[Am-info] New Apple store near Beantown

[Mitch Stone]

--- From a message sent by Erick Andrews on 12/16/01 2:04 PM ---

>>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.

IOW, you have no idea?

>>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 prediction was integration -- this was what Apple was supposed to 
have given up.

>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.

The supposed relevance of this escapes me.

>>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.

IOW, you have no idea.

>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.

What has changed in Apple's approach to applications, OS and hardware 
development since the technology sharing agreement?

>>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.

Time has already told. We're nearly four years down the line from this 
deal, and Apple is continuing to pursue their own OS and hardware 
strategy quite apart from Microsoft. Pardon me if I psychoanalyze you 
motives for a moment, but I think what really ticks you off is that Apple 
stuck with the Mac, and continues to moved forward with Mac development, 
while IBM caved on OS/2. Thus, you must leap on whatever evidence, no 
matter how slight and unpersuasive, that Apple really "sold out," because 
that's what IBM did.

 Mitch Stone  
 mitch@accidentalexpert.com