Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 59
  1. #21  
    Its not nutty it's a fact. They try force a competitor to limit themselves into an non-vitally competitive niche and if they don't take it, they crush 'em.

    MS did it with Citrix. They made Citrix sell them the Terminal Services code they developed for NT4.0 Terminal Server Edition. Otherwise MS was going to cancel their OS license and put them out of business. In return for selling the code, MS agreed that RDP would be limited to MS and CE environments leaving CITRIX with a niche for ICA on Solaris and other platforms. Why do you think MS doesn't port RDP to Solaris??? That's a niche they gave away.

    MS tried it again with Netscape. They offered to let them have the browser market if they agreed not to ever expand it to an OS. Netscape refused, IE was born and Netscape was crushed.

    MS did the same with Apple. Make your Art community computers and just stay out of the major business market for you PC.

    Anything that could potentially replace MS's OS is considered critical. Why do you think the XBOX was born? Bill sees video game systems as potentially bein a substitute for Windows. So he sells Xbox's at a loss just to put Sony out of business.

    And as far as Apple's financial stability, I do recall there was a point where they hadn't made a profit for like two years, fired their CEO, laid a bunch of people off, and begged Jobs to come back and save them. That was when Bill helped out. Do you seriously think Jobs would've put himself through the humiliation of having Gates at Apple's big event during the announcement if MS had been somehow FORCED to pay the money?
    ROOTING for WebOS makes me more sympathetic to Cubs fans.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob-C
    Don't be sorry...
    Please don't try to bolster poor reasoning with silly semantics...

    If it weren't for Bill, Apple would've went bankrupt.
    So Bill Gates was the only human on the planet who had money? I think not. Had he not decided to make a wise investment, someone else would have; history shows that he made a good investment. He wasn't the only person left on the planet who would've been willing to invest in Apple at the time; Jobs merely seized upon an opportunity, and turned Gates' investment into a chance to revive Apple in a most spectacular way.

    While I think that Windows is a mediocre product, I have tremendous respect for Gates as a strategist. He was smart to make a sound investment, one which has put millions of dollars in his pocket.

    I'm not taking away anything from Jobs. He made those restructurings and focus on their niche successful. But it was Gates money that bought him the time to do it.
    Who cares?? What possible difference does THAT make? Does being willing to make an investment bestow some sort of knighthood on the funding source? If that were the case, banks wouldn't be held in such low regard.

    Gates did the smart thing to ensure that M$ Office would continue to be a best-seller on Apple platforms. But more importantly, he made a deal to put Internet Explorer on every Mac sold at that time. Fortunately, Apple has since dropped IE from its computers and now distributes its far-superior Safari browser.
  3. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #23  
    I don't think apple will buy palmos. If they are going into smartphones, I think they are more likely to add to their newton os and then infuse it with an opensource kernel.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtreosexual
    Steve Jobs will do a fantastic job in Macinification of palm based os & devices .
    Otherwise , Bill gates will monopolize handheld market with windows mobile devices.

    This is the only solution left for palm os to survive.

    http://www.wirelessweek.com/article/CA6255715.html

    PalmSource shares surged 77 percent following news that the software company is being purchased by Japan-based Access Co, which plans to leverage PalmSource to extend its reach in the mobile device sector. The deal is valued at $324.3 million.

    The deal calls for Access to fork over $18.50 a share for PalmSource's common stock. Prior to the deal's announcement, PalmSource shares were trading at $10.09, putting an 83 percent premium on the value of the stock. At one point this morning, shares were hovering at close to $18 a share.




    Wholesale Wireless Phone Accessories Online

    PalmSource's operating system currently powers more than 39 million mobile devices. The purchase also will deliver Linux development resources to Access for mobile devices in the United States, France and China.

    "By combining Access' robust NetFront browser platform and its proven business relationships with PalmSource's advanced operating system, application portfolio, user interface and developer communities, we will be able to produce a comprehensive yet flexible solution for the mobile market," Access CEO Toru Arakawa said in a prepared statement.

    In May, PalmSource sold its stake in the Palm brand to palmOne (now operating as Palm Inc.) for $30 million. The deal involved PalmSource's 55 percent stake in the Palm Trademark Holding Co., which was created when Palm was spun off into palmOne and PalmSource in October 2003. The spinoff left palmOne concentrating on hardware and PalmSource concentrating on software. As part of the agreement, the two companies renewed an existing licensing agreement that involves minimum royalty payments to PalmSource of $148.5 million.

    The PalmSource-Access union is subject to regulatory and PalmSource shareholder approval. The deal is expected to be complete by year's end, according to the companies.
  5. #25  
    Apple buying PalmSource would have been analagous to RIM buying the rights to MacOS 9 from Apple. A successful company going outside its core business to buy a technological dead end.

    Come to think of it... Wouldn't Apple be much better off acquiring RIM (assuming they were even in the market)?
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  6.    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by longterm
    While I think that Windows is a mediocre product, I have tremendous respect for Gates as a strategist. He was smart to make a sound investment, one which has put millions of dollars in his pocket.

    .

    Right said .
  7. spiVeyx's Avatar
    Posts
    573 Posts
    Global Posts
    577 Global Posts
    #27  
    "PDA's would not be good business for Apple," Schiller said, explaining that PDAs are a niche market for specialized applications. Basic functions of PDAs, such as date planners and address books, have long been available on most cell phones "and now the iPod," added Rubinstein.
    http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1291

    Yet another recent article citing Apple has no intention to enter the PDA market.

    I suppose it could happen sometime "in the future" but certainly not in the foreseeable future.
    Last edited by spiVeyx; 09/27/2005 at 03:51 PM.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by spiVeyx
    http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1291

    Yet another recent article citing Apple has no intention to enter the PDA market.

    I suppose it could happen sometime "in the future" but certainly not in the foreseeable future.
    What a revealing article! First off, Rubinstein is either being deliberately misleading or simply has no understanding of this market. Toasters and coffee machines are dissimilar devices and are simply a stupid analogy to a converged communications device (despite this, there apparently do exist such converged breakfast machines ). A PDA is not the same as a cell phone with communications abilities that include text messaging, voice messaging, internet access and of course, e-mail. Naturally they don't want to get into the PDA market - it's dying. Mobile communications devices, on the other hand, are exploding, both in popularity as well as capabilities.

    Also, Rubinstein says this of the iPod, "It's a whole ecological system of different elements which coordinate with each-other precisely: the iPod, iTunes, iTunes Music Store and Internet." Sounds a lot like a converged device to me! Hello?

    If Apple has no desire to produce their own converged device, fine, I suppose. Hopefully they don't miss the boat so utterly that none of these devices will even function with Mac OS X. The folks quoted in the linked article certainly sound clueless to me.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  9. #29  
    As I sit here waiting with my Treo600 (4th one, due to cr@p product quality), and as I anxiously await the next generation of killer smartphones, I would give Steve Jobs my credit card number this instant if he said he was going to create a smartphone. It would be an elegant design, and would have a flawless interface. No question, it would kick the world's ***.

    I was actually encouraged to hear of Job's quote saying "we're going to wait & see what happens". This seems a lot different than saying "never". Apparently Jobs also once said that they'd never use flash memory in an iPod...and then came the shuffle...
  10. #30  
    It would be truly interesting to have an iPhone nano. Talk about making the razer look like a porker. If it even grew to iPod Mini proportions it would capture the "coolest phone award."

    And best of all, you'd bet it would work.
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  11. #31  
    Just so it's clear: MS no longer owns any shares of AAPL. And the "non-compete" agreement expired in 2002. Each company is calling its own shots.
  12. #32  
    What happened to Bill's ownership in Apple? Did he sell it at some outrageous price to AppleHeads who just wanted him out?

    IF that is true, I still wouldn't think Jobs would not want to break the peace and risk going head to head again. There is not much upside to it. If he did, Safari would be on Windows.

    On the other hand, Apple will need to create a converged iPod device to survive being it is their bread and butter product. With Colligan mentioning SD cards reaching 16GB in the near future, the iPod as a pure music device will not have many years left as they will be unable to compete with converged devices holding a competitive number of songs with the addition of other features. If the iPod doesn't converge some feature, whether it be phone or video, it will be a dead product within a few years. That is probably why Gates is concentrating on Windows Mobile. He knows that increasing SD capacity will eventually make the iPod irrelevant. So maybe Apple will release a phone - with Windows Mobile!
    ROOTING for WebOS makes me more sympathetic to Cubs fans.
  13. #33  
    First, it wasn't Bill. Second, it was non-voting stock, so they had NO say over what happened at Apple. Third, MS sold their stock just like anyone else would sell stock, for market price. I couldn't find an exact date for the sale of the last share, but suffice it to say, MS no longer owns any of AAPL.

    And why the hell would Safari be on Windows? You realize Apple doesn't actually make money with Safari, don't you? I don't think there's any fear of MS at Apple right now. Witness: Pages and Keynote. Both compete pretty directly with Office products. They're different, to be sure, but they are suitable replacements for Word and Powerpoint.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by longterm
    Plus, the thought of having a cell phone that relies on a Windoze OS for reliability is just downright frightening...
    Nothing could better sum up my sense of dread than this statement, longterm.

    All of us Mac lovers are hoping Apple will release a mobile computer/phone before our current Treos become obsolete so we can avoid the Windows version.... Unfortunately, Apple seems to be too focused on producing endless iPod "variations" to make this move.

    BH
    Last edited by BorderHeeler; 09/28/2005 at 12:45 PM.
  15. spiVeyx's Avatar
    Posts
    573 Posts
    Global Posts
    577 Global Posts
    #35  
    ^ I'm glad I'm not the only one sick of "endless iPod variations"

    I too would really like to see Apple enter the smartphone business. Lord knows it would be killer a device from day 1; iPod + Phone + PDA + Digicam all Apple-style.

    What more could you want?
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by spiVeyx
    I too would really like to see Apple enter the smartphone business. Lord knows it would be killer a device from day 1; iPod + Phone + PDA + Digicam all Apple-style.

    What more could you want?
    Exactly! And the Apple style is a part of the allure. It would be beautiful, too.

    I worry that Apple will just be left behind, if mobile computing really is the Next Big Thing.

    BH
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Financial struggles aren't necessarily the same as "almost going belly up." Apple has historically had fairly large cash reserves - this is one of the reasons for persistant take-over rumors throughout the late 90's - as I recall, Apple has never really had issues with debt.
    Apple had revenues of $8 billion in FY 1997.
    HAHAHA!!!! This is so funny. I was absolutely postive Apple was nearly bankrupt in 1997. So after I read this statement I did a few searches on Yahoo and quickly found another guy on the Apple Kool Aid make the same smug argument about how his beloved Apple was NEVER in financial trouble. Two posts later an Apple employee smacks him right down:

    Re: Shawn on Near Bankrupt
    By Marc Driftmeyer (IP: ---.nas10.spokane1.wa.us.da.qwest.net) - Posted on 2005-06-27 03:47:37
    Shawn wrote:

    Nearly bankrupt in 1997? Hardly. Apple reported $7 billion in revenue that year. I think it's wild speculation to say they were "nearly bankrupt". Not doing well, or operating at a loss might have been accurate, but "nearly bankrupt" is untruthful.


    We, at Apple had 3 months left of working capital to keep the doors open.

    Yes we were on the brink of bankrupt, which was ****ing annoying for us who only became Apple employees after the NeXT Merger and because of this NeXT's own IPO was obvious canceled.


    I found the thread at the following link and it has a lot of interesting information about Apple...

    http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?ne...0&threshold=-1

    It also has a Bittorrent link to Jobs speech from that time in 1997 when he took back over the company. Bill Gates makes his famous appearance to the chagrin of the crowd and then pumps all that $$$ into the company to save it. I'm waiting for it to download right now. I can't wait to see the crowd's reaction.

    And as far as Apple's innovation goes.... I had already known that Jobs had ripped Xerox off for the original MacOS and then bragged about it putting a pirate flag up in front of Apple's HQ afterwards. What I didn't know is that Apple didn't develop OS X either. They merged with another company named NeXT whose NeXTSTEPX OS was renamed OS X after Jobs and crew tweaked it and slapped an Apple logo on the chassis. Does Apple do anything original or innovative? Seems like they either just buy or rip off original companies sort of like... oh nevermind... Hey! Maybe they WILL buy PalmOS!!!
    ROOTING for WebOS makes me more sympathetic to Cubs fans.
  18. #38  
    Bobby Bobby Bobby, stop all the hate and just love man. We Apple people don't really "hate" MS. We just know our stuff is better !!
    <body bgcolor="#ffffff">
    <p><font size="-2" color="#4684ff" face="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular"><b>imageone</b></font><font size="-2" face="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular"> &#x2022; current - <b>PowerBook G4 - Mac OS X - white iPod video 60GB - Treo 650 - 700p (Sprint)<br>
    </b></font><font size="-2" face="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular">retired - Visor Deluxe - Visor Prism - Kyocera 6035 - Treo 300 - Treo 600 - Blackberry 7250</font></p>
    </body>
  19. #39  
    HAHAHA!!!! This is so funny. I was absolutely postive Apple was nearly bankrupt in 1997. So after I read this statement I did a few searches on Yahoo and quickly found another guy on the Apple Kool Aid make the same smug argument about how his beloved Apple was NEVER in financial trouble. Two posts later an Apple employee smacks him right down:

    Re: Shawn on Near Bankrupt
    By Marc Driftmeyer (IP: ---.nas10.spokane1.wa.us.da.qwest.net) - Posted on 2005-06-27 03:47:37
    Shawn wrote:

    Nearly bankrupt in 1997? Hardly. Apple reported $7 billion in revenue that year. I think it's wild speculation to say they were "nearly bankrupt". Not doing well, or operating at a loss might have been accurate, but "nearly bankrupt" is untruthful.


    We, at Apple had 3 months left of working capital to keep the doors open.

    Yes we were on the brink of bankrupt, which was ****ing annoying for us who only became Apple employees after the NeXT Merger and because of this NeXT's own IPO was obvious canceled.
    You are astoundingly ill-informed for someone with such obviously strong feelings about a computer manufacturer. First off, Next was an utter disaster for Jobs. The person you quote is obviously an embittered former Next employee. Second, aw nevermind. Anyone who'll selectively cull unsubstantiated quotes from other forums and who will try and make the case that Apple hasn't been innovative is unlikely to be reasonable.

    Maybe try reading Insanely Great by David Levy for a good insider's story of the development of the Mac. Then read .The Second Coming of Steve Jobs by Alan Deutschman for an interesting (if unflattering) biography of Jobs from the time of his ouster from Apple until just after his return. Both books are full of information and facts.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  20. #40  
    Dudes,

    I owned a Mac SE, a Mac II, and developed applications for the Mac for several years. I loved the Mac and am actually quite happy that Apple survived. But at a certain point I learned not to delude myself any longer that Apple, or Steve Jobs, is really much different or better than Microsoft or Bill Gates, Palm or anyone else.

    Jobs ripped Xerox off, Gates ripped Jobs off. We all know Jobs and Gates but we still don't know the name of the person who invented the mouse. So how is Steve any better than Bill? Apple knowingly sold iPod's with defective batteries they knew would die shortly after warranty for years. And during that time their customer support rudely blew off persons trying to get replacements until a law suit forced Apple to make amends to its customers. I'll take the quality of the Treo over that despite it's problems.

    But I stilll read all these threads about how Apple would make a better smartphone than Palm without ANY problems from day one and how much better their quality is than Microsoft or Palm. They are not. They botched the iPod battery up from day one and refused to fix it for years screwing their customers. They've had bad products and treated customers badly too. That's all I really want to make people see. I don't hate Apple. I just hate this unfactual holier than thou image all their fans delude themself into painting about them.
    ROOTING for WebOS makes me more sympathetic to Cubs fans.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions