Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!van-bc!mdavcr!ewm From: ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Apple = avarice ?? Message-ID: <1026@mdavcr.UUCP> Date: 27 Sep 90 19:01:37 GMT References: <1494@gold.GVG.TEK.COM> Distribution: comp Organization: MacDonald Dettwiler, 13800 Commerce Parkway, Richmond, BC, Canada V6V 2J3 Lines: 71 In article <1494@gold.GVG.TEK.COM> brandonl@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Brandon Lovested) writes: >They invented it, they should reap its rewards...or is that 'rape their >rewards'? No one disagrees that their machines are expensive. But Apple does >do an aweful lot of R&D, and clone makers (to mix an apple and orange) do not. > >Cost of doing business. Brandon, I am not flaming you here, or even really commenting on your post. This is just a general rant... I have heard the R&D argument for Apple's prices an awful lot, and I can't help but begin to choke on it. Steven Jobs has managed to bring out a NeXT machine that kicks butt over the IIfx at half the price. His machine has a heck of a lot more innovative hardware than you will find in any Mac, an excellent graphical user interface, a full multi-tasking operating system (UNIX), an impressive interface builder, etc. Don't tell me that Steve didn't do any R&D to produce this machine. He may be using more off the shelf components than Apple (I'm not sure whether that is true), but if he is, it is obviously a working formula. The point here is not whether or not the NeXT will sell and be a successful machine. If it fails, I believe it will be more for reasons of the difficulty in breaking into the workstation/high-end-pc market. Hopefully, it will at least have a downward pressure on the overall price of machines in this catagory. =========== On a slightly different note: >But, in order to expand market share, I do not feel they can maintain their >present tight-gripped practice. They have done an unprecedented job of >retaining their legal rights, quite successful. Though opening their market >too widely (ala IBM) could hurt them, technology licenses are a viable option >for Apple as well as developers using Apple ROMS, etc. Has anyone heard of RomLIB for the Sun's? I don't have the posting handy, but there is a small company reverse engineering the Mac ROMS. Currently, they have a library for the Sun's that allows you to compile Mac source code and run applications on the Sun that look exactly like a Mac. Apparently, they support Inside Mac volumes 1-4 (so far). Their ultimate goal is to bring out a set of clone Mac ROMs. Rah Rah!!! If Apple doesn't get their buts in gear and get realistic about licensing Mac Clones, they could be in serious do-do. No doubt they will sue these guys, but: a) Apple can't get them on source code copyright infringement, as long as the clone ROMs are legitimately reverse engineered, without disassembling any Mac ROM code. Clone IBM ROMs have been around for years, and this has been hashed over in the courts many times. b) The look-and-feel argument only applies to the SYSTEM SOFTWARE, not the ROMS. The ROMs only provide the hooks to generate a given look-and-feel; they do not enforce a particular user interface. Clone makers could thus either write their own System Software, or, more likely, sell the hardware without System Software and allow the customer to buy his own Mac OS. Even if Apple then restricts system software sales to registered hardware owners, it is awfully easy to copy a System Disk... Of course, I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple then put in checks in their System software to verify that Apple Mac ROMS are being used, but this is a battle that I can't help but hope they will eventually either lose, or grow out of. Eric