[alt.religion.computers] Mac clones

mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) (03/04/91)

xanthian@zorch.sf-bay.org (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
> [AT&T legal slime is harassing X11 users over the patented "backing store"
>  method of saving obscured parts of overlapping windows, with an offer of
>  "licenses". Original legal letter is posted in gnu.g++.announce.]
> 
> Looks like AT&T has joined the lists of those who can't produce commercially
> competitive products, and so have decided to recover operating expenses by
> suing those who can but don't maintain big suites of lawyers.

On the subject of litigative corporations, I saw some interesting news last
week... Some company has successfully produced a clone of the Mac OS ROM,
using 'clean room' techniques. They are licensing their code to a number of
far East computer companies, and we can expect to see Mac clones in about a
year's time.

In order to avoid legal hassles, they've also been smart enough to change the
front-end look and feel; so although the clone runs Mac software, the windows
are SAA compliant. I saw some screenshots, and it looked quite effective.

Personally, I think this is great news. Apple stopped innovating and brought
in the lawyers; now they have one year in which to get their act together.
There are a number of things I think they should do in order to survive:

   1) Bring down prices. Especially in Europe, where prices are about 40%
      more than the (already inflated) US prices.

   2) License the ROMs out to third party hardware developers. Apple is going
      to lose its stranglehold on the Mac architecture anyway, so it might as
      well make a profit in doing so.

   3) Stop suing people over look and feel. If Apple doesn't stop doing this,
      the Mac look and feel will die. Can you think of any reason why a big
      corporate buyer would go for the Mac front-end, when he could go for
      one of the clones and have full Mac compatibility combined with the
      SAA standard front-end he has on all his other machines (Motif,
      Windows, Presentation Manager)?

Apple currently seems set on becoming the IBM of the 1990s. Maybe now it will
learn that bad guys don't win in the long term.

> Now if only shareware returned adequate living expenses.

Yes, it would be nice, wouldn't it?


mathew

cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Conway Yee) (03/05/91)

In article <VeDay5w163w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>
>   3) Stop suing people over look and feel. If Apple doesn't stop doing this,
>      the Mac look and feel will die. Can you think of any reason why a big
>      corporate buyer would go for the Mac front-end, when he could go for
>      one of the clones and have full Mac compatibility combined with the
>      SAA standard front-end he has on all his other machines (Motif,
>      Windows, Presentation Manager)?

Yes, I can think of one reason.  No corporate buyer ever lost his job
because he decided to buy IBM.  Similarly, Apple is a safe purchasing
decision.  Sure, the clones are cheaper and would save the company a 
lot of money but is it worth losing you job if something goes wrong.?

					Conway Yee, N2JWQ
yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu    (preferred)             231 S. Melville St.
cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above)    Philadelphia, Pa 19139
yee@bnlx26.nsls.bnl.gov    (rarely checked)        (215) 386-1312

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (03/08/91)

>Yes, I can think of one reason.  No corporate buyer ever lost his job
>because he decided to buy IBM.

Perhaps you don't understand that phrase. "No one ever got fired for
buying IBM" is an IBM salesman's sotto voce threat to a middle-manager
wandering from the fold. It means "I can get you fired for not buying
our products", and they often can.
-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD

cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Conway Yee) (03/09/91)

In article <BZS.91Mar7183832@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>>Yes, I can think of one reason.  No corporate buyer ever lost his job
>>because he decided to buy IBM.
>
>Perhaps you don't understand that phrase. "No one ever got fired for
>buying IBM" is an IBM salesman's sotto voce threat to a middle-manager
>wandering from the fold. It means "I can get you fired for not buying
>our products", and they often can.

Perhaps you are right.  I meant that IBM is a conservative choice that
the suits like to see.  Thus, if there is a failure, it does not 
reflect poorly on the purchaser (After all, it is IBM).  If a cheaper
and more powerful alternative fails, this does tend to get back to
the purchaser since the guy should have bought "quality".

					Conway Yee, N2JWQ
yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu    (preferred)             231 S. Melville St.
cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above)    Philadelphia, Pa 19139
yee@bnlx26.nsls.bnl.gov    (rarely checked)        (215) 386-1312

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (03/09/91)

>Perhaps you are right.  I meant that IBM is a conservative choice that
>the suits like to see.  Thus, if there is a failure, it does not 
>reflect poorly on the purchaser (After all, it is IBM).  If a cheaper
>and more powerful alternative fails, this does tend to get back to
>the purchaser since the guy should have bought "quality".
>
>					Conway Yee, N2JWQ

I can cite cases where cheaper and more powerful alternatives
succeeded in a big way at fortune 500 sites and the person responsible
was fired.

You're looking for a simple meritocracy where none may exist. That's
my point.
-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD