Re: Apple, Jobs, and the irony of it

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

Richard Kilpatrick <richard@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Supertimer <supertimer@aol.com> writes:
>
>>It is just that it is very funny that IBM designed it.
>>In the PC world, this is no surprise at all.  But
>>remember, in the Apple world until recently IBM
>>was the big evil "Big Brother."
>
>Recently being 1992ish, of course - IBM had a lot of input into the 
>original Power architecture with Motorola. We're all familiar with the 
>hammer thrown at the screen, and at the time it was accurate. Now IBM 
>has had to move with the times. Apple isn't a garage company, IBM isn't 
>a monopoly.

IBM was never a monoply in the sense that Microsoft
was.  Even fiercest competition between Apple II and
IBM PC in the very early 80s, the market was close
to 50/50 between the two if you don't count the Ataris
and Commodores.

The difference between IBM's part in the development
of the PowerPC processor line and IBM's part as
Apple's savior now is that for the first time, Apple not
only acknowledges IBM's contribution but glorifies it.
When was the last time you saw IBM's logo so
proudly displayed in a two page Apple ad?

Yes, around 1992 IBM was already a partner in the
PowerPC line.  But that is the same as Apple now
implementing AMD's HyperTransport technology in
the G5 platform.  Like IBM then, AMD's contribution
is invisible.

The irony is not that IBM played a role in the G5.
The irony is that Apple is bragging by claiming IBM
as such a great partner, an entity it once "threw the
hammer" at.

>In many ways, Apple did defeat Big Brother. It's a shame that it wasn't 
>paying attention to cousin Bill at the same time. At least Apple are 
>sensible enough not to bear a grudge; Microsoft would rather grind firms 
>out of existence than find ways of working with them to mutual benefit, 
>and would do it by stealing, lying and cheating whilst pretending to be 
>their friend.

I would argue that Apple is the Microsoft of the Mac
world.  Look what they did to their "partners" during
the Mac clone fiasco.  If Apple were dominant and
Microsoft did not exist, I have no doubt that it will
be a monopoly and all PCs will be built by Apple
at an exorbitant price.  Steve Jobs and Bill Gates
were cut from the same cloth.

>I don't think the ][ range was hard done by. Whilst it's a shame that 
>Mac development took precedence at Job's insistence, they still did a 
>better job of bridging the gap than anyone else, and still produced 
>their 1970s 'line' up to the 1990s. I dare say that if the Apple IIgs 
>had been developed, we'd have much the same machines we do now - GS/OS, 
>ProDOS, and the Macintosh, share common roots.

The case of the Apple IIGS was nothing less than
infanticide by Apple.  It was a case of neglect of a
successful line (the Apple II), keeping prices high,
removing all advertisement, leaving development at
a standstill, and blaming the product when the axe
fell even though the product was so good it sold
ITSELF for six years after funding for advertisement
had stopped.

Better job at bridging the gap?  Give me a break.
That was the worse bridging job I have ever seen
and the reason I am a PC user today.  68k Mac
to PPC Mac was a good bridging job but the
Apple II to Mac one was a disaster and I have
no doubt that a great many Apple II user turned
PC for this reason.