[Am-info] New Apple store near Beantown

[Erick Andrews]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 22:57:55 -0800, Mitch Stone wrote:

>--- From a message sent by Erick Andrews on 12/15/01 5:21 PM ---
>
>>On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 15:43:35 -0800, Mitch Stone wrote:
>>
>>>--- From a message sent by Erick Andrews on 12/15/01 10:20 AM ---
>>>
>>>>The way I see it is most Mac users will have to pay more to 
>>>>stay on MS's "upgrade treadmill", sped up every year or so 
>>>>with MS Office, Outlook, and other MS apps, changed with 
>>>>new fluff and changed so the previous versions will become 
>>>>incompatible with the latest.  Yep, paying again and again to
>>>>help maintain MS's monopoly.
>>>
>>>So, what you're saying is, Mac users would be better off if Microsoft did 
>>>not offer Office and its other products for the Mac platform?
>>
>>No, I did not say that, and I do not intend to be obtuse.
>>
>>I have no problem with an "open format" MS office.
>>
>>Simply put, when the Apple (was it Jobs again?) took the $150M,
>>I think then that Apple too sold much, if not most of its soul to 
>>the devil.  Survival?  Yeah, maybe.  War is hell, and business
>>is business...so to speak.
>
>What, precisely, did they sell?

Better I should have said "sold out".  What precisely do you think
Microsoft got for their $150M?

>
>>I recall others, perhaps you too, remarking with much concern
>>about such fear of an MS infiltration back when it happened, not
>>too long ago.  Sorry, I don't have the archives at my fingertips, 
>>but I'm darned sure it was said by many.
>
>Oh yes, I can recall much pointless speculation at the time, much of it 
>no better than today's virtually mythological versions of those events. 
>One major technology columnist went so far as to predict that MSIE would 
>soon become integrated with MacOS, just like it was with Windows -- after 
>all, a deal with Microsoft could mean no less, right? These and other 
>"concerns" proved unfounded.

"...integrated..."?  or "inseparable"?  Didn't MSIE become the default 
browser at installation time and at boot up time on the new Macs?

[...]

>>>
>>>Please explain this argument. I really don't understand it.
>>
>>It's less an argument than my declaration.  And I think it's
>>simple enough to understand, but I'm willing to argue it:
>>Macs are going to be "sold down the river".  Not today.  Soon 
>>tomorrow:  Kollar-Kotelly?  Probably.
>
>This assertion is too vague for my tastes. I'm not sure what "sold down 
>the river" means in this context, and I certainly don't know in what way 
>you mean.

If you read any of the comments from many educators to Judge Motz
(yes, same game, different inning), they expect less choice in schools
across the country, which directly translates into less Macs.  It may
seem vague to you now, but it won't when MS's lawyers get their way
in the federal courts.

And Kollar-Kotelly.  She isn't going to help improve competition 
in the desktop computing environment.  She's setting the precedent
to favor MS.

>
>>So are you trying to mitigate MS's $150M investment in Apple
>>and its...perceived by many at the time...dire consequences?
>
>I'm unsure why you believe it calls for mitigation. You are arguing a 
>variation on what at the time I called the "one smart guy" theory -- 
>which, in a nutshell, is the assertion that only Bill can win. Apple won 
>that round. The predictions of "dire consequences" have come to naught. 
>Why is that so hard to accept?

I don't accept it.  Never did.  

Apple survived, if that's what you mean by "won".

"One smart guy" should realise that Gates did a full-Nelson on Apple:  
'drop the lawsuit, take MSIE, we'll be nice and continue to develop 
Office (kewl), and here's $150M to sweeten the deal and help keep you
afloat'.

Sure, it's possible that Gates & Co. are defeatable, but he won that round.

>
>>
>>Mac users are/will be forced to sign up for the newest MS "push"
>>-- not just the "desktop application" takeovers like Windows OS 
>>folks, too, but through exclusiveness on the Internet.  What will 
>>your and their landscape look like in another few years?  I'll tell 
>>you:  less choice, locked in, and nailed down.  Proprietary Internet.  
>>Can you understand that?  Maybe you don't care anymore?
>
>Mac users will be no more forced than anyone else, and certainly 
>Microsoft will have less leverage over Mac users then they do over 
>Windows users. The 1997 deal had no real bearing on any of Apple's 
>subsequent plans.

I wouldn't bet that MS will have less leverage over Mac users than
they do on Windows users.  Maybe if you are just quantifying users
without regard to substance.  From my view of the Internet and 
applications that are common to Macs and Windows boxes, it's pretty 
much the same.  Non-Windows and non-Mac users are far less likely 
to have MS Office applications while still fighting to maintain 
openness on the Internet.

-- 
Erick Andrews