Re: IMPEACH JOBS

["Edwin E. Thorne" <edwin.thorne@rauland.com>]

Joe Ragosta <joe.ragosta@dol.net> wrote in article
<joe.ragosta-2004981143280001@wil63.dol.net>...
> In article <353B2607.3F73DF29@milestonerdl.com>, mark@milestonerdl.com
wrote:
> 
> > Joe Ragosta wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <353A9047.BD0C1EAE@milestonerdl.com>,
mark@milestonerdl.com
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Joe Ragosta wrote:
> > >
> > > > was the Newton group.... according to 'a source' I talked with. 
> Myself and
> > > > others are actually trying to get this nailed down as truth or
rumor.
> > >
> > > Really? You've had months and have never produced a shred of
evidence.
> > > ("sources" don't count unless you can name them and provide some real
> > > facts).
> > 
> > Nice attempt at an argument here Joe.  *IF* I come up with 'hard proof'
> (A standard
> > that I would hold anyone to) I'll be sure to let you know.  At least
> when *I* post
> > something that is a 'rumor', I state that up front.  Something *YOU*
Joe
> Raosta does
> > not do.
> 
> Bullshit. I provide sources for most of what I post--I'm still waiting
for
> your first.
> 
> But, in other words, you've admitted that what you posted was FUD--pure
> and simple.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > >
> > > > The Newton was killed by Steve Jobs, CEO of cartoon maker Pixar,
> because of
> > > > simple spite.
> > >
> > > Apple stated that Newton had never made money. I suspect that they
have
> > > better knowledge of the matter than you do.
> > >
> > > When you find some facts, feel free to post them. Until then, Apple's
> > > statements have to stand.
> > 
> > http://www.maccentral.com/news/feb27.shtml
> > The Newton division, though its products have been selling well
recently, have
> > historically not been profitable.
> > 
> > And I can't find the same quote on Rik Ford's page.
> > 
> > The key word is historically.
> 
> Hmmm. "They have historically lost money". And somehow you are
> interpreting this to mean that they're making money now? Talk about
> twisted logic.
> 
> > 
> > > > > But Apple is not a charity. Newton was not making money and there
was no
> > > > > sign that it ever would.
> > > >
> > > > Well Joe, if Apple is not a charity, then why are you happy to have
> > > allowed the
> > > > Mac to leach off the Apple ][ lines profits all them years?
> > >
> > > What kind of nonsense is this? Apple introduced a new product (the
Mac).
> > > Both the Mac and the Apple II were profitable. No leaching involved.
> > > Even during the development stage when the Mac wasn't making money,
your
> > > point is irrelevant.
> > 
> > Really?  A replacement? Is this the same book of history that has Steve
> Jobs as the
> > creator and supporter of the Mac from the start?
> 
> You don't think the Macintosh was a replacement for the Apple II?? Then
> where are all the Apple II sales?
> 
> > 
> > [I SOOOOO look forward to seeing the response to the above line.  You
> see, it's bait
> > for Joe.]
> > 
> > And, wasn't the Newton project supposed to be a replacement for the
> MacOS?  Except,
> > the attitude of "If it's not MacOS, it's not Apple" kept the project
> from moving in
> > the direction of it's design concept.
> 
> The Newton was _never_ supposed to be a replacement for Mac OS. You
really
> ought to try getting a clue some time.
> 
> > > >
> > > > And how do you know if the Newton made a profit or not?
> > >
> > > I rely on Apple's statements--not unnamed "sources".
> > 
> > As this is SO fun.
> > http://www.maccentral.com/news/feb27.shtml
> > The Newton division, though its products have been selling well
recently, have
> > historically not been profitable.
> > 
> > I look forward to your acknologement of Apples statement.
> 
> This is just one of the statements I'm relying on. Apple has said in
this,
> and other statements that Newton was not profitable. Only a twisted mind
> would interpret this to mean that Newton was profitable.
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Joe Ragosta
> http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm


I've had this same go-around with Mark myself,  Joe.

He seems to think that Apple did something wrong by not locking itself into
1970's technology.  No matter how many times he's told the Mac is the
successor to the Apple II he doesn't get it.

Mark also can't understand that a PDA is a different topic than a desktop
computer.  As you see, he thinks that the Newton OS was supposed to replace
the Mac OS.  The Newton OS was written for an entirely different processor
(the StrongArm) and for an entirely different purpose than a desktop OS.

Somehow Mark thinks its okay to present rumors as if they're true, as long
as he says they're rumors.   It supports his twisted logic.   My rumor says
the Newton made money, so Steve Jobs killed it out of spite.   Weird.

Apple was trying to sell off the Newton long before Steve Jobs came back. 
What's Mark's spin on that?