the "look and feel" lawsuit >threatens innovation is folly, except perhaps if Apple is >to lose. THEN we will have death of innovation, for who will >dare produce something new??? Unfortunately, you did not think this through very far. Suppose Apple does win the suit. Then no one, except Apple, can ever write a windowing system. To do so would violate Apple's look and feel rights. The result is to make innovation illegal. This is much worse than the alternative. You may object that this is not Apple's goal, that Apple is only trying to stop blatant copies of their work. Nonetheless, it is a very dangerous precedent to establish. Apple's law firm (Brown and Bain) have participated in many "look and feel" cases in the past, and has already established some dangerous precedents. And what if Apple does lose? Their rights to the Macintosh system are protected by copyright law. No one can legally copy it. However, someone else can try to build a better mouse trap, safe in the knowledge that their right to innovate, and improve, are protected by law also, even if the mouse trap "looks and feels" a little bit like the old one. Disclaimer: I own a MacII, and these opinions are mine. Jim Wilson "If it is only a game, then why keep score?" wilson@ji.Berkeley.EDU Worf - Star Trek: The Next Generation ucbvax!ucbji!wilson
bytebug@dhw68k.cts.com (Roger L. Long) (05/03/88)
In article <IWSapMy00WE58a00-l@andrew.cmu.edu> Terence David Murphy (tm2f) writes: > I have yet to meet (or hear from) a "computer consumer" that >agrees with these lawsuits. Well, you just have. I support Apple taking whatever action is necessary to protect what they feel are their rights. >Along the lines of this idea, I would like to just mention a number of things >that I feel are damaging to Apple's future: >1) These lawsuits. see above ...or perhaps it will turn out to protect Apple's future. >2) a low end computer is needed for competition with IBM clones. The other >thing consumers look at besides the computer that exists today is the bottom >line: price. Why? Whenever I select ANY product, one of the last things I look at is price. Quality and ease-of-use and how long it's going to last and whether it's going to be supported are far more important to me in shopping for VCRs, TVs, toasters, *and* computers. Take a look at HP calculators. Certainly their "low end" isn't anywhere close to quite a few of their competetors, but I felt that their HP-45 was a excellent calculator when I bought it 15 years ago. And it *still is* an excellent calculator. When the HP-16C came out about 6 years back, the TI Programmer I had been using quickly became a doorstop. Apple has no duty to satisfy a low-end customer. >3) how about printer drivers and cables for other serial printers? Why force >us into buying Apple products, I personally think they're good enough to have a >market by themselves (the Imagewriter // is one of the best 9-pin printers I've >ever used) and shouldn't have a prefabricated market from all the Macintosh >owners. Why? Apple makes computer and computer peripheral products. It only makes sense for them to support their own products. If a peripheral manufacturer wants people to hook their printer to a Macintosh, they are fully capable of marketing the necessary software and cables to do that. And several people do just that! You want to hook an HP LaserJet to a Mac? The software exists. You don't want to buy Apple's modem? Great, go buy someone else's. You don't like Apple's mechanical mouse? Great, someone makes an optical mouse. Just because Apple doesn't do it is no reason to badmouth Apple. Apple is *NOT* forcing you to buy an Imagewriter. Can you say "free enterprise?" >4) the current policy with charging for replacement fans for the SE. >Hopefully, if I can get onto this board when I go home, you'll be seeing a >proposal to Apple up here trying to explain how a policy like this can damage >their future. You know, I bought a car a few years back. Undoubtedly, there have been some changes made to that car model in the past couple years. What do you think the dealer is going to tell me if I take my car in and tell him I want the better radio put into my car at no cost? >5) dealer knowledge. I've yet to find a knowledgable Apple dealer, and would >love it if they started a dealer education program. I know my roommate bought >an Atari 800 over an Apple II about 7 years ago on this basis, and I'm sure it >still affects sales today. Again, free enterprise. You don't like your local Apple dealer because he doesn't know anything? Vote with your feet and go find another. Oh, but the one that knows something is located in the next town and charges more for the same products? Hmmm... did you think that support was free? You get what you pay for. Personally, I'm willing to drive about 50 miles (round trip) out of my way to deal with a dealer that knows something about what they're talking about, and that I can trust. And it appears that Apple is working in this area; when I attended the dealer trade show last year when the Mac II was announced, Apple said something to the effect that not every dealer was going to be able to sell Mac II's. Apple was (at least trying) to only let those dealers who could support the Mac II, sell the Mac II. >The list goes on and on, so fill in the details and tell Apple. They need to >become a consumer-oriented company if they want to make "the computer for the >rest of us" and they're ignoring us, which will hurt them in the long run. So >don't be shy. Have you seen the latest Annual Report from Apple? The one they shipped this year with the HyperCard stack? The one that shows just how badly they are being hurt by the competition? :-) -- Roger L. Long dhw68k!bytebug
roger_warren_tang@cup.portal.com (05/04/88)
The Apple suit is NOT over windowing. The apple suit is over the MacInstosh interface, which is distinct and different from the general iconic interface. You may have thought it through, but you evidently didn't read the lawsuit.
tm2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Terence David Murphy) (05/05/88)
In article <7644@dhw68k.cts.com>, Roger L. Long (bytebug) writes: >>that I feel are damaging to Apple's future: >>1) These lawsuits. see above > > ...or perhaps it will turn out to protect Apple's future. Apple has been in the position ever since the introduction of the Macintosh to have the name "Macintosh" synonymous with "ease of use" just as people tend to say Xerox more than photocopy and Kleenex more than facial tissue. With a product in this kind of situation, the Macintosh would already be in the mind of the consumer, thus avoiding what advertising typically is for these days. Example: hypothetical situation in the future: Your wife tells you to go down to the local computer store and buy a Macintosh (being used in the sense of an easy to use computer). Will this make it more likely for you to buy a Mac over something else with a similar interface? In this kind of situation, advertising can be used to expand upon the idea of a Macintosh in people's minds, not just trying to get in their minds in the first place. I personally feel the Macintosh's interface is substantially superior than Windows and other similar interfaces, why not let that be the deciding factor in the end? >>2) a low end computer is needed for competition with IBM clones. The other >>thing consumers look at besides the computer that exists today is the bottom >>line: price. > > Why? Whenever I select ANY product, one of the last things I look at > is price. Quality and ease-of-use and how long it's going to last and > whether it's going to be supported are far more important to me in > shopping for VCRs, TVs, toasters, *and* computers. Well I don't have the money to look at price last. As a matter of fact, that HAS to be my primary consideration, otherwise I would have bought a Mac II (on the basis of being supported). This tends to be more of the situation: According to a recent survey, people when purchasing cars tend to look at price first, then looks, etc. etc. But a low end machine would have several advantages to Apple's way of thinking: a) They want to make the computer for "the rest of us." Well, when people are going out and buying their first computer, they very rarely have the money to go out and buy a $3000 computer system. These people are very rarely represented on a board like this, but I don't see how you could deny it. Thus, they are considering price first. If they look at Macintosh, they'll see a bottom line SE (two drives and Imagewriter //) priced at around $2500, they'll see a bottom line PCompatible (which will fall apart in two years, from my experiences with several of the cheap clones, but these purchasers don't know that and thus it doesn't matter, i.e. it doesn't influence the sale) priced at $1300 (that's with a 20 meg HD and typical parallel printer). At half the price, the IBM clone will look a lot better. So they buy the IBM (since they can't afford the Mac because "Apple has no duty to satisfy a low-end customer"). Two years later, when the clone falls apart, they have the money to afford a $3000 system. But by now they are a) educated about the quality of the cheap clones and b) have all that software and information on IBM and wouldn't want to change. The solution: buy a 286-based high-quality clone and be entrenched in the IBM market for eternity. After using an Apple II for 5 years, we had so much information on it that when it died (bad experiences with lightning), we HAD to replace it because transfering the data would have been next to impossible. This is all how, when Apple doesn't satisfy the low-end customer, it loses sales to these people when they become high-end customers. b) Apple is much more concerned about the business market right now (always have been really). If we divide the business market into two divisions: one division being small businesses that might be looking into getting one computer for finances and other things and the other division being the already successful companies that already have computers (mostly IBMs), then I can see two possible markets to attack. If Apple attacks the already successful companies, their efforts are almost worthless (this is actually what they are doing). These companies are not going to replace all those IBMs and transfer all that data just to have Macintoshes. Very few companies have done this, and it's all based around money. The other market is severely affected by price. They typically only want one computer, don't have money to throw around, and thus wind up in the same situation as the first-time computer buyer consumer described above. They also typically come to the same conclusion: buy a cheap IBM clone. When these companies become big, successful companies, they already have IBMs and Apple has lost a lot of potential sales due to not satisfying the low-end consumer. [these situations are based on my experiences with several small businesses looking to purchase a computer and with large corporations that already have IBMs. The typical consumer situation is based on about 20 people that I have recommended the purchase of a computer to over the years. Thus you can hardly say I'm making it up] My suggestion for supplying printer drivers is based on price, which falls into the same situation as above. I could get a serial Okidata printer for about half the price of an Imagewriter //, but since Apple doesn't supply printer drivers, they are hard to find. People buying a first computer are not going to know about these things (and I doubt Apple dealers would mention it to them), thus they're looking at $500 for a printer instead of $250-$300. It all falls into the same situation. >>4) the current policy with charging for replacement fans for the SE. >>Hopefully, if I can get onto this board when I go home, you'll be seeing a >>proposal to Apple up here trying to explain how a policy like this can damage>>their future. > > You know, I bought a car a few years back. Undoubtedly, there have > been some changes made to that car model in the past couple years. > What do you think the dealer is going to tell me if I take my car in > and tell him I want the better radio put into my car at no cost? I would hardly consider changing the fan merely an improvement. Having worked with both the old and new ones now (I recently had mine upgraded), I would call it a defect in the original design. Example: about two years ago Toyota recalled the Tercels from a couple of years of manufacturering to replace the ignition system because it had shown to be defective and could become a very expensive thing to fix if it went out. They did this at no cost, and the fan seems like the exact same situation. Toyota knows how to handle situations like this and keep customer satisfaction, Apple just needs to learn things like this. > Again, free enterprise. You don't like your local Apple dealer because > he doesn't know anything? Vote with your feet and go find another. I'd like to go find another, but as I said, I've yet to find a SINGLE one! Now I'm sure they're out there, but the first experience with a dealer for a given product is most often the most significant one (When shoping for cars, you learn all about the given car at the first dealer you visit and your only concerns when you visit other dealers is price.) I would go out of my way for a knowledgable dealer, but they sure aren't helping. And I have seen their latest annual report. What I see is a company that has grown too fast that is going to get so obsessed with their success that when this isn't happening ten years from now they won't know why. I don't want to see that happen because I like their products, but I can't see it not happening. Right now the two biggest names in personal computers is IBM and Apple. IBM is (roughly) 10 times older than Apple. It also has the experience to be an incredibly stable company no matter what the current economic situation. If Apple wants to compete with them (which they do), they will have to be just as stable or they'll never be able to be keep their competitiveness through poorer economic situations. Terence Murphy Note: Since I'm leaving school in two days, I won't be reachable electronically and also won't be contributing to this discussion anymore (I can hear the cheers already). But don't stop on my account. address via US Mail: 2700 Evans Dale Cir Atlanta GA 30340 USA
hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Josh Hodas) (05/06/88)
In article <gWU7hby00WE38Vw0EO@andrew.cmu.edu> tm2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Terence David Murphy) writes: >In article <7644@dhw68k.cts.com>, Roger L. Long (bytebug) writes: ... > >My suggestion for supplying printer drivers is based on price, which fals into >the same situation as above. I could get a serial Okidata printer for about >half the price of an Imagewriter //, but since Apple doesn't supply printer >drivers, they are hard to find. People buying a first computer are not going >to know about these things (and I doubt Apple dealers would mention it to >them), thus they're looking at $500 for a printer instead of $250-$300. It all >falls into the same situation. > >Terence Murphy >Note: Since I'm leaving school in two days, I won't be reachable electronicaly >and also won't be contributing to this discussion anymore (I can hear the >cheers already). But don't stop on my account. >address via US Mail: >2700 Evans Dale Cir >Atlanta GA 30340 USA I think that AppleUs actions in this respect go somewhat deeper than a rather shallow attempt to make the user by only their printer. Apple has always been very concerned with maintaining control of the apparent quality of the Mac and has tried to avoid supporting any feature that could be misused to make the machine look bad. For instance, when you will notice that they refuse to release anything like the Kolor cdev for the Mac II. My understanding is that they are afraid that people will pick ugly, amateurish, and garrish color combinations that will make the Mac II look bad to others. I suspect that if they do ever release such a cdev it will have only hard-wired sets of colors Now I have worked with various drivers for lower-end printers, such ast epstart and toshstart (epson and toshiba drivers from softstyle) and the grappler 8- pin printer interface. Also, I have used the Seikosha 1000ap. While all of these solutions "worked" they all produced uniformly poor results because the underlying printers had not been optimized for graphics output, in the way that the imagewriter is. You've seen apple's ads for the mac. They expect the mac's real spread to be by having current users impress others with the Mac's capabilities. Output from any of the alternative solutions above would fail horribly to impress. In support of this idea you will also note that there is no problem hooking up third party PostScript printers. Apple has put no roadblocks in your way be- cause they no the output will be up to their standards. Theses are just my thoughts and opinions. No one else cares... (Note: Ill be away the next two weeks, so flame all you want, the notes should expire before I can read them.. -:) ------------------------- Josh Hodas (hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu) 4223 Pine Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215) 222-7112 (home) (215) 898-9515 (school office)
ws0n+@andrew.cmu.edu (Walter Ray Smith) (05/07/88)
> *Excerpts from: 6-May-88 Re: IBM did it first Josh Hodas@eniac.seas.up (2876)* > My understanding is that > they are afraid that people will pick ugly, amateurish, and garrish color > combinations that will make the Mac II look bad to others. Strangely enough, many people I know who have color monitors and Kolor have picked ugly, amateurish, and garish color combinations that make their Macs look ridiculous. The editors of InfoWorld are included in this group--as are plenty of software developers. Remember the pre-release Color More screen with the purple scroll bars? What you say makes some sort of sense. Apple does seem to have more 'corporate aesthetic sense' than most computer manufacturers, which makes me wonder where the Extended Keyboard came from... However, I tend toward the simpler solution. Why _should_ they provide printer drivers for arbitrary third-party printers? Isn't that what the third parties are for? > *Excerpts from: 5-May-88 Re: IBM did it first Terence David Murphy@and (8513)* > Example: about two years ago Toyota > recalled the Tercels from a couple of years of manufacturering to replace the > ignition system because it had shown to be defective and could become a very > expensive thing to fix if it went out. They did this at no cost, and the fan > seems like the exact same situation. Toyota knows how to handle situations > like this and keep customer satisfaction, Apple just needs to learn things > like this. You're comparing a noisy fan to a defective ignition system? No, you're saying they're precisely equivalent. Hmmm. Anyway, keep in mind the other side of the story. When color monitors were not shipping as promised, people bought monochrome monitors in the interim and Apple later replaced them with color monitors at no charge. So maybe they're not total bozos. - Walt
alan@pdn.UUCP (Alan Lovejoy) (05/07/88)
>Suppose Apple does win the suit. Then no one, except Apple, can ever write >a windowing system. To do so would violate Apple's look and feel rights. >The result is to make innovation illegal. This is much worse than the >alternative. > >Jim Wilson "If it is only a game, then why keep score?" >wilson@ji.Berkeley.EDU Worf - Star Trek: The Next Generation >ucbvax!ucbji!wilson This is demonstrably vintage bullshit!!! 1. There are numerous windowing systems that are unmistakably unrelated to Apple's. These are and will continue to be completely safe from litigation by Apple. (e.g., Smalltalk-80, Xerox Star, SunView, OpenLook...) 2. Even now, innovation continues: "pie-chart" menus are just one example of a very productive new graphic interface technique. There are others being developed but not yet announced. 3. Apple's windowing system is by no means the ultimate example of beauty, correctness, ease-of-use, user-friendliness or parsimony of operating effort. Pop-up menus are superior to pull-down menus, and pie-chart menus may be superior to rectangular-list menus. Window-specific menus are better than screen-global menus. And three-button mice are superior to one-button mice. 4. If IBM could have successfully sued the clone-makers for violating their "look-and-feel" rights, then a lot of the industry's resources would not have been wasted on IBM-PC technology. The state of the art today would be far in advance of where it is now. Sigh. -- Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-8241; Paradyne Corporation: Largo, Florida. Disclaimer: Do not confuse my views with the official views of Paradyne Corporation (regardless of how confusing those views may be). Motto: Never put off to run-time what you can do at compile-time!
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke) (05/09/88)
In article <3080@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes: >1. There are numerous windowing systems that are unmistakably unrelated >to Apple's. These are and will continue to be completely safe from >litigation by Apple. (e.g., Smalltalk-80, Xerox Star, SunView, >OpenLook...) Wouldn't it be more correct to say Apple's is related to Xerox, and therefore anything "related to Apple" is then also related to Xerox? >2. Even now, innovation continues: "pie-chart" menus are just one >example of a very productive new graphic interface technique. There >are others being developed but not yet announced. This sounds neat could you provide me with some information on where I might see a demonstration of this! >3. Apple's windowing system is by no means the ultimate example of >beauty, correctness, ease-of-use, user-friendliness or parsimony of >operating effort. Pop-up menus are superior to pull-down menus, and >pie-chart menus may be superior to rectangular-list menus. >Window-specific menus are better than screen-global menus. And >three-button mice are superior to one-button mice. No, but Apple's was the first to be affordiable, and available to the general public. Also I doubt anyone will respond very well to your blanket statments about this being better than that. Have you ever had to teach someone to use a three button mouse, Apple's user interface model is far superior as far as teachine machine operation. Window specific menus aren't necessarily better, witness the popularity of the Amiga OS. Apple may not be the first, or the best {I'll have this argument with you via e-mail if you wish} but they are the only company I know of that tries to deliver state of the art systems to the general public, for use by the general public. Sun workstations are wonderful, but who's going to teach my father to configure one, and who's going to loan him the money to buy it? I don't know how the rest of netland feels about your statment, but I've found that there are few things in the world that are always "superior" to other options. Things are only "superior" when they are given a context to be "superior" in. >4. If IBM could have successfully sued the clone-makers for violating >their "look-and-feel" rights, then a lot of the industry's resources >would not have been wasted on IBM-PC technology. The state of the art >today would be far in advance of where it is now. Sigh. Are you equating the IBM PC with "state of the art". Even when the PC was new it was trailing edge tech. I haven't meet a person yet who will tell me they think the PC was a wonderful state of the art machine. It was old, open, and used off the shelf chips that you could buy at radio shack. As I understand it the BIOS was less than 15K of code. My Atari 800 has more BIOS code than that! The machine was so easy to understand that it couldn't have possibly been state of the art. Most of the clone manufactures made the PC better, witness Compaq. And as far as wasting resources. I feel that the general public has a right to buy what ever it feels like. And if the clone manufactures hadn't come along IBM would be milking the public for their PC's like you wouldn't believe. The clones are what what IBM the standard, before they came along no one could afford the IBM "personal" computer. I'd rather see someone buy old technology that get's the job done at a resonable price, than not have anything at all because they can't afford it. State of the art is always far in advance of where it is now. The problem is that companies rarely make it avaliable to the general public at price, and in a package that they can use. David M. O'Rourke +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | dorourke@polyslo | Disclaimer: All opinions in this message are mine, but | | | if you like them they can be yours too. | | | Besides I'm just a student so what do I | | | know! | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | When you have to place a disclaimer in your mail you know it's a sign | | that there are TOO many Lawyer's. | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
shiffman%basselope@Sun.COM (Hank Shiffman) (05/09/88)
In article <2295@polyslo.UUCP> dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) writes: >In article <3080@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes: >>4. If IBM could have successfully sued the clone-makers for violating >>their "look-and-feel" rights, then a lot of the industry's resources >>would not have been wasted on IBM-PC technology. The state of the art >>today would be far in advance of where it is now. Sigh. > > Are you equating the IBM PC with "state of the art". Even when the PC >was new it was trailing edge tech. I haven't meet a person yet who will tell >me they think the PC was a wonderful state of the art machine. It was >old, open, and used off the shelf chips that you could buy at radio shack. To quote Cool Hand Luke, "what we have here is a failure to communicate". David, I fear you've misinterpreted Alan's remarks. He never claimed that the IBM PC was state of the art. He said that the state of the art would have advanced far more were it not for the PC. I agree (with both of you). Most of the work done on the personal computer side of the industry was constrained for years (and still is) by the limitations of the most popular computer design of the day, the IBM PC. How much might software have advanced if it hadn't been constrained for so long to 640KB? What if that popular computer had supported in its base configuration something better than character graphics? The IBM PC was popular in major part due to the IBM name and the company's image in corporate circles. As has been said many times before, no manager ever lost his job for recommending IBM. By choosing such a lowest common denominator design for its PC, IBM created a major bottleneck for software and hardware progress. How many articles have been written in recent years that say that a computer without IBM compatibility doesn't have a chance? Yeah, IBM slowed the state of the art alright. In fact, were it not for the Laserwriter and DTP, the Mac might be a dead issue and the PS/2 and OS/2 might look a lot more like bigger and faster versions of the PC and MS-DOS. Now THERE'S an exciting prospect for an alternate future! ---- Hank Shiffman (415) 691-4658 AI Product Marketing Technical Support shiffman@Sun.COM Sun Microsystems, Inc. ...!sun!shiffman "Anyone who uses the phrase 'easy as taking candy from a baby' has never tried taking candy from a baby." -- R. Hood
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke) (05/09/88)
In article <52434@sun.uucp> shiffman@sun.UUCP (Hank Shiffman) writes: >To quote Cool Hand Luke, "what we have here is a failure to >communicate". David, I fear you've misinterpreted Alan's remarks. He >never claimed that the IBM PC was state of the art. He said that the >state of the art would have advanced far more were it not for the PC. It's not a fear, you are 100% right. I'm sorry. I went back a read the article once again, and you're right. Given the new information at my disposal, I agree with what the original article said. The IBM PC did succeed in stopping time in the micro computer industry, thank god we seem to have started back up again. Things aren't perfect, but at least people are back to not being satisfied with what we have. I just love it when people don't like what they have and force the industry to develop better software/hardware. Thankyou for setting me straight Hank! I agree 100% with the rest of your message. David M. O'Rourke +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | dorourke@polyslo | Disclaimer: All opinions in this message are mine, but | | | if you like them they can be yours too. | | | Besides I'm just a student so what do I | | | know! | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | When you have to place a disclaimer in your mail you know it's a sign | | that there are TOO many Lawyer's. | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
jk3t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jonathan King) (05/09/88)
In article <4541@super.upenn.edu> hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Josh Hodas) writes: *I think that AppleUs actions in this respect go somewhat deeper than a rather *shallow attempt to make the user by only their printer. Apple has always been *very concerned with maintaining control of the apparent quality of the Mac and*has tried to avoid supporting any feature that could be misused to make the *machine look bad. For instance, when you will notice that they refuse to *release anything like the Kolor cdev for the Mac II. My understanding is that*they are afraid that people will pick ugly, amateurish, and garrish color *combinations that will make the Mac II look bad to others. I suspect that *if they do ever release such a cdev it will have only hard-wired sets of colors. I believe that the points about protecting the Mac's carefully designed screen displays used to be true, but I would like to point out that Apple has recently been running ads in InfoWorld that triumphantly point out that the Mac II can now be a Very Serious Business Machine. The accompanying screen shots look like something out of PC hell. I mean we're talking *really* kandy-Kolored here: deep purple desktop, fru-fru fuscia scroll bars--the works. At first I thought that Apple's ad agency had gone insane, but then I realized that this is exactly what Very Serious Business Machines look like when they are running, say, Windows 2.03. From a distance, it would be tough to tell the difference. It would be really sad, with all the possible intelligent uses of color, for the Macintosh to borrow the look and pretty pink furry feel of some PCs just to sell some more boxes, but I can't thinkof any other reason for Apple to run ads with kandy-kolored screens. jking jk3t@andew.cmu.edu
gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (05/09/88)
That's what's bad about IBM. People say "What's good for IBM is good for america", but that's total baloney. Right now, IBM's sickness is supposedly dragging down computer stocks. IBM is to computers as GM is to automobiles. Besides IBM's general *slowing* of the computer industry (mostly, IBM is so big it cannot afford to compete with itself, therefore, IBM must sit on products and drag down the state of the art to avoid self-competition), IBM in the past has been *WORSE* than Apple Computer in trying to squash competition. IBM lost a famous court suit in the 1960's for their outrageously monopolistic practices. They refused to service machines that had ANY 3rd-party equipment installed. Thus, if you bought 3rd party DISKS, MEMORY, ETC, and IBM found out, you were dead. Apple at least has a "licensed developer" program to support this sort of thing, and has never been as heinous as IBM. So let's not hear "IBM's goodwill benefits everyone." IBM's hands are tied. Anything IBM can get away, they will *do*. Just wait until IBM sues all the microchannel cloners to death. The microchannel is a much smaller innovation than the organization and graphics arts of the mac user interface. The business people I know who prefer IBM are elitist snobs. I imagine these are the same people who purchase cadillac el doradoes for the status symbol and name.
alan@pdn.UUCP (Alan Lovejoy) (05/10/88)
In article <2295@polyslo.UUCP> dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) writes: >In article <3080@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes: > Wouldn't it be more correct to say Apple's [windowing system] is related >to Xerox, and >therefore anything "related to Apple" is then also related to Xerox? Yes, of course. But why bother? The Apple interface is sufficiently different from the Xerox one that Apple can lay claim to their own "look and feel" independently of Xerox's. >>[I make mention of "pie-chart" menus] > This sounds neat could you provide me with some information on where I >might see a demonstration of this! Contatct Don Hopkins, Heterogenous Systems Laboratory, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 TN (301) 454 1516. Mr Hopkins gave a "work-in-progress talk" on pie menus at last summer's Usenix conference in Phoenix. >>3. Apple's windowing system is by no means the ultimate example of >>beauty, correctness, ease-of-use, user-friendliness or parsimony of >>operating effort. Pop-up menus are superior to pull-down menus, and >>pie-chart menus may be superior to rectangular-list menus. >>Window-specific menus are better than screen-global menus. And >>three-button mice are superior to one-button mice. > No, but Apple's was the first to be affordiable, and available to the >general public. >...[but in a later paragraph you state] > Apple may not be the first, or the best {I'll have this argument with you >via e-mail if you wish}... Who's first is not at issue. Who's best is only important if it means that Apple's lawsuit encourages or impedes programmers' creativity in some way... >...but they are the only company I know of that tries >to deliver state of the art systems to the general public, for use by the >general public. Sun workstations are wonderful, but who's going to teach my >father to configure one, and who's going to loan him the money to buy it? This is completely non-sequitur. The subject is the effect of the Apple lawsuit on creativity. Who was first with what and/or how much it costs and/or how easy it is to learn and/or how much more productive various classes of users can be if they use it are irrelevant to this discussion, unless there is some relation to the creativity issue. >Also I doubt anyone will respond very well to your >blanket statments about this being better than that. Have you ever had >to teach someone to use a three button mouse, Apple's user interface model >is far superior as far as teachine machine operation. Window specific menus >aren't necessarily better, witness the popularity of the Amiga OS. > I don't know how the rest of netland feels about your statment, but I've >found that there are few things in the world that are always "superior" to >other options. Things are only "superior" when they are given a context to >be "superior" in. My posting was a response to your blanket assumption that the Mac interface was The Last Word in windowing systems and that therefore the Apple lawsuit (if successful) necessarily impedes programmer productivity. Bah, humbug! Let's compromise on this one: what's better is a matter of individual taste, and the best system probably hasn't been invented yet. Ok? >>4. If IBM could have successfully sued the clone-makers for violating >>their "look-and-feel" rights, then a lot of the industry's resources[ >>would not have been wasted on IBM-PC technology. The state of the art >>today would be far in advance of where it is now. Sigh. > Are you equating the IBM PC with "state of the art". Huh? NO! What ever gave you that idea? Let me reiterate: If less resources had been spent cloning and improving the inherently backward IBM PC, more could have been spent pushing the state-of-the-art forward. The Apple Mac is a prime example of what just one company was able to do by ignoring the IBM PC. Sun is another good example. Imagine what Compaq could do if they focused their talents at producing the best possible system, instead of the best possible clone! Why am I arguing over this point this with a Mac user? It's like when the Syrians invaded Lebanon with Soviet tanks to save the Christian militia from the Moslems... > And as far as wasting resources. I feel that the general public has a right >to buy what ever it feels like. And does this right include buying what is not for sale (e.g., the hypothetical Compaq system mentioned above)? What about the right to buy the best possible product (which may not be for sale!)? >And if the clone manufactures hadn't come >along IBM would be milking the public for their PC's like you wouldn't believe. >The clones are what what [made?] IBM the standard, before they came along no >one >could afford the IBM "personal" computer. I'd rather see someone buy old >technology that get's the job done at a resonable price, than not have anything >at all because they can't afford it. Just because the clones are clones does not guarantee that they will be cheap. Nor does the fact that a computer is not a clone guarantee that it will be expensive. The Compaq and the Atari ST's are exhibits #1 and #2. Your unstated premise appears to be that standard systems (which are compatible with each other because of the standards) are less expensive than non-standard ones. Perhaps, but I don't concede the point. There are other ways to achieve compatibility than having everyone use the same CPU's, the same BIOS and the same operating system. If the law better protected intellectual property rights, there would be more incentive to use these alternative compatibility techniques (and develop others). The result would be greater freedom for hardware and software engineers to design the best possible systems without being straight-jacketed into low-level copy-cat compatibility. That freedom would be used to give buyers more diversity and freedom of choice when selecting the best product for their needs. It is an evolutionary process that uses natural selection to promote winners and weed out losers. The speed of this evolution is very dependent on the mutation rate. The IBM PC has put a big damper on that rate. > State of the art is always far in advance of where it is now. The problem >is that companies rarely make it avaliable to the general public at price, >and in a package that they can use. I think you meant to say that state-of-the-art is always far in advance of products currently for sale. What you actually said makes no sense. In any case, what does it have to do with computer system design creativity? -- Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-8241; Paradyne Corporation: Largo, Florida. Disclaimer: Do not confuse my views with the official views of Paradyne Corporation (regardless of how confusing those views may be). Motto: Never put off to run-time what you can do at compile-time!
dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke) (05/10/88)
In article <3096@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes: >Contatct Don Hopkins, Heterogenous Systems Laboratory, University of >Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 TN (301) 454 1516. > >Mr Hopkins gave a "work-in-progress talk" on pie menus at last summer's >Usenix conference in Phoenix. Thank you for the information. >My posting was a response to your blanket assumption that the Mac >interface was The Last Word in windowing systems and that therefore >the Apple lawsuit (if successful) necessarily impedes programmer >productivity. Bah, humbug! I don't remember ever supporting the Apple Lawsuit, or ever saying that Apple's Windowing system was the Last Word in windowing systems. I would be intrested in any articles supporting Apple's lawsuit with my name on them. As far as Apple's windowing system I still feel it is the most complete implementation of a Windowing system for a Personal computer yet to be released. There ARE OTHER systems, but most fall short in some area that Apple doesn't. When a useable Sun Workstation drops to the price of a Macintosh SE then I'll consider buying one. >Let's compromise on this one: what's better is a matter of individual >taste, and the best system probably hasn't been invented yet. Ok? I agree 100%, the best system will probably never be invented. But I'm looking forward to trying to build it. >forward. The Apple Mac is a prime example of what just one company was >able to do by ignoring the IBM PC. Sun is another good example. Imagine what >Compaq could do if they focused their talents at producing the best possible >system, instead of the best possible clone! I already answered that I misinterpreted your original statment in another posting. Please accept my apologies for the original posting. But I don't appreciate being equated with the military of the USSR in your response. Although I'm a Mac person, I am open to new idea's. I see them all the time and spent some time working for <<Un_Named_Company>> triing to produce a better product than Apple's, all the while realizing where and how Apple screwed up, but also where they did a REAL nice job. I've seen better systems than the Macintosh, but I haven't seen any in a package that Joe Blow can go out and buy without the following: 1) Low interest Govt. Loan. 2) Investment of 2 months before he can even figure out how to bring the system up. 3) Another 3 months of configuration {remember Joe Blow has to do other things besides computers to pay off the Govt. Loan} 4) 2-4 Years while he goes and gets a degree in Computer Science so that he can realize how much better the system he purchased is than the Macintosh. >Your unstated premise appears to be that standard systems (which are >compatible with each other because of the standards) are less expensive >than non-standard ones. Perhaps, but I don't concede the point. I didn't say all systems would be cheaper. But in the May 2nd issue of Macintosh Today, even they admit that it's cheaper to buy an IBM clone and use it as a fileserver for a Macintosh network. I don't know how it is in the rest of the country but in Southern California the competition is fierce, and prices are sooooo cheap, less than $1700.00 with a 20 meg harddrive, color screen, 80286, 640K, 1.2 meg floppy, and a printer. And that's out of a store, if you go mail order it gets even better as far as the price goes. I think most people concede that cloning has made the PC cheaper. But there are clones that aren't cheaper. Compaq has never been cheaper, but it was normally better than IBM. >There are other ways to achieve compatibility than having everyone use >the same CPU's, the same BIOS and the same operating system. If the law >better protected intellectual property rights, there would be more >incentive to use these alternative compatibility techniques (and develop >others). Sounds awfully close to supporting Apple's position in the Lawsuit, now you're saying that we should support Apple, above you said that a Law supporting intellectual property rights impededs the programmer, now you're saying it's alright to thwart the programmer becasue it makes him do things differently. I'm not supporting Apple's lawsuit, but I believe the thrust of their argument is for legal precidence regarding "better protected intellectual property rights". Thankyou for your comments. But if I'm a Macintosh person, to what computer do you associate your self with. Also if we choose to discuss this issue futher I'd recommend direct e-mail, because the net's probably tired of hearing about it. David M. O'Rourke +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | dorourke@polyslo | Disclaimer: All opinions in this message are mine, but | | | if you like them they can be yours too. | | | Besides I'm just a student so what do I | | | know! | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | When you have to place a disclaimer in your mail you know it's a sign | | that there are TOO many Lawyer's. | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++