MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Eran got in 3 questions. Someone knows an Apple Fanboy when he sees one.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Much of the article echoes what has already been posted on MDN, but the 3 questions Eran asked Jobs were pretty good and the answers that Jobs gave were insightful.

I think it was Cringely who thought over a year ago that Apple should give Tiger away to Windows users, after making it PC-bootable, when Leopard became available. That would make the eventual "switch" an easier sell.

I like it that Steve paused when he answered Eran's question. Who knows, Dan may have just put a seed in Steve's mind. World domination here we come.

I don't understand. I thought the best tech stuff come from Redmond.

There's an interesting set of posts over on ZDNET where they basically claim Apple never did anything that they didn't steal from Micro$oft. Gates = all good, Jobs = all evil. They also claim the "Get a Mac" commercials are all lies.

Perhaps we should bombard them with the truth, or are they too stupid to tolerate?

Great crack from El Jobso about Microsoft, but not a great way to treat what is arguably your most important developer. Keep it up and that latest 5-year deal will not be renewed.

CNET is an MS whore, everyone knows that or should. MS is a big sponsor of CNET.

Bloody good article by Roughly Drafted.

Thank god for an unbiased viewpoint from someone who was there.

@ Perspective:

The five-year deal passed about 3-4 years ago. Maybe 5. Not for sure. However, Apple passed on the renewal--and I could not agree more.

You can't argue with trolls, Hard Nard.

Pespectective…

So your theory is that we should all only treat Microsoft in a deferential manner because it might get pissed and withdraw Office.

Well, let's look at that…

1) Why would Microsoft turn down the chance to make maybe 12 million+ instances of $250+ every couple of years? Is MSFT so proud that it can afford to reject around a billion dollars of annual income, most of which is profit? And all because Steve Jobs doesn't think much of Microsoft's products and has the temerity to say as much.

2) Speaking as a bit of a chubby lad, I would have thought that Ballmer's skin was more than thick enough to withstand a relatively modest bit of criticism. Maybe SPJ should have said If it was just a matter of spending money, Microsoft would deliver products on time! There you go, no qualitative assessment, merely a crack about being several years late with a (stripped-down) operating system - happy now?

3) Personally, if MSFT withdraw Office from the Mac, the only thing I'd miss at the moment would be Excel. I haven't fired up Word in the best part of a year as I've become reliant on iWork.

Hard Nard is just trolling for hits on his ZDNET piece.

After having been present at the meeting, Eran is shocked by the SF Chronicle's coverage. He writes:

The SF Chronicle Goes Bananas.
Anyone actually at the meeting will find it hard to read the Ellen Lee's report in the SF Chron, which described the laidback Jobs as “feisty,” and characterized his joking comments as “fired back” into a purportedly embittered and hostile crowd. Lee actually managed to use “fired” twice in her article as a stand in for “said.”

It's too bad Lee didn't seek to capture the truth in her article, rather than invent a scandalous performance of arrogant tyranny out of Jobs.


Unfortunately, anyone who has seen the media in action up close will find the Chron's coverage disappointingly typical, rather than shocking. Often, the reader/viewer is left with a completely distorted impression by the media of how something occurred. And it just so happens that the distortion either: a) fits the reporters' prejudices, or b) adds conflict/negativity to encourage readership (much like high school kids gather to watch a fight).

AFAIK, Jobs offered the $100 computer people ( http://laptop.org/laptop/software/index.shtml ) a version of OSX for their developing world system, still in prototyping, but they turned it down, instead going for open source materials.

Me and Steve Jobs make the same $1 annual salary...amazing. I wonder how he lives on such a small amount...

Wade: This might help explain why OLPC chose what they chose.
From the OLPC wiki:
• Must include source code and allow modification so that our developers, the governments that are our customers and the children who use the laptop can look under the hood to change the software to fit an inconceivable and inconceivably diverse set of needs. Our software must also provide a self-hosting development platform.
• Must allow distribution of modified copies of software under the same license so that the freedoms that our developers depend upon for success remain available to the users and developers who define the next generation of the software. Our users and customers must be able to localize software into their language, fix the software to remove bugs, and repurpose the software to fit their needs.
• Must allow redistribution without permission -- either alone or as part of an aggregate distribution -- because we can not know and should not control how the tools we create will be re-purposed in the future. Our children outgrow our platform, our software should be able to grow with them.
• Must not require royalty payments or any other fee for redistribution or modification for obvious reasons of economy and pragmatism in the context of our project.
• Must not discriminate against persons, groups or against fields of endeavor. Our software's power will come through its ability to grow and change with the children and in a variety of contexts.
• Must not place restrictions on other software that may be distributed along side it. Software licenses must not bar either proprietary, or "copyleft" software from being distributed on the platform. A world of great software will be used to make this project succeed – both open and closed. We need to be able to choose from all of it.
• Must allow these rights to be passed on along with the software. This means that we must not provide a license specific to the $100 Laptop project or organization or its customers. While we are the developers of this platform today, the users of this platform are the developers of tomorrow and it is through them that the platform will succeed, be transformed, and be passed on. They need the same rights as we do.
• Must not be otherwise encumbered by software patents which restrict modification or use in the ways described above. All patents practiced by software should be sublicenseable and allow our users to make use or sell derivative versions that practice the patent in question.
• Must support and promote open and patent unencumbered data interchange and file formats.
• Must be able to be built using unencumbered tools (e.g., compilers).

http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_on_open_source_software

Wasn't Huh? at the shareholder meeting too?

MW = probably

I doubt.

"Steve Jobs on R&D;: If it was just a matter of spending money, Microsoft would deliver good products."

So, Steve, what's Apple's excuse for screwing the pooch? Poor management? Laziness? Incompetence? Confusion? Poor morale? All of the above?

Keep it up and that latest 5-year deal will not be renewed.

Boy, how I wish that to come true. Let's just cross our fingers!

@ Really?

Man, are you on crack . . . or are you just pissed that you didn't buy AAPL last summer (@$50) when all you VistalVirgins were predicting the Mac's doom?

If Apple's success since Steve's return is your definition of "screwing the pooch," I'D REALLY HATE TO BE YOUR DOG!

Re: OLPC OS rules & guidlines

Doesn't Darwin fit all of those requirements?

Come here, bitch. Lie down. Roll over. Good dog, Randian.

Maybe you missed that part of the share holders meeting where people ACTUALLY had complaints about Apple's performance, direction, and ethical lapses.

Some folks have delusions of grandeur, others have delusions of adequacy. If you’re happy with “tolerable”, “acceptable”, and “passable” you live in a pathetic world of stultifying mediocrity.

Microsoft, SanDisk to develop advanced memory cards:

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070511/microsoft_sandisk.html?.v=3

Microsoft will develop the software for the product.

Well they can't develop an advanced OS so maybe they can manage this task.

Microsoft's R&D;spend is very fungible with Legal spending and advertising spending. Most of their R&D;spending is researching new ways to sell the same junk to as many people as possible, multiple times if possible, and developing new ways to argue their way through the deliberately vague and loophole ridden contracts that they have with their partners victims.

In those terms Microsoft's R&D;spend is very successful.

Microsoft and Apple created another 5-year deal to develop and maintain Office in Jan 2006.

The Macintosh Business Unit (MacBU) at Microsoft is the largest, 100 percent, Mac-focused developer of Mac software outside of Apple itself.

And the reason millions have switched.

"Microsoft's R&D;spend is very fungible . . ."

Nice word, Gandalf! So, MS R & D is kept in the dark and fed truckloads of B.S. in order to grow?

@MCCFR well said how many altruistic monopolies do you know. Beside, they need some way of funding their hardware failures.

bcp de blabla pour rien dire,

you are'nt smart enough to understand french ?

Translation :

You speak a lot but you doesn't say anything interesting

About Daniel Eran
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Hi, I’m Daniel Eran Dilger, a tech consultant and writer in San Francisco, California. I ride a motorcycle and I like to work on art projects.
...

Daniel Eran Dilger
1001 Page Street #87
SF, CA 94114
USA

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Journal/Journal.html

hehehe

"whats he got in hiss pocketsesss... my precioussssss"

Hard Nard

There's an interesting set of posts over on ZDNET where they basically claim Apple never did anything that they didn't steal from Micro$oft. <snip>

Perhaps we should bombard them with the truth, or are they too stupid to tolerate?

Too stupid. Anyone who is that unaware of the history of computing doesn't need to be dealt with with anything but disdain. How ironic is it that the same kind of WinPC dork who derided the Mac's GUI as a "toy" now uses an OS from a company that took every single interface element of the Mac GUI and applied it to there own OS? How many people even know that Microsoft's first efforts were writing software for the Mac OS, as they did not have an OS of their own?

Really?

So, Steve, what's Apple's excuse for screwing the pooch?

So you are just put out because the DogCow icon did not make it into OS X?

"Unless you think there's a conspiracy with the SEC, I don't know what to say", Steve Jobs said.

No, there is no conspiracy with the SEC, but there MOST CERTAINLY IS A CONSPIRACY AT APPLE, ORCHESTRATED BY STEVE JOBS!

and --that conspiracy-- makes Steve Jobs criminally liable on a scale orders of magnitude beyond the trifling options backdating matter.

Fred Anderson & Nancy Heinen were DEFINITELY scapegoats!!!!!

Steve Jobs, with the help of Larry Ellison and American law firm Weil Gotshal & Manges, conspired together to steal the inventions of MIT engineer Irving Tsai; and it was precisely those stolen inventions that formed the core of Apple's current redirection into consumer electronics, with the dropping of the "Computer" from "Apple Computer".

As a monument to Ellison & Jobs "brilliant" plan and conspiracy, Apple opened its flagship NYC store right in the plaza of the Manhattan offices of Weil Gotshal & Manges.

Steve Jobs is banking the bulk of Apple's future on stolen technologies, and in so doing, he's committing mammoth SEC fraud, as well as perjuring himself and orchestrating a conspiracy to involve others in committing perjury and fraud in order to carry out his plan. The iPhone, portions of AppleTV, and Apple's roadmap for future products can be seen in the Tsai patents. The iPhone is a legally INDEFENSIBLE product because it is based on stolen inventions and perjured patent filings. That is why foreign "clone-makers" have been able to replicate the iPhone without fear of legal consequences. It is also why Apple has made no comment about any of the clones, whereas in sharp contrast, was sued within 24 hours by Cisco merely for the use of the name "iPhone".

Bill Gates is also a victim of Steve Jobs' conspiracy. Weil Gotshal & Manges duped Bill into using Weil in 2000, both for legal work and to test the Microsoft Tablet PC. What Weil was doing was setting up Bill Gates and Microsoft so that they would be legally incapacitated from retaliating against Apple, once Apple initiated its own attack on Microsoft, spearheaded by the release of the iPhone and using the previous switch to Intel to provide the foundation for pulling Microsoft customers over to the Apple side. Bill Gates was duped into doing things he regrets, by Weil Gotshal & Manges, working all along as an agent for Steve Jobs, and his and Larry Ellison's plan to "kill Microsoft once and for all".

One can easily pull up the Tsai patents and find within the pages the basis for the iPhone, future Apple Tablets, and what Steve has fraudulently been referring to "other amazing products" in the pipeline. Even yesterday's "backside touch input" patent application published by the USPTO, and filed by Apple with the outrageous filing date of January 2007, can find its genesis in the Tsai patents -- which were, get this: filed by Weil Gotshal & Manges for Irving Tsai in the early 1990's. Weil kicked Tsai out as a client in 2000-2001, lured Bill Gates in as a client to set Bill Gates up, then proceeded to conspire with Ellison and Steve Jobs to "screw Bill Gates" using the stolen Tsai inventions which both Bill and Steve Jobs were fascinated with.

Bash Bil Gates. Bash Microsoft, if you like. But Bill gates is a victim of probably the largest corporate crime of the past 50 years -- orchestrated by Steve Jobs, conveniently former Apple Board member Larry Ellison, and Weil Gotshal & Manges.

Fred Anderson and Nancy are SCAPEGOATS!!!

YES, there is a conspiracy, Steve (Jobs), as your subconscious mind is quick to point out. But no, it does not involve the SEC, so in that regard you are telling the truth. That may be the only truth you've told the SEC, your shareholders, and worst of all you falsely adoring public.

to Fred & Nancy are scapegoats:

Now them are very hurting words! But, if you say they are true then I guess it must be so.

This whole tin foil hat conspiracy about Apple "stealing" patents from this Irving Tsai is interesting but even if true:

1. Hardly qualifies as "the largest corporate crime in the past 50 years" sorry that's just laugable hyperbole, at worst it's screwing over an inventor who came up with patents? If so he can sue and collect his money.

2. Legal and moral issues aside, if Apple had not created this based on said patents of whatever origin, it's doubtful there is another company that could have taken those ideas and created as rich of a product as the iPhone. It involves far more than some touch screen patents or even the hardware itself:
* support network of retail stores, for support and training.
* sophisticated full desktop operating system.
* industry leading developer tools and frameworks.
* Integration with media on PC and successful online media distribution model.
* 30 years of industry leading user interface design.
* 30 years of leading hardware design.

I could go on, but the iPhone is far more than just a few patents which may or may not have been borrowed/copied/stolen from some Tsai character. And by the way if he didn't file his amazing inventions and got screwed by this fact I only have partial sympathy for him, if he did file proper patents he should be covered.

Some simple facts of life: the world of business isn't pretty, if you have great ideas ensure that you and not someone else will be rewarded for using those ideas.

I read this...

That is why foreign "clone-makers" have been able to replicate the iPhone without fear of legal consequences.

...and I stopped reading. Any idiot can cut and paste some icons onto a block of acrylic and call it a competitor to the iPhone. If you think icons are the heart and soul of the iPhones patented technologies, you are, pardon my French, a fucking idiot.