Of Gates and Jobs

[arn]

nubneck wrote in with this:

This week, popular technology writer, Robert Cringely devoted his column to the new iMac and Apple\'s longevity: Why the New iMacs Will Be Successful No Matter What They Look Like (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20020110.html)

Which provides an interesting look into this writer's opinion of Jobs outlook on life, as well as some reasoning why Apple will continue to thrive.

[eyelikeart]

I think it paints a pretty acurate picture of the Steve Jobs that we all, as Mac enthusiasts, have grown to know, love & hate. It definitely decorates the rivalry between the two without diving into the depths of their history together.

[mischief]

This guy is acting more from being snubbed than doing research. This is a 50 year chess game. The prize at stake? For Steve Jobs: its Being the person who goes down in History as the one who made global conciousness happen.
For Bill Gates: it's dying with "more money than God". Or, if you like Froyd it's winning the approval of Bill Gates II, his Dad.

[eyelikeart]

he did make an issue out of Jobs declining the interview....

who really cares though?

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by mischief
This guy is acting more from being snubbed than doing research.
Maybe, but ask yourself, "Why should Jobs do the interview in the first place?"
I mean, what's in it for him? Forwarding any kind of animosity towards Gates or MicroSoft does him (or Apple) very little good as it would probably come off as whining, or even admitting Gates had beat him. (Not that I think he has!)

[mischief]

I was hoping that'd be obvious to somebody!!!!:rolleyes:

[wake_up]

Great article!!!

And i think he is right about Cringely's First Law, about consumers not willing to be 2 generations beyond the latest greatest.
Except i don't think i'll fall in that category being next to my 8500 PPC.
I think i'll have to stop spending on food and other exorbitant luxurities,
cause i really, really really want that new new iMac.

[eyelikeart]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw

Maybe, but ask yourself, "Why should Jobs do the interview in the first place?"
I mean, what's in it for him? Forwarding any kind of animosity towards Gates or MicroSoft does him (or Apple) very little good as it would probably come off as whining, or even admitting Gates had beat him. (Not that I think he has!)

it could have looked like a sign of weakness on Jobs' part...

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by wake_up
Except i don't think i'll fall in that category being next to my 8500 PPC.
I think i'll have to stop spending on food and other exorbitant luxurities,
cause i really, really really want that new new iMac.

I must say, I would not upgrade if it were not for:
a) render time; and
b) the "OH MY GOD, I HAVE to have one" factor.

Outside of that, if I were a regular user of word, I would survive without...... at least until Jobs forced me to act of problem b again
LOL

[sprescott1974]

is the last paragraph of the article. no matter how hard gates pushes windoze on the world, turn on any movie or tv show and people are always using macs. why? because macs are inherintly (sp?) cooler. from the design of the case to whats on their screens macs have always been and will always be cooler then wintel machines. a good analogy, my band may never make as much money as maybe an n*sync or britney spears (not that my music is anythign liek theirs) but my band will always be cooler because we have integrity and get respect. 2 things that m$ is severely lacking.

[mcbane]

i dont think your band is cool... jk
I thought the article was funny though. AS long as apple keeps making good computers and all major devs support them I'll be happy, I don't give a rats ass about what everybody around me uses.

[SPG]

It wasn't really that interesting a premise...Jobs and Gates as little kids in the sandbox. Warhol said it best when he said that all reviews and interviews were preordained and the critics had their positions before ever seein gthe work or talking to the artist.

[Unregistered]

i mean lookin' out for the mac user, not so motivated by personal agendas. i guess i have to admit that was naive of me. still, wouldn't it be nice if someone at apple were interested in playing the MHz game? even if they can't 'win' there are a lot of us who would rather have 1gigihertz G5s (or even a 1GHz G4!) right now than the baked alaska iMac. i know, i know: slow processors are all motorola's fault and apple's just working with what they can get. that's a stretch. if steve really always gets what he wants and he wanted faster macs we'd have them.

[sparkleytone]

SPG i like you again.

Anyways, this was for me a pretty interesting subject for an article, but by then end it had left a taste that was all too forgettable. You could say this is due to Job's "snub" but I think its more due to the writer's own hurt pride.

If you think about the timeframe, Jobs' excuse was all too poignant. Why throw fuel to the fire when you can sit back and (he hoped) watch Gates dance on hot coals. Yeah, maybe Steve wanted to snub ol' Bill but hey, its the little things in life that most people enjoy, a thing Gates just refuses to get.

It's pretty damn funny to see the richest man in the world doing a preliminary interview whose subject is his prime competitor, and then that competitor decides that article won't ever be done.

Anyways the writer did touch on something rather thought-provoking. Steve Jobs may not win any battles, but as far as he's concerned, he won the war long ago and revels in that everyday.

[Unregistered]

I bought my new iMac on monday because it offers substance and style available nowhere else. I also own and use a Cube at work (same deal). I also own a 1-month old iBook (same deal). I cannot find anything made by another computer maker that comes close to the standard Apple sets, and until I do, will remain a Mac hardware loyalist. I have not found another operating system that comes close to the standards OS 9.2 and OS X set, and ditto the above statement. I have not a found a software program available only on the Windows side that would entice me to shift my allegiance, and though I use Mr, Gates products (His OS X office suite is pretty damn impressive), If they went Windows-only I could easily spin off to better designed options (Mariner, Nisus, etc.) but for the cross-compatibility issue the Gates hegemony forces upon all of us who interact at a business level. Steve may be a megalomaniac, and your assesment of him is probably mostly on the mark, but I firmly believe he wants to both set the standard AND empower those who feel as he does about the marriage of quality, function and style. He makes Apple build stuff that he would want to use. Fortunately, 6 million of us (who also happen to feel as Steve does about computing devices and product integration and quality and great design) have a company that builds stuff the way we'd build it if we could. Bill Gates couldn't care less about this stuff (nor should he have to), or US, and that's the point

[Unregistered]

The reason Macs are in more movies is because they do a lot of 'Product Placement' which is movie-speak for giving them away to the production companies et als so they show up in a shot in the movie. Oh yeah, and they're cooler...

[Unregistered]

I bought my new iMac on monday because it offers substance and style available nowhere else. I also own and use a Cube at work (same deal). I also own a 1-month old iBook (same deal). I cannot find anything made by another computer maker that comes close to the standard Apple sets, and until I do, will remain a Mac hardware loyalist. I have not found another operating system that comes close to the standards OS 9.2 and OS X set, and ditto the above statement. I have not a found a software program available only on the Windows side that would entice me to shift my allegiance, and though I use Mr, Gates products (His OS X office suite is pretty damn impressive), If they went Windows-only I could easily spin off to better designed options (Mariner, Nisus, etc.) but for the cross-compatibility issue the Gates hegemony forces upon all of us who interact at a business level. Steve may be a megalomaniac, and your assesment of him is probably mostly on the mark, but I firmly believe he wants to both set the standard AND empower those who feel as he does about the marriage of quality, function and style. He makes Apple build stuff that he would want to use. Fortunately, 6 million of us (who also happen to feel as Steve does about computing devices and product integration and quality and great design) have a company that builds stuff the way we'd build it if we could. Bill Gates couldn't care less about this stuff (nor should he have to), or US, and that's the point

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by sparkleytone
It's pretty damn funny to see the richest man in the world doing a preliminary interview whose subject is his prime competitor, and then that competitor decides that article won't ever be done.

I really don't understand why many see Apple as Microsofts "prime competitor". Microsoft sells software for the MacOS and is moving into that market. Microsofts prime competition would be a company that makes similar products to theirs on their home system.

[udannlin]

Originally posted by sprescott1974
turn on any movie or tv show and people are always using macs.

Thats because thats a big marketing technique that Apple has dedicated on using. They have a department that does that as their primary task - Product placement in television and movies.

These people get paid for these placements. Not to mention that all the Video and Film editors use Mac's themselves.

[udannlin]

Linux is a bigger threat to M$ than Apple.

Sony is a bigger threat to Apple than M$.

Its not really about the companies they represent today. Maybe is was 25 years ago.

Today, its more about their public acceptance. Yes Windows has more market share than Mac OS and WinTel boxes sell better than PowerMacs and iMacs. Gates and Jobs are not playing in the same field. They have both won in the game they consciously chose to play.

Gates is the richest man in the world. Congratulations.

Jobs runs the coolest companies in the world. Congratulations.

[AlphaTech]

I have a question for my fellow Mac fiends.

There is a person at work that continually claims that m$ bailed out Apple those years back (pre Jobs I believe) when they gave Apple some money. I do not remember the specific, but I thought it was to make sure that m$ would continue to make the office products for the Mac. He seems to think it was more.

I hope that Apple is around many years after m$ is dead and buried.

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
There is a person at work that continually claims that m$ bailed out Apple those years back (pre Jobs I believe) when they gave Apple some money.

All I know is that Apple had far too much money to be "bailed out" by Apple and Microsoft did not give Apple money, there was a purchase of silent shares in the business.

[AlphaTech]

Thank you... Do you happen to have any kind of percent?? I would love to be able to rub his nose in it at some point in the future.

He occasionally comments about his blue and white crashing (on his desk at work), but never has the time to either give me details or to work on it. I have a feeling it is his m$ aura that does it more then anything else.

[Mike Gagne]

While comparing Jobs and Gates, step down a notch to the seconds in command Tevanian and Ballmer. Does it become easier to discern a flavor in the two companies? Is integrity more apparent? It seems as though we would like to judge the companies by the CEO when in reality they are made up of a large group of people who are the embodiment of the public face of the venture with the CEO setting the tone.....being a cheer leader if you will. Apple has a depth of integrity that is only hinted at by the quality of the people through the corporate chain of command while Microsoft to me appears to be be manufacturing its image through influence and power as the need arises. Products are products and both companies have their strong points but when I need to imagine a human behind the corporate facade make it Tevanian's over Ballmer's anyday and the same goes for Steve over Bill. Thanks for your ear...... Aloha

[CHess]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
I have a question for my fellow Mac fiends.

There is a person at work that continually claims that m$ bailed out Apple those years back (pre Jobs I believe) when they gave Apple some money. I do not remember the specific, but I thought it was to make sure that m$ would continue to make the office products for the Mac. He seems to think it was more.

I hope that Apple is around many years after m$ is dead and buried.

Alpha, I don't know the exact cash figure, but according to Steven Levy's book "Insanely Great", the money given to Apple was in the millions as a "licensing fee" in order to get Apple to drop it's complaints against Windows 95.

In this "settlement" initiated by Jobs, Gates entered into an agreement to continue developing Mac software. I believe the agreement expired sometime last year, and even so, we have Office v.X and Microsoft's statement that it will continue developing for the Mac as long as there's money in it.

I think your co-worker has a slightly skewed view of Gate's role in Apple's recovery.;)

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by sprescott1974
No matter how hard gates pushes windoze on the world, turn on any movie or tv show and people are always using macs. why? because macs are inherintly (sp?) cooler. from the design of the case to whats on their screens macs have always been and will always be cooler then wintel machines.

While the Mac is, at best, 5% of the market, pay close attention to the screens of computers in advertisements. Notice they look distinctively Mac-like? I have been a die-hard Mac fanatic since 1989 (with my Mac IIcx) and believe that the MacOS is far superior in many ways. While Mr. Gates may have a shrewd and thieving mind, one thing he sorely lacks is a sense of aesthetics. Ditto the rest of the Windoze world. BUT, I might add, neither does much of the public.

[RayCon]

Originally posted by sprescott1974
No matter how hard gates pushes windoze on the world, turn on any movie or tv show and people are always using macs. why? because macs are inherintly (sp?) cooler. from the design of the case to whats on their screens macs have always been and will always be cooler then wintel machines.

While the Mac is, at best, 5% of the market, pay close attention to the screens of computers in advertisements. Notice they look distinctively Mac-like? I have been a die-hard Mac fanatic since 1989 (with my Mac IIcx) and believe that the MacOS is far superior in many ways. While Mr. Gates may have a shrewd and thieving mind, one thing he sorely lacks is a sense of aesthetics. Ditto the rest of the Windoze world. BUT, I might add, neither does much of the public.

Oops! Sorry about the duplicate post...

[Ju]

I believe the true winners are neither Jobs nor Gates. Its all of us. I was fascinated by computers back in the days of the ZX80, Comodore, Atari etc. Then I learned to hate them when the uninspired PCs took over. By accident I saw the powerbook of my colleague. I was instantly in love with the MacOS. While I now (and still) own a Poerbook G3, I watched the introduction and success of the Titanium, iPod, and now the new iMac with a pleasure only comparable with the perception of art or music. Its the art of good design. And I am addicted to it.

Long live Apple!

[Unregistered]

in my opinion, the author is missing one important point: The vision. Steve is a somewhat crazy artist with a vision. If he could, I think he would erase the entire computer world and build up something completely different. Bill is a smart tech guy who guards what he has built up and is satisfied with doing what he has to, rather than feeling that urge to ghange everything completely. On the other hand, I've never met anyone of them in person, so it could be me just getting it all wrong from the media, as usual...

[Moby 1]

I see Bill Gates as a business man. He's very good at it.

I see Steve Jobs as a creative person. He's very, very good at that.

I admire both in their own way and I'd like to meet both in person.

I DID get to meet Jon "Mad Dog" Hall! I see him as a visionary.

LINUX/Open Source is the real wild card here...M$ knows that...

M1

[Unregistered]

AlphaTech,

M$ bought $150 million in common stock back when Steve Jobs first returned to Apple... if you don't know, common stock is non-voting stock (so the idiots that claim M$ owns Apple are way off). Apple had about 6 billion dollars in cash reserves at the time, so $150mil was small in comparison (2.5%), and definitely not needed to "bail Apple out." It was only one small part of an agreement made at the time (all the details are unknown)... remember at the time Netscape still had a larger user base than IE. Part of the deal also put IE on Apple machines by default.

M$ does not own any of the stock anymore that it had invested in Apple back in (I believe) 1997 according to a New York Times article.

It's quite annoying hearing people drone on about how M$ "owns Apple" or "saved Apple" or whatever as it is quite far from the truth.

Cheers.

[Unregistered]

AlphaTech,

From what I understand, the agreement also included Microsoft continuing to make Office for the Mac while Apple made IE the default browser instead of Netscape. That's really what the money was for ? knocking Netscape out of the market (and Microsoft paid Apple to be the hit-man in Mac market)

[networkman]

i agree with one point when you say microsoft never owned apple

but they did save apple according to analysts in the IT field and the 150 million was much needed at the time

i live in near silicon valley and i remember the dire straits apple was in under gil emilio and how the company had no confidence with the mac users in its own backyard

apple needed jobs to come back in 1997 and it also needed the 150 million dollars

people mention the cash reserves and revenue but fail to mention that the company had debts and expenses which would have overtaken the company if it hadn't had jobs to bail them out and that microsoft money

"why did you think that steve jobs made a big deal of that investment anyway?" and "why did that investment make history?"

too many people simplify business and make comments about apple and the silicon valley without knowing the culture of the IT field which they can't really know unless they are in the IT business and have experienced silicon valley first hand... many other comments i hear are speculative hogwash

the type of thinking that thinks that microsoft's investment was not important nor a threat to apple as we know it are the same type of people who thought hardware was where ALL the money was to be made in silicon valley and the IT field in gereral

bill gates pulled out of apple but wouldn't you if you had any "inkling" that the stock would go from lofty heights down to a mere 14 dollars a share?

do not underestimate bill gates and his aggressiveness

[fallt]

If we take off the rose-tinted spectacles (or indigo-, snow- or sage-tinted ones for that matter) I think Mr. Cringely has a very salient point: Jobs and Gates targets are two very different targets indeed. Windows trades market share for a cost-effective solution minus the added iExtras; Macintosh bundles iBonuses to its loyal market base. I think it is as simple as that.

To put it simply: Gates is a businessman (pure and simple); Jobs is an artist (with a good designer at his side).

[eyelikeart]

I agree with a lot of posts here. Microsoft, as evil as many of us would like to paint them, did save Apple and is a very powerful company that is good for everyone. Take a look at the stock market. On good days, u will see Microsoft up and doing really well....but when there's a crisis it's down. They have a lot of influence on business in this country & all over the world.

Gates is somewhat of a genius....he's more powerful than the goverment. He is cunning and aggressive, but what else would u expect from the world's richest man?

[NJ]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
I have a question for my fellow Mac fiends.

There is a person at work that continually claims that m$ bailed out Apple those years back (pre Jobs I believe) when they gave Apple some money. I do not remember the specific, but I thought it was to make sure that m$ would continue to make the office products for the Mac. He seems to think it was more.

I hope that Apple is around many years after m$ is dead and buried.

To best of my recollection it was $250M in silent shares...silent as in no votes and no membership on the board. You can check nasdaq.com to find what company holds more than 5% of shares (so called major stock holders). Last time I checked it was AIM [Management] Holdings with 6% and NO other company.
Apple has around 4 BILLION dollars in cash or other short term easily liquidatable holdings. Apple is a HUGE company.
M$ reportedly sold their shares at a huge profit a while back so they didn't 'help' apple out much financially...it was more a show of "we're not enemies anymore". $250M is not a great deal of money in the grand scheme of things.

[ganderson]

it was just over 5 years ago, MS bought $175 in Apple shares. They agreed to stop fighting, for five years. The agreement just expired. MS needs Apple so they are not the only OS out there.

[G4scott]

I believe that the world of computers is like disneyland.

95% of the people in the world/park and average people, who just use computers. They have windows. Gates did a wonderful job of bringing everyone to the party!

the other 5% are the people who run the world/park. They use linux, unix, Macs, and every other concievable OS. They run the servers that make things possible, they design the software that makes using computers fun, and they are responsible for the major changes and revolutions. If it weren't for these people, then the world of computers would be a very ugly place.

You can also compare the world of computers to a match.

Only the very small part of the tip lights the match. This part is the Mac/Linux part. The rest of the match (the wood) just catches on, and had no real part in creating the revolution, or 'spark'. Now, if there was no 'wood' or rest of the match, then computer revolutions would never catch on, and become large scale ideas. On the other hand, if the match didn't have the tip to light it, then the match would go nowhere.

Jobs and Gates have each done what they orignally set off to do. Jobs is innovative and creative, while Gates is concerned only about his ca$h. Gates doesn't want to innovate, or create. He just wants more market share, and customers. Jobs, on the other hand, is the innovator. He doesn't give a flip how much money he makes. He just wants to influence the lives of as many people as possible. He wants to change the world, and he believes he can, "Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."

go to this page (http://www.apple.com/thinkdifferent/) and read it. You won't find anything like it on M$'s website.

[spikey]

In a way yeah thats true.
Apple all started from woz and jobs getting together and wanting to make computing what it is today (although it was really woz who created apple, jobs came up with the idea).
They were rebels (nicking some of gates' software), they were hippies/geeks/minor-hackers/phone-phreakers, and they always wanted to innovate.
Jobs has a love and will always have a love, for apple computers and electronic technology as a whole.

Jobs does care about his money, but he puts innovation above it.

[mischief]

Both Steve Jobs AND Bill Gates are highly aggressive businessmen. They both rely on others for making it all work. Neither one of them is a true Techie by any stretch of the Imagination. Bill Gates was (pardon the poisonous language) a rich little Punk. The Key difference was not in personality (they're frighteningly similar) but in approach. While Jobs was building his machines with the Woz and actually taking part in the meat of the process, Bill Gates was selling DOS (which M$ hadn't actually produced yet) to IBM as a generic platform for ANY IBM clone small enough to fit on a desk.That was the key difference. SJ was taking the approach of building machines for the common man from the ground up while Gates was simply making a deal with IBM to ride their coat tails into a market that IBM couldn't see. Without his inherited fortune and cadre of compitant techs Gates would be just another weasel. Gates has continued the trend of selling a product before it exists to this day.

So that, I suppose is the difference: Jobs actually produces THEN sells, and takes direct part in design. Gates sells whatever he thinks he can get away with before it exists and relys on his Cadre to make it happen.

[networkman]

the b-school is coming out in me, or it could be the old school of hard knocks, or it could be common sense...but i seem to be one of the only ones who would wish that jobs was more of a businessman

let jobs be a teacher or volunteer somewhere if he wants to be innovative, but he is running a company in one of the most competitive fields in business in the raterace known as silicon valley

if steve jobs put innovation first all the time, he will sink apple like the titanic

the imac was innovative as was the imac2, but as long as something works and brings in money for apple, killing that product in favor of innovation would be stupid

innovation needs to be tempered with a hand on the pulse of the financial health of apple inc

[spikey]

Yeah.
But the most noticeable difference about the two is that jobs is outgoing and always wants to push boundaries. You can see it in his background, growing up, stealing gates' software, getting hands on with technology, and with woz they really truly understood how it worked.
Woz and jobs are really 2 of a kind, there arent many of them who have experienced all the ups and downs of computing, they have been there from the start and are almost like the granddaddys of computing.

gates is just a sadistic ****.

[spikey]

Jobs isnt a bad businessman.

If you put gates in jobs' position then i would like to see how well he would do. Gates has a 90% hold on the market, it isnt really so hard business wise to hold that for as long as he has.

Jobs though has not got a big hold on the market, and he ash the problem of not having as many software developers on his side, also its harder for him to dig himself out of the hole than it would be for microsoft because he has to take care of hardware and software side of the mac, aswell as having to promote an unfamiliar machine to PC people.

I do agree with you though, jobs could be alot better business wise (drop moto).

[Unregistered]

if jobs were a teacher or something he would not be able to change the world, or even just the computer industry.

he has to work with the very talented people at apple to innovate.

because nothing ever happens by just dreaming about it or talking about it.

it takes force to thrust innovation to really happen.

the vision and passion of jobs, the loyalty and talent of the people at apple, both are needed to make the mac a computer that mac user love, and non mac user envy.

[eyelikeart]

Jobs isn't bad....and he has done a lot for Apple. I'm definitely not as knowledgeable as some here with the IT industry, but it does make sense to me that to make a company successful, innovation is just a part of it.

But, I think Jobs is aiming for more than just being an innovator....by bringing iBooks into schools to boost interest and use is a great tool to gain some market share...even if it is forced by a deal with a school district. With this and the introduction of the new iMac, Apple's trying to slide it's way more into the heart of the average user rather than specifically catering to the pros...

[networkman]

jobs changed silicon valley more than anybody in the san jose area but it was bill gates who changed the world with windows and office as the common platform of computers around the globe

but it is true that bill "borrowed" from apple from time to time

i would rather have had microsoft come up with an idea and apple be the one to take it to the masses so we could be that 95 percent for a change

i guess all we can as macheads is brag about our innovation while microsoft futhers their reach in the age old quest for world domination

[mischief]

1. Both Apple AND M$ stole the GUI from XEROX. Apple sued M$ over Windows and failed to make their case based on this. However, Apple hasn't stolen anything that made it to market from M$. As far as I know anyway.

2.History has shown that ONLY companies than innovate survive. That innovation may have nothing to do with the product, but I guarentee it's somewhere in the process. I think We've all come to assume, as a result of the dot-com crash that innovation kills.

The key point to remember about the dot coms is that most often they were NOT innovative but oppertunistic. The supporting point is of course that true techies should not under any circumstances run companies.

Jobs is not a techie though he understands at a fairly deep level how it all works, you'll never catch him proto-ing boards or writing any essential code. Jobs did solder and participate in design in the beginning when Apple was about 10 people, but he knew to let Woz run R&D. True, at first he'd be in there hampering progress with micro-management but he didn't try to go it alone as many dot commers did. Gates did better in Knowing he didn't have the technical brilliance to carry M$.

Both men have found their niches as visionaries that push the big picture scheme for their companies. Gates takes more chances and acts with sociopathic market brutality. Jobs does what's neccesary to foreward the vision of Apple he has in mind without the luxury of being able to economically support burning bridges, ransacking the town, then selling supplies and
workers to rebuild (with faulty bolts of course) which, of course Gates can.

What a lot of folks forget is that Gates started with HUGE capital from Gates family assets and won an exclusive contract with IBM for desktop OS rights.

The reason Wintel is as big as it is: IBM was the model for the bulk of the computing industry. When people started building kits, they built IBM clones that ran DOS by default. They built IBM clones because they were students that wanted an alternative to the IBM mainframes at the universities. It was IBM brand recognition that drove initial clone production, not preference for DOS. IBM's reluctance to see an emerging market amplified this effect and soon the students that were building kits were selling pre-built machines. All of these machines were IBM clones and, as such came with M$'s DOS. the enormous support industry for the huge, lumbering IBM business machines created a cheap, ready supply of parts for these clones so costs of production got cheaper and cheaper as the growing number of generic clones climbed. Gates chose the path of Fortune. That's all.

[spikey]

Ofcourse jobs wouldnt be able to change the world on his own. He needs a talented team on his side with the likes of Ive, Woz, Avie etc.
But you have to give the majority of the credit to jobs when it comes to apple. Jobs discovered Ive, It was Jobs' idea to team up with woz a couple of decades ago. I think sometimes people are a little critical of jobs because he isnt a dictator like gates, and yes he can do better if he apple produces the computers they do, but it would mean being unethical and not part of what apple is about.

Apple computers is jobs' baby. Has, and always will be.

[spikey]

Yes Woz did all the work when apple was little.
but it was all Jobs' idea in the first place, without Jobs woz would have stayed a techie/part time hacker.

[networkman]

i agree with everything you say except for the xerox/gui thing

apple saw where gui could go and xerox had it only as a pet project

just like dr. kildall or kildare (whatever his name is) from my area would not have known what to do with a contract with ibm

dr kildall taught as the naval postgraduate school in monterey (as a way to dodge military duty in vietnam) to develop the first workable operating system and as a true techie, he was not a businessman

it is so true when you say techies should never run companies and it is a fact that jobs and gates were not techies in the real sense of the word with jobs being a visonary and gates being an oppotunistic tycoon

gates had qdos and jobs had woz and neither gates nor jobs were stupid enough to think they knew the technical side and stuck to promotion instead

i guess i am not really, really rich because i am a techie and the first thing i think when i see an innovative product is, "wow, what's under the hood" instead of "gee, this thing can make lots of money"

[spikey]

I agree with eyelikeart. Apple are getting it slowly, they are hitting the core by making kids use macs. One of the problems kids have is they have been brought up the windows way so as soon as they get to use a mac they dont understand it and say "whoooow Gnarrrly Duuude, This really sucks duuude". This is because techie teenagers get very jealous of one another and of anything which doesnt agree or is better than them techie wise, and so they blame the software.

But the fault which you have to blame jobs for is that macs are too expensive. 800$ for a mac??? its too much. Me and my friends find it hard to finance a PC never mind an imac. And this is really the biggest fault of apple.

[mischief]

Try to compete with over 100 generic manufacturors of Wintel parts. If Apple had liscenced clones in the early 80's when the introduced the Mac, they might have the generic parts to draw from, but as it is...........
It'd be like re-tooling Rolls-Royces to take GM parts. Better that Apple run with their most consistant approach. As Apple standardizes parts the line will get cheaper. Macs are more part swappable than ever, this has brought value for money into much better ranges but there is no competing with generic parts. I can use 133 168 pin DIMMs in every desktop from the blue and whites, cubes, G4 towers and "fanless" iMacs. Even the new iMac uses iBook RAM. Be patient, 2 years is not very long to standardize what was the most chaotic design department in the industry.

[amichalo]

Originally posted by Unregistered
The reason Macs are in more movies is because they do a lot of 'Product Placement' which is movie-speak for giving them away to the production companies et als so they show up in a shot in the movie. Oh yeah, and they're cooler...

This is not unlike movies that feature new vehicles:
(1) Austin Powers II; Spy Who Shagged Me - VW Bettle Convertible
(2) The Saint - Volvo C70
(3) James Bond; World is Not Enough - BMW Z8

There are tons more. ER also had Gateway's LCD monitors sitting on the desks of the nurses station for two seasons, but whatever the marketing reasons, only the coolest products get that sort of placement. Movies, primetime TV, and other media sources wouldn't accept just anyone's products for use in their productions. So it is a major coup that the <5% market share company is getting much more than 5% placement in productions.

I predict we will see the new iMac all over our TV's in 2002.

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by amichalo

Movies, primetime TV, and other media sources wouldn't accept just anyone's products for use in their productions. So it is a major coup that the <5% market share company is getting much more than 5% placement in productions.

I predict we will see the new iMac all over our TV's in 2002.

There are paid apple placements, but there are also unpaid ones as well. Watch the reruns of Buffy the Vampire Slayer on Fox (or FX if you have cable). You'll see lots of macs with their logos covered up. No money, no logo. But they're there.

The Mac appearances in comic strips are all unpaid.

My prediction is that we'll see the first iMac2 on TV sometime during Feb sweeps. It'll be in the comic pages in March.

-dh

[SPG]

M$ no longer has any ownership stake, or even shares of Apple anymore. hasn't in a few years now.

[SPG]

A lot of the people doing the set dressing and the production are creatives and as such are often Mac users themselves. That explains a lot of the mac placing. Also a friend in TV production once told me that "Macs just seem less threatening as computers so they're more suitable for the backgrounds"

[Unregistered]

I think the jury is still out on who won what in the pc world. It is not, in my opinion, a matter of conversion, but addition. I see the possibility of a different computing landscape than the one we know today - 95% PC/5% Mac. I think Steve Jobs is going down an enviable path even he doesn't understand. I say this because in the recent Time Magazine article he talks about grabbing another 5% market share by convincing 5 out of 95 pc users to switch to Mac. I think there is another possibility. In my own life I have come to recognize, only recently after using imovie, ipod and now iphoto, that we all need two different kinds of computers in our life. One is the windows pc that works with the business world and lots of inexpensive legacy applications. The other is the Mac, which works with the digital media world. I'm sure most people would say two types of computers in one's life is overkill... but look at it this way.... Each home in America initially owned an oven/stove. Then along came the microwave, which did some things not even possible with a traditional oven/stove. Now, the purchase of a microwave didn't demand that the stove be thrown out. Nope... people bought ovens/stoves AND microwaves. They coexist beautifully. I view the windows pc and the Mac a perfect analogy to the oven/microwave relationship. I think we all need to think differently about what Apple really is offering. If Apple were to tell the world that they are missing a necessary piece of equipment in their home and office, one who's primary job is to manage digital content, they could sell an Apple to all 95 non-Mac owners.


I recommend computers to lots of people in my life. In the recent past I would go through a pro/cons list to help them decide if they should buy a pc or a Mac. Now, I have changed my dialogue. I tell everybody they must have a Mac for their digital content and then an optional pc if they need to interact with the business world or their kid needs to play a Lego cd-rom game that is only available for the pc. In the end, the Mac could end up being the necessity (not an alternative) and the windows pc an option.

[spikey]

I agree. In the next few years macs will be the necessity.
I think this because with more digital devices working with PCs, people will want a computer that works and not one just for the speed. And that is the biggest asset macs have over PCs, they work better, they are more reliable, and they are more user friendly.
also people will need less speed, in comparison to a year ago there are less cpu intensive appz out there (for the consumer), cpus arent getting stretched as hard as they used to and so people are satisfied with the speed of their PC. So i think people will look for useability in a computer more.

[eyelikeart]

I'm hoping that we'll eventually see the iMac as Steve wants it to be....the digital hub for the future. I don't even own a digital camera or a camcorder, but I'm already thinking of the possibilities that could lie ahead. I just think it's hard to break people of the Windoze habit....but with OS X, hopefully they will feel more familiar since Windows XP is similar in look and feel....of course having taken styling cues from X....he he he... :p

[CHess]

Originally posted by Unregistered

I recommend computers to lots of people in my life. In the recent past I would go through a pro/cons list to help them decide if they should buy a pc or a Mac. Now, I have changed my dialogue. I tell everybody they must have a Mac for their digital content and then an optional pc if they need to interact with the business world or their kid needs to play a Lego cd-rom game that is only available for the pc. In the end, the Mac could end up being the necessity (not an alternative) and the windows pc an option.

First off, I'd like to reference this person, but it's kind of awkward to refer to 'Unregistered'. I mean, which one am I talking about? Please get registered, so we know who we're talking to.

Anyway, I think it's a good point that we need two kinds of computers. But, if you turn out to be correct and everyone needs a Mac. Then both kinds of computers should be Macs. Maybe the same Mac. After all, you can run Virtual PC on your Mac, so why bother having a different kind of computer to interact with the business world.

Then again, why bother running in a PC environment for the business world at all? The Mac can interface with the business world just great. I do it every day. I work in a Windows NT environment and I bring my TiBook every day. I access the network server and use the exact same documents that I use on my PC at work. I create Powerpoint presentation on the PC or on my laptop, whichever is more convenient to use at the time.

In fact, I had a PC to use at my own desk (I usually do production/analysis work in another room), but I gave it to another user because I'd rather use my own Mac. Every now and then I get a special request to do something simple that just doesn't seem to work right on a Windows machine.

Anyway, my point is that at one time, the PC was the necessity. For some specific applications, it still is. People used to ask me, why buy a Mac? Now, it seems to me that the legitimate question should be asked by all computer users... why buy a PC?

[spikey]

I suppose the PC would be bought to play old and crappy PC games.

But also to learn about computers in general. Since i got my PC i have learnt a hell of alot more hardware wise and software wise by tinkering with it, didnt cost much either.

Also some people will want it for nostalgia.

[eyelikeart]

I've recently decided to go back to college to complete my undergrad after a 4 year dive into graphic design.....and one of the courses I must take is "Intro to Computers"....I'll be learning what RAM is and how a hard drive works....I can't wait! :p

[spikey]

is that necessary or can you skip it?

[eyelikeart]

it's necessary....it'll be great!

easy 3 credit hours....ha ha ha.... :p

[spikey]

Youll breeze through it.

[eyelikeart]

I'm quite looking forward to it....

[sparkleytone]

classes like that piss me off. i took one and then everyone wanted help outside of class. im a music major, i dont have time for that. you cant exactly make some people understand that. plus the teacher usually knows...the textbook. anyways peace out my minirant is over.

[AppleTom]

I don't remember all the specifics...but the money given by Microsoft to Apple was a paultry 150 million dollars.A small sum given to a company with 4 billion dollars in reserve.And it would seem to be a ruse to enhance Microsofts credibility with Apple Users.And it wasn't just "given" to Apple.It was a purchase of stock.Seems even they know a good company when they see it.

[eyelikeart]

sparkleytone...

the class will honestly be a waste of time....but an easy grade nonetheless... :D

[Unregistered]

A few posts back someone mentioned that Mac were to expensive and that getting money to buy a PC was hard enough. Last week to prove to a co-worker that there wasn't the huge price diffrence myself and another person sat down and configured a computer at dell.com to match as close as possible to the new $1299 Imac same graphics card same amount of ram same size hard drive 15" LCD and a comperable pentium processor (making the specs as close as possible) and the dell wieghed in at $1630. We then tried the same test at the high end matching the specs between the two machines with AO3 pioneer drives and all the price there fell at 1899 for the imac and the dell fell in at a price tag of $2080. After all that we realized that the dell doesn't come with hardware to accept a wireless card so you would actuall need to add an aditional $70 for the PCI Expansion card that would hold the wireless card. All in all the dells come in $300-$400 more expensive whne matched feature for feature. (Knew that those $800 pc were missing peices)

[spikey]

Well thats not ****ing surprising sherlock. No-one should buy from Dell, Time, Tiny etc.

I can configure a 1.4Ghz athlon with 256Mb DDR 20+ Gb HD 17inch monitor epox Motherboard DVD player for under £1000.

AS for a consumer machine, i can get a decent athlon for under £500.

so a good, equivalent PC system is cheaper.


You just dont understand, and im not surprised really its quite understandable, you have money so you wouldnt get it. I dont have any, so i will explain the situation to you.
Its not a matter of comparing an equivalent PC to mac, what matters is that apples products are too expensive. Apple need to offer a cheaper mac that is not as good for under £700. When you dont have much money then you dont care about an equivalent mac or PC, you look for the best solution for under £700 (or in my case £450) and apple dont have a solution that is that cheap.
they are missing out on a big market.

[spikey]

You were comparing a new imac to an equivalent PC. It doesnt work like that.

You should be comparing a cheap PC to a cheap imac. there is no cheap imac.

[Unregistered]

first off i'll admit that if buying a pc you should build it and not go to dell. Yet the fact remains that the aveage consumer is going to go to CompUSA , BestBuy, DELL, Gateway, ect. to get their computer because they don't want to or don't know how to build them. So that is a fair comparison.

[Unregistered]

second i wasn't trying to make fun of you say that your point wasn't a point to be taken but that it reminded me of the situatuion that took place and the results that we found and thought it was relivant to the topic that people were posting on

[spikey]

Yes, the consumer will go and buy a PC agreed.
But that consumer is one with money, and one who doesnt need a pro machine.

A consumer not much money cant go to a company like Dell and buy a PC, they cant go to apple and get a mac.
But they will get a PC, cheraply, built by themselves or a friend for under £450. There is no mac for this price.

And the way macs are priced means its impossible for people like me to have one at all.

[Unregistered]

i wunderstand the point that you make but on the machine you are configuring for 450 pounds ($650 US) and throw a 15" LCD on it and you are right around $1100. when making the comparison you really do need to match these types of features. So the complaint is that they don't have a sub $1ooo mac where would you suggest that they trim the machine to fit that profile. Clones don't work, apple almost folded ( I was part of that i bought a starmax3000 from motorola, and the hard drive failed once a year for 3 years by the way) I have tried to take the cheaper route and it wound up costing me more money. The stability of these new systems to me justifies a little more cost up front

[amichalo]

Originally posted by Unregistered
A few posts back someone mentioned that Mac were to expensive and that getting money to buy a PC was hard enough.
<...>
All in all the dells come in $300-$400 more expensive whne matched feature for feature. (Knew that those $800 pc were missing peices)

Thanks for the great detective work. Perhaps this should be added to www.apple.com/myths

[krossfyter]

Is there any movies- documentaries ..out there that talk about Apples history, or Apple and Microsoft, Bill and Jobs, or whatever?


If so name them so I can check them out. Thanks.

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by krossfyter
Is there any movies- documentaries ..out there that talk about Apples history, or Apple and Microsoft, Bill and Jobs, or whatever?


If so name them so I can check them out. Thanks.

Pirates of Silicon Valley is a GREAT one
In fact, I was reading on www.woz.com that Woz is quite happy with the movie as well and thought it was a pretty good reflection on what really happened. A few things were changed, he said, but helped the flow of the movie while leaving the core points correct. For example, an event might happen but they show someone in the scene that was not actually there but since what matters is what happened in that scene not who was there, it works beautifully.

[eyelikeart]

Pirates of Silicon Valley was an excellent movie... :p

[mischief]

What I'd like to know is why Gates can say things about PC users that used to be said about slaves by their owners, and gets away with it.Statements like:

"Windows is the OS of choice for 95% of users."
is a bit like saying (pardon the epithets, they're for effect only):
"Slavery is the choice of 95% of Negroids in the colonies."

Or: "People rely on M$ to give them the best OS they could want."
Is kinda like:
"South African Blacks don't know what they want.We do these things to help, and protect them."

I know what you're thinking:
:eek: :mad: :confused: :mad: :eek:

Don't get too upset, I'm making a point about Gates' state of mind and general contempt for his own users. My own political beliefs are NOT illustrated. I am not belittling suffering or injustices happening in the real world, I wanted to find a familiar parallel to what's happening in I T fields. What M$ is perpetrating is the business equivalent of these arrogant statements and genocidal actions.

[BillGates]

Steve is my hero

[amichalo]

Originally posted by krossfyter
Is there any movies- documentaries ..out there that talk about Apples history, or Apple and Microsoft, Bill and Jobs, or whatever?


Triumph of the Nerds and Triumph of the Nerds II, both by PBS. These were excellent pieces about the beginnings of computers, which included Gates, Woz, and Jobs.

[amichalo]

Originally posted by mischief

I know what you're thinking:
:eek: :mad: :confused: :mad: :eek:


Wow, is there a ":stunned:" face I can use to respond?

Gates is just the latest in a long line of captains of enterprise who enjoyed their monopolistic reign until they were unseated. Gates is (probably) not so mindless as to think that he will forever control the Desktop, but he knows he has a lead and he is entrenching his company as best he can for the time being.

Gates innovates out of competitive pressure. Jobs revolutionizes out of a vision for the Bright Possible Future.

[spikey]

There was a channel4 documentary on jobs,woz,apple and hackers, in Britain that is.
Either you missed it or you were watching late-night channel5. Or more likely you dont live in the uk.

[Andrés]

Hello, this is my first post... any ways; Steve rocks, Bill sucks!