Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!aa0s+ From: aa0s+@andrew.cmu.edu (Adel Talaat Assaad) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Official Legal Announcement regarding Apple's Source Code Message-ID: Date: 20 Jun 89 15:27:19 GMT References: <736@rwing.UUCP> Organization: Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 138 In-Reply-To: <736@rwing.UUCP> My apologies to everyone for adding yet another $0.02 to this subject. In article <736@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes: > Reason I'm adding my 2 cents worth - is that at least with myself, > Apple is doing their overall reputation no good at all with this sort > of conduct - using the courts to surpress competition from makers that > may be less well-heeled, but turn out a product that is equal to or > better than the original in terms of performance, and at a lower > price. It appears to me that Apple would rather not have others > engage in a free market, instead they want to keep a lock on the > market for themselves. This would mean they have to spend less on > R&D, be less concerned about product improvements, customer support, > the whole ball of wax. And they are then free to charge whatever they > want, since there would be no similar products available for less > money. I disagree with the definition of free market implied above: nothing says your implementation of an idea is a free-for-all. In the pharmaceuticals industry, a company retains the right to monopolize a drug they developed for a number of years. And this is potentially life-and-death stuff, not just a computer system among many others on the market. I don't see any reason why Apple has to relinquish its "trade tricks" or its hard earned position to "foster a free market" (as it is defined above) when IBM would have sold its employees by the pound to keep clone makers out of the market (anyone saying otherwise should consider becoming an IBM evangelist!). I don't see why Apple should continue R&D on the Macintosh OS to support other hardware makers either! It is inevitable in a function-oriented market like the microcomputer's that a clone maker will ALWAYS be able to beat the price of the "original" and gouge into its market share: in the macintoshe's case, it's even more true, I think, because the macintosh IS its software, its user interface guidelines, its graphics orientation and its desktop metaphore. The hardware itself is pretty doggone bland, and serves only as a vehicle for the OS Apple makes! I have a feeling that if Apple lets go of their look and feel bit, they will become a software company. Their hardware is just NOT going to compete with the clonemakers' cheapies, and they could end up selling just the OS! I don't condone their attitude, but everyone has his paranoia about viability, and is entitled to it. I do agree, obviously, that Apple's hardware is underpowered and overpriced. They should have had some custom I/O circuits and coprocessors, etc... But overall, their's is the best SYSTEM, and for my personal use the DOS world can keep even the weitek coprocessor. > I really wonder if the founders of Apple would have done so well, if > the market climate when they started up was like the climate Apple is > now creating? Aie Aieaieaieaieaie (Phew). I think I have news for the author of the above: THE CLIMATE WAS LIKE THAT WHEN APPLE STARTED the macintosh. IT WAS EVEN WORSE from their point of view, because even the public was skeptical, and MIS personnel wouldn't give the mac the time of day. I'd like it to be proven that IBM did not try to retain control of the DOS-PC market, if it were true! An undeniable fact remains: Apple opened the market wide for graphical user interfaces. But more about their "effect on the climate" later. > As for myself, I plan to (and have) avoided Apple products like the > plague, and will continue to do so. That is your right, it's laudable to make a stand. I myself could fill a page with companies that I boycott, starting with Exxon: 't was my favorite fuel :-( ! > I also express my feelings to >any clients - indicating that while the Apple products are no doubt >well built, and of good quality, I think supporting a company with >their attitude and way of doing business goes counter to everyone's >best interests in the long run. First off, I disagree that Apple's attitude is detrimental to its clients' interests in the long run, but that's quick sand, so I'll drop it, only pointing out that although their OS is not as nifty as unix may be, they were the first microcomputer manufacturer to TRY to tackle software obsolesence (Look at the IBM world and tell me if you can switch safely from EGA to VGA... or to DOS 4.0 with applications that don't support EMS!!!). I think they were first to inject long term vision into this market (and they made mistakes that are obvious!). They also proved to EVERYONE that computers ARE software, that not-so-advanced hardware can still sell like hotcakes provided you build it into a balanced system, and that computer makers had better bend over backwards to make the user's life easier or perish. What's so bad about this effect? I'd like to see anyone "who-didn't-get-fired-because-he-recommended-IBM" look his clients stuck-with-a-PC-XT-that-was-orphaned-by-its-parent-company in the eye and then throw the first rock at Apple!!! (I am not denying anyone that pleasure, though.) I am really disappointed in Apple's new big-corporation attitude toward the attic hacker, as my only other post attests to it, but I think everyone in the PC business wants to take the easy way. There is nothing wrong or insurmountable ( just unbelievable risk :-)! ) about making a machine with a graphical user interface, a mouse device and a well rounded user-friendly look and feel, witness NeXT, but why does everyone have to copy the Macintosh or rely on its ROMs and OS? You want to sell PCs, make your own. That's what Apple did and they lowered everone else's risk by establishing a precedent. Or is it that Steve Jobs has three balls and the rest of humanity has two? > In short, I think Apple is doing a >great job of earning themselves a LOUSY reputation. And postings >like the recent legal threat only supports that reputation. I find it difficult for an individual to hypothesize about reputation, which is a matter of public concensus, when 1) he is biased (which is normal for all of us), 2) he seems to be working actively to create that bad reputation, which is to say prophesizing and working to fulfill the prophesy. If you were a lawyer called upon to defend Jack the Ripper, you'd do your best to obtain his freedom, if that were his constitutional right. A professional should step beyond personal qualms to serve his CLIENTS best. I know I've had to recommend DOS systems to people when I personally abhorre them, because if the client wants just one thing and an IBM does it better, then that's it! (All other requirements being taken into consideration of course). >WISDOM: "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket" If that's wisdom, maybe Edwin Meese should be made Pope after all! ---------------End of Reply------------------------ As for the "legal threats", I chose not to take them personally, which is what every sane individual should do, but rather as an accurate expression of what Apple would to your "legal" body below the belt line if they caught you at it. I have this to add: a free market is not a picnic, and one should not personalize corporations too much then start emotionally hating them. I'd much rather see Apple go extinct than leave the world with another sclerotic EISA architecture without innovation that gets canonized for posterity, simply because enough HARDWARE manufacturers have too much invested in it. Hope everyone doesn't hate my guts by now. A. Assaad Grad. Student