On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 01:19:00 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 21:15:53 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

The good part was he recognized brilliance, which Xerox never did. But he
stole the design, he did not borrow it. Xerox should have owned about 1/2
of Apple for that breach of etiquette. He even tried to sue Microsoft for
stealing "his" idea.


There was a lot of "idea stealing" going on in the early PC business.
If you saw a neat idea, you stole it.
Gates perfected the art of simply buying out any serious competition
he had once he was rich enough to sue.
Jobs was successful because he was too small to be sued for anti-trust
when Apple was young and too big to screw with when it became
successful He is probably the most successful "closed architecture"
company since Ma Bell.
He got away with it because his reach was spread across so many
different platforms that he did not have a monopolistic market share
of any of them.
Of course there is no such thing as anti trust legislation these days
anyway.

Personally I think Apple is a little too "culty" for me. I prefer open
architecture and I will live with the quirks.
Dell is too "closed" for my taste.

And so the game continues with the iPhone and iPad, neither allowing
flash (and thereby opening the platform) to run.

But, unlike the closed architcture of the Mac, iPads (for now) and
iPods dominate the market. Apple will never dominate the computer
business. They may sell more laptops than any other laptop
manufacturer but there are 10 laptop manufacturers, mostly producing
product for the Windows environment. Even with the iPad's popularity,
competitors running Android (Galaxy Tab) are quickly gaining momentum.

The iPod and iPhone will continue to have a large market share but the
computing market, including the iPad, is another thing.

On 10/7/11 2:58 AM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 01:19:00 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 21:15:53 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

The good part was he recognized brilliance, which Xerox never did. But he
stole the design, he did not borrow it. Xerox should have owned about 1/2
of Apple for that breach of etiquette. He even tried to sue Microsoft for
stealing "his" idea.


There was a lot of "idea stealing" going on in the early PC business.
If you saw a neat idea, you stole it.
Gates perfected the art of simply buying out any serious competition
he had once he was rich enough to sue.
Jobs was successful because he was too small to be sued for anti-trust
when Apple was young and too big to screw with when it became
successful He is probably the most successful "closed architecture"
company since Ma Bell.
He got away with it because his reach was spread across so many
different platforms that he did not have a monopolistic market share
of any of them.
Of course there is no such thing as anti trust legislation these days
anyway.

Personally I think Apple is a little too "culty" for me. I prefer open
architecture and I will live with the quirks.
Dell is too "closed" for my taste.

And so the game continues with the iPhone and iPad, neither allowing
flash (and thereby opening the platform) to run.

But, unlike the closed architcture of the Mac, iPads (for now) and
iPods dominate the market. Apple will never dominate the computer
business. They may sell more laptops than any other laptop
manufacturer but there are 10 laptop manufacturers, mostly producing
product for the Windows environment. Even with the iPad's popularity,
competitors running Android (Galaxy Tab) are quickly gaining momentum.

The iPod and iPhone will continue to have a large market share but the
computing market, including the iPad, is another thing.


Ahh, but there are no laptops I have seen as elegant as the MacBooks,
especially the new really light and small new laptops. Even my two or
three year old MacBook Pro has a more elegant design than almost any
laptop offered by another vendor. Plus, if I wanted to, I could run
virtually any Windoze program on it. The downside is that the Apple
computer products are significantly overpriced on the basis of hardware.

I think the iPad is pretty slick, but it's not for us. The scarcity of
ports plus the necessity of carrying around a keyboard if you really
want to use it as a laptop replacement limits its attractiveness. And,
of course, you'd have to subscribe to a second data plan if you wanted
to "connect" with it by means other than wi-fi. The Samsung Galaxy
models are slick, but again, you need to carry a keyboard to do any
serious typing. I do think it has more ports, though. On the downside,
the Android OS isn't nearly as elegant as what Apple offers.

I probably would have gotten in line for an iPhone 5, but the 4S doesn't
do it for me. My Android smartphone is coming off contract soon, but the
4S has a smaller screen than my current cell. I was hoping the iPhone 5
would have a larger screen. We'll have to wait and see on that one.

--
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

In article ,
says...

On 10/7/11 2:58 AM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 01:19:00 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 21:15:53 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

The good part was he recognized brilliance, which Xerox never did. But he
stole the design, he did not borrow it. Xerox should have owned about 1/2
of Apple for that breach of etiquette. He even tried to sue Microsoft for
stealing "his" idea.


There was a lot of "idea stealing" going on in the early PC business.
If you saw a neat idea, you stole it.
Gates perfected the art of simply buying out any serious competition
he had once he was rich enough to sue.
Jobs was successful because he was too small to be sued for anti-trust
when Apple was young and too big to screw with when it became
successful He is probably the most successful "closed architecture"
company since Ma Bell.
He got away with it because his reach was spread across so many
different platforms that he did not have a monopolistic market share
of any of them.
Of course there is no such thing as anti trust legislation these days
anyway.

Personally I think Apple is a little too "culty" for me. I prefer open
architecture and I will live with the quirks.
Dell is too "closed" for my taste.

And so the game continues with the iPhone and iPad, neither allowing
flash (and thereby opening the platform) to run.

But, unlike the closed architcture of the Mac, iPads (for now) and
iPods dominate the market. Apple will never dominate the computer
business. They may sell more laptops than any other laptop
manufacturer but there are 10 laptop manufacturers, mostly producing
product for the Windows environment. Even with the iPad's popularity,
competitors running Android (Galaxy Tab) are quickly gaining momentum.

The iPod and iPhone will continue to have a large market share but the
computing market, including the iPad, is another thing.


Ahh, but there are no laptops I have seen as elegant as the MacBooks,
especially the new really light and small new laptops. Even my two or
three year old MacBook Pro has a more elegant design than almost any
laptop offered by another vendor. Plus, if I wanted to, I could run
virtually any Windoze program on it. The downside is that the Apple
computer products are significantly overpriced on the basis of hardware.

I think the iPad is pretty slick, but it's not for us. The scarcity of
ports plus the necessity of carrying around a keyboard if you really
want to use it as a laptop replacement limits its attractiveness. And,
of course, you'd have to subscribe to a second data plan if you wanted
to "connect" with it by means other than wi-fi. The Samsung Galaxy
models are slick, but again, you need to carry a keyboard to do any
serious typing. I do think it has more ports, though. On the downside,
the Android OS isn't nearly as elegant as what Apple offers.

I probably would have gotten in line for an iPhone 5, but the 4S doesn't
do it for me. My Android smartphone is coming off contract soon, but the
4S has a smaller screen than my current cell. I was hoping the iPhone 5
would have a larger screen. We'll have to wait and see on that one.

Harry likes his Mac because it's prety!!!

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On 10/7/11 2:58 AM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 01:19:00 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 21:15:53 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

The good part was he recognized brilliance, which Xerox never did. But he
stole the design, he did not borrow it. Xerox should have owned about 1/2
of Apple for that breach of etiquette. He even tried to sue Microsoft for
stealing "his" idea.


There was a lot of "idea stealing" going on in the early PC business.
If you saw a neat idea, you stole it.
Gates perfected the art of simply buying out any serious competition
he had once he was rich enough to sue.
Jobs was successful because he was too small to be sued for anti-trust
when Apple was young and too big to screw with when it became
successful He is probably the most successful "closed architecture"
company since Ma Bell.
He got away with it because his reach was spread across so many
different platforms that he did not have a monopolistic market share
of any of them.
Of course there is no such thing as anti trust legislation these days
anyway.

Personally I think Apple is a little too "culty" for me. I prefer open
architecture and I will live with the quirks.
Dell is too "closed" for my taste.

And so the game continues with the iPhone and iPad, neither allowing
flash (and thereby opening the platform) to run.

But, unlike the closed architcture of the Mac, iPads (for now) and
iPods dominate the market. Apple will never dominate the computer
business. They may sell more laptops than any other laptop
manufacturer but there are 10 laptop manufacturers, mostly producing
product for the Windows environment. Even with the iPad's popularity,
competitors running Android (Galaxy Tab) are quickly gaining momentum.

The iPod and iPhone will continue to have a large market share but the
computing market, including the iPad, is another thing.


Ahh, but there are no laptops I have seen as elegant as the MacBooks,
especially the new really light and small new laptops. Even my two or
three year old MacBook Pro has a more elegant design than almost any
laptop offered by another vendor. Plus, if I wanted to, I could run
virtually any Windoze program on it. The downside is that the Apple
computer products are significantly overpriced on the basis of hardware.

I think the iPad is pretty slick, but it's not for us. The scarcity of
ports plus the necessity of carrying around a keyboard if you really
want to use it as a laptop replacement limits its attractiveness. And,
of course, you'd have to subscribe to a second data plan if you wanted
to "connect" with it by means other than wi-fi. The Samsung Galaxy
models are slick, but again, you need to carry a keyboard to do any
serious typing. I do think it has more ports, though. On the downside,
the Android OS isn't nearly as elegant as what Apple offers.

I probably would have gotten in line for an iPhone 5, but the 4S doesn't
do it for me. My Android smartphone is coming off contract soon, but the
4S has a smaller screen than my current cell. I was hoping the iPhone 5
would have a larger screen. We'll have to wait and see on that one.

Harry likes his Mac because it's prety!!!

What color is Harry's Mac?

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 01:19:00 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 21:15:53 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

The good part was he recognized brilliance, which Xerox never did. But he
stole the design, he did not borrow it. Xerox should have owned about 1/2
of Apple for that breach of etiquette. He even tried to sue Microsoft for
stealing "his" idea.


There was a lot of "idea stealing" going on in the early PC business.
If you saw a neat idea, you stole it.
Gates perfected the art of simply buying out any serious competition
he had once he was rich enough to sue.
Jobs was successful because he was too small to be sued for anti-trust
when Apple was young and too big to screw with when it became
successful He is probably the most successful "closed architecture"
company since Ma Bell.
He got away with it because his reach was spread across so many
different platforms that he did not have a monopolistic market share
of any of them.
Of course there is no such thing as anti trust legislation these days
anyway.

Personally I think Apple is a little too "culty" for me. I prefer open
architecture and I will live with the quirks.
Dell is too "closed" for my taste.

And so the game continues with the iPhone and iPad, neither allowing
flash (and thereby opening the platform) to run.

Hence the iCloud. Apple has figured out how to keep their hand in your
wallet.

But, unlike the closed architcture of the Mac, iPads (for now) and
iPods dominate the market. Apple will never dominate the computer
business. They may sell more laptops than any other laptop
manufacturer but there are 10 laptop manufacturers, mostly producing
product for the Windows environment. Even with the iPad's popularity,
competitors running Android (Galaxy Tab) are quickly gaining momentum.

Apple is not the issue, Microsoft is the issue. The number of
applications that run on Windows is important.

The iPod and iPhone will continue to have a large market share but the
computing market, including the iPad, is another thing.

On 10/7/11 8:12 AM, BAR wrote:

Apple is not the issue, Microsoft is the issue. The number of
applications that run on Windows is important.


There no longer is a single application I use for which there isn't a
similar or better version available for the Apple OS. I have a lot of
Mac apps, too. Oh, and MS releases Mac versions of its leading software
for use on Macs. And, of course, Windoze, even the latest version, runs
just fine on Macs.

--
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

On 10/7/2011 8:23 AM, X ` Man wrote:

There no longer is a single application I use for which there isn't a
similar or better version available for the Apple OS.

Krause once again confirms his myopic view of the world.

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 09:10:01 -0400, Jimmy wrote:

On 10/7/2011 8:23 AM, X ` Man wrote:

There no longer is a single application I use for which there isn't a
similar or better version available for the Apple OS.

Krause once again confirms his myopic view of the world.

Hey, dildo, he said "I use." That means for his purposes, it works.

You have something against personal freedom?

On 10/7/11 3:44 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 09:10:01 -0400, wrote:

On 10/7/2011 8:23 AM, X ` Man wrote:

There no longer is a single application I use for which there isn't a
similar or better version available for the Apple OS.

Krause once again confirms his myopic view of the world.

Hey, dildo, he said "I use." That means for his purposes, it works.

You have something against personal freedom?

Most of the righties here simply cannot read a simple declarative
sentence and understand it.

"Jimmy," whose posts I don't read, is just a doppelganger of a regular
poster here. You'd be amazed at how few folks there are in here who post
with any regularity or frequency.




--
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 09:10:01 -0400, Jimmy wrote:

On 10/7/2011 8:23 AM, X ` Man wrote:

There no longer is a single application I use for which there isn't a
similar or better version available for the Apple OS.

Krause once again confirms his myopic view of the world.

Hey, dildo, he said "I use." That means for his purposes, it works.

You have something against personal freedom?

You need to lookup myopic.