Yes, but (weirdly), a prerequisite for being undead is to have been dead already.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mark Papermaster to Begin Work at Apple on April 24th
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm sure Apple is doing their best to keep up. Maybe that's why they're getting Papermaster.
Yes, but (weirdly), a prerequisite for being undead is to have been dead already.
Yes, but who would know? I have it on good authority that this is photo of Steve Ballmer, before his recent plastic surgery.
Ballmer isn't killing MS - Google and Apple are.
All MS has to do is cut the fat and refocus.
1) Get rid of the Zune
2) Double their efforts on WinMo OS to compete with multitouch OSes
3) Stop confusing the consumer with 20 versions of Windows and offer just one version
4) Make meaner and leaner (more power efficient) Xbox 360s
5) Bust out the guns on Oracle in corporate apps (accounting, manufacturing, CRM, ERP, and other TLAs)
6) Keep plugging away at improving MSN Search (or whatever they call it). They really need to figure-out a way for other people to make money for MSN search like people can from displaying Google ads on their web site. If they've already done that then they need to promote that more.
7) Silverlight everywhere
8) Actually do something with their Robotics Studio. Sponsor a contest eh?
9) Go for the kill on HP Unix
10) Beef-up the MBU to hedge bets and make all Mac products on par with Windows ones. Make Exchange, Sharepoint, and SQL Server Mac friendlier.
Competition? The only area where Apple and IBM are competing these days is in servers, and Apple is kinda lacking in that arena. IBM doesn't make desktops anymore. They don't make phones, they don't make music players, they don't make much in the way of home software. What was the problem?
Yes, but (weirdly), a prerequisite for being undead is to have been dead already.
Funny that. If someone says "you're so uncool", you can bet your life they don't think you've ever been cool.
Then you think wrongly. The R&D has just shifted in other areas, much of which involves pioneering new areas in theoretical physics.
IBM and Apple no longer have to live with sucking off the teet of Microsoft. That is the big change for today. One has Linux to partially thank for this change.
If apple want to take the OS consumer market they have to support pc hardware in the OS. It is so obvious. Sell the OS and support PC hardware and the rats will run to the piper- Taking the business market needs a whole new flute.
Don't worry about the cost. Seriously, don't lose any sleep over it.
Why anyone would care what tiny percentage of their stash one multi-billion dollar corporation will pay to another is beyond me.
MS didn't save Apple, MS just invested in Apple to show them they were serious about a partnership, just like Apple allowed MS to develop an Office Suite for the Mac.
Apple was sitting on a pretty good chunk of money still during that time, yes the company was declining but it didn't need saving from another corporation it needed saving by means of a new CEO, I.E. the return of Steve Jobs.
Well, there were a few things going on at the time.
Apple was in a long-standing and expensive legal battle with Microsoft over patents. Microsoft "invested" in Apple with non-voting shares to end that dispute. Both companies now have a patent-sharing agreement with regards to operating systems.
Additionally, Microsoft needed Apple to regain investor confidence to prove that they still had competitors (U.S. vs. Microsoft).
In return, Apple pre-installed Internet Explorer (and Netscape) on all their new machines. Microsoft also agreed to continue developing Microsoft Office.
The reinvestment in Mac Office was a gold mine for Microsoft. It's now one of their top-selling products, and that division (the MacBU) is immensely profitable.
Microsoft also later sold their shares in Apple (after the Justice Department settlement) for a tidy profit.
Exactly. At the time, Apple's operating system situation was a complete disaster. Pink and Copland were complete failures, and Apple didn't have a vision for where it was going in the future (enter Steve Jobs).
You're right about everything but this. The US v. Microsoft case wasn't even filed until 1998.
MS IS DEAD. So I don't think they will join any ranks anytime soon, apart from perhaps a posthumous sponsoring of a Grateful Dead concert...
ROFL
All those Windows Server/Exchange/SQL installs across the world must be imaginary then, right? Every desktop is Linux or OS X?
Wow, I must have missed that.
First, it's in federal court, so California law (nor Texas law) does not apply.
Second, Yes, you do. I see nothing in the agreement that limits Papermaster at all---just don't reveal IBM IP for a year, and swear that you didn't twice. How hard is that?
And for all the others who say California or Texas does not allow non-competes, when you sign almost all agreements, there is a clause that says that "this Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of _______." And it doesn't have to be in the state where you work. The original IBM work agreement said New York, Papermaster signed it, so that's it.
No, actually the clock was running the day he left IBM, so a shortened period was already in place.
Let's try it again
Two issues here: non-disclosure and non-compete.
Non-disclosure (also called Confidentiality or Secrecy agreements): IBM (or any other company) gets to protect its property, which includes inventions, research, business plans, patents, etc. That's not unreasonable, right? So if you know any of this stuff, you can't just use it yourself or sell yourself to another company and reveal it to them, sometimes for a specific time period, sometimes for many years/forever. Not exactly a violation of civil rights. And almost universally upheld because it's reasonable.
Non-Compete: This means if you leave a company you can't go to work with a competing company, a company that is essentially in the same business. These agreements are a little more tenuous, because you do have a right to put food on your table. So there are usually meetings with involved parties to see if an agreement can be reached. It usually does not go to court. A few states don't like overly broad non-competes, but some form of reasonable restriction is usually upheld if it does go to court. The courts DO look at what is reasonable, contrary to the opinions of many posters, and it's not always simply black and white.
Most employment contracts have BOTH of these clauses, if not separate agreements for both. Most posters have confused/mixed-up these two types of agreement. IBM's agreement with Papermaster covers both issues, so it was never just about the non-compete.
Two issues here: non-disclosure and non-compete.
Non-disclosure (also called Confidentiality or Secrecy agreements): IBM (or any other company) gets to protect its property, which includes inventions, research, business plans, patents, etc. That's not unreasonable, right? So if you know any of this stuff, you can't just use it yourself or sell yourself to another company and reveal it to them, sometimes for a specific time period, sometimes for many years/forever. Not exactly a violation of civil rights. And almost universally upheld because it's reasonable.
Non-Compete: This means if you leave a company you can't go to work with a competing company, a company that is essentially in the same business. These agreements are a little more tenuous, because you do have a right to put food on your table. So there are usually meetings with involved parties to see if an agreement can be reached. It usually does not go to court. A few states don't like overly broad non-competes, but some form of reasonable restriction is usually upheld if it does go to court. The courts DO look at what is reasonable, contrary to the opinions of many posters, and it's not always simply black and white.
Most employment contracts have BOTH of these clauses, if not separate agreements for both. Most posters have confused/mixed-up these two types of agreement. IBM's agreement with Papermaster covers both issues, so it was never just about the non-compete.
Agree with you on that. So many people on this site I think don't really understand the enterprise computing world. IBM has largely divested from much of the consumer and home use computing. Much of their R&D is focussed on enterprise problems. For example I read somewhere lately that IBM researchers may find cures for some diseases before the medical community does... with their help of course. No one in the world is more of a leader in technology than IBM... their patent awards each year dwarf most of the other big players combined.
As for Linux helping to wean us from MS... IBM has been, and still is, a major contributor and advocate of Linux and open systems in general.
Papermaster was a key designer in processor technology for IBM. IBM has a huge business selling technology components. While they may not sell a phone or music player, they may sell technology that is used in them.
Ballmer isn't killing MS - Google and Apple are.
All MS has to do is cut the fat and refocus.
1) Get rid of the Zune
2) Double their efforts on WinMo OS to compete with multitouch OSes
3) Stop confusing the consumer with 20 versions of Windows and offer just one version
4) Make meaner and leaner (more power efficient) Xbox 360s
5) Bust out the guns on Oracle in corporate apps (accounting, manufacturing, CRM, ERP, and other TLAs)
6) Keep plugging away at improving MSN Search (or whatever they call it). They really need to figure-out a way for other people to make money for MSN search like people can from displaying Google ads on their web site. If they've already done that then they need to promote that more.
7) Silverlight everywhere
8) Actually do something with their Robotics Studio. Sponsor a contest eh?
9) Go for the kill on HP Unix
10) Beef-up the MBU to hedge bets and make all Mac products on par with Windows ones. Make Exchange, Sharepoint, and SQL Server Mac friendlier.
And why worry about giving them turnaround advice? Let them rot for their historical lack of innovation and bad taste; it's definitely better for the industry.
It depends on the jurisdiction but courts are not terribly keen on them as they can be viewed as a restraint on trade and the right to freedom of employment. Some states/countries courts uphold them more than others, but almost never are they totally ironclad.
Generally, the higher you are in a company, the more those agreements have teeth - but even then, it depends on what jurisdiction you're in.
As a theoretical example, making a low-level, ordinary salesperson at Best Buy agree not to work for any other retailer for 6 months after leaving would almost certainly be struck out. That employee has almost no special knowledge and likely not the financial ability to sit out such a period.
Whereas, a senior vice-president of a stockbroking firm earning $5 million a year, who has access to all his firm's top client details and knows all the deals and projects going on in his company... making him wait 12 months before taking work with a direct competitor, and barring him from poaching clients, might well be considered acceptable.