[Am-info] New Apple store near Beantown

[Erick Andrews]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 13:36:49 -0800, Mitch Stone wrote:

>--- From a message sent by Erick Andrews on 12/16/01 8:34 AM ---
>
>>>What, precisely, did they sell?
>>
>>Better I should have said "sold out".  What precisely do you think
>>Microsoft got for their $150M?
>
>1/ Settlement of a copyright infringement suit.
>2/ Apple's agreement to distribute IE.
>3/ A technology-sharing agreement (which I suspect was necessary to 
>settle the copyright issues).

No comment.

>
>>>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?
>
>The prediction was for integration. It was a foolish prediction and it 
>produced guffaws among those who knew better. Still, it was part and 
>parcel of the brand of "analysis" of this deal that made one immutable 
>assumption -- that "Bill won again," even if nobody could figure out how.
>
>I'm not sure about the default question. Probably, this is true, but 
>switching default browsers is really a non-issue on the Mac, and for a 
>long while after this deal Apple installed both IE and Navigator.

Why is it a non-issue?  Most buyers will bring it home, plug it in, and
go with what's there.

The PC computer makers/distributors, Compaq at least, AOL more so,
want to be free of Microsoft's default "icon's" at start up.  I don't recall
exactly who said it, but something to the effect that that was the most
expensive "real estate" on the desktop.

>
>>>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.
>
>I don't understand how you tie any of this to Apple's 1997 deal with 
>Microsoft.

Sure.  It's further down the timeline of events.  I don't think I'm wrong
to look at the big picture; just a continuation of what was and still is.

>
>>>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.
>
>Yes, that's the "one smart guy" theory, in spades. So, explain to me how 
>Microsoft's payment of $150 million to Apple in exchange for Apple 
>supplying MSIE on Mac systems translates into a victory for Microsoft. 
>I'd appreciate an explanation that does not rely on the assumption that 
>Bill always wins, because that's just circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning?  That's a bit specious.

You already listed the reasons above.  Call your point 3/ a technology 
sharing agreement if it pleases you.  I'd call it giving just a bit too much
away, if I owned Apple stock.  I never said nor meant to imply that
"Bill always wins", but I think he scored big points on that one.

>
>>>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.
>
>For as long as Apple, not Microsoft, produces the MacOS, Microsoft will 
>by definition have less leverage over Mac users than they do over Windows 
>users.

I hope you're right, but I have big doubts.  Time will tell, though.

-- 
Erick Andrews