[OT] Stupid Apple flamewar (was: SCSI)

[Benjamin Scott]

   Subject modified appropriately.  ;-)

On Nov 28 at 11:56pm, Bill McGonigle wrote:
>> I mean like needing a special screw driver and a special case cracking 
>> tool to open the original compact Macs.
>
> Torx?  Putty knife?

   In 1982, Torx was a "security screw driver".  Heck, in 2005, I had to 
special order a Torx driver with a shank thin *and* long enough to reach into 
the screw wells in my Mac 512K.  And yes, you can use a putty knife (I 
did).  Apple said you had to use a special (and surprisingly complicated) 
tool.  Since Apple said it, it must be true, right?  Or does Apple lie?  ;-)

>> I mean like requiring "APPLE" to be preset in the hard drive 
>> identification.
>>
>> I mean like suing others for coping "their" "look-and-feel".
>
> Just so we know we're complaining about 1987-era stuff, under since-ousted 
> leadership.

   Riiiiight.  "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

>> I mean like using their own odd ball connectors for serial ports,
>
> RS-422?

   <FLAME LEVEL=mild TONGUE_LOCATION=cheek> Do you know what a connector is? 
</FLAME>

   I'm talking about those weird DIN ports.

>> Ethernet ports
>
> AUI, RJ-45, or BNC?

   Whack job funky square metal connector that needs a dongle for all three of 
those.  Had a symbol that looked like this (IIRC):

 	<----->


>> I mean like not even being compatible with their own expansion slot
>> designs from model to model.
>
> So, PDS->NuBus->PCI?

   There were slots that only accepted certain classes of cards in some Mac 
models, so you had to check obscure compatibility lists.  I've long since 
purged the details from my brain, since, thankfully, I don't have to deal 
with that crap any more.  (Now I get to deal with new crap just like it.)

>> I mean like suing anyone who even comes close to touching their precious 
>> iTunes and it's Digital Restrictions Management.
>
> DRM sucks, but reverse engineering it is illegal.  All turn towards DC and 
> 'salute'.

   Nobody in DC passed any laws requiring Apple to sue anybody.  Apple filed 
the lawsuits purely of their own volition.  I don't sue you under the DMCA 
for quoting my message text[1], because I'm not an asshole[2].  Apple does.

>> I mean like refusing to document the interfaces to the iPod.
>
> ben_points++

   <BOMBAST> Won't that risk wrapping around to negative? </BOMBAST>  ;-)

>> Sure, it benefits
>> everybody, and that's great, but it isn't like Apple was motivated by
>> some overwhelming spirit of altruism.
>
> No, but a good application of game theory.

   Absolutely.  Still doesn't make it altruism.  :)

>> AFAIK, Apple didn't publish
>> source to any of the tons of code they put on top of BSD to make Mac
>> OS X what it is.
>
> With the exception of the WindowServer and applications ...

   "Other then that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"  :)

>>   Ah, the ever popular "other companies suck too" defense.  ;-)
>
> Yes, but sometimes you have to buy something ...

   Not the point under discussion.  :-)

>> The *point* was that if Apple hasn't been so proprietary ...
>
> They were willing to license it to anybody for $0.25 a port.

   The figure I remember was $1.  Truth be told, the amount doesn't matter 
that much.  Partly just because margins are so thin anyway, but mostly 
because the difference between "free" and "non-free" is *HUGE*, as anyone in 
this forum should know.  :-)

> Sony, for instance, did this (and Apple was pig-headed about the trademark
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   Yah.  Exactly.  Thank you for proving my point.  You think that *helped* 
Firewire's cause, maybe?

> So, should Apple have given away Firewire?
> It's hard to encourage innovation with that model ...
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   *eyes bug out*

   *head twitch*

   Did I wander into comp.os.windows.advocacy by mistake?

   What happened to game theory?

   Are you sure you're not standing within range of an Reality Distortion 
Field?

> >   (Aside: Remember IBM MCA?  You'd think Apple would learn from
> > history.)
>
> MCA failed because it wasn't backwards-compatible ...

   Yah, just like PCI failed because it wasn't backwards-compatible.  Oh, 
wait, no, it succeeded like nothing before.

   MCA failed because IBM wanted to charge you bucks to be able to use it. 
So the only company using MCA was... IBM.  Meanwhile, the rest of the 
industry got together and came up with an alternative that, while not as 
elegant, was free.  So everybody started making EISA/VLB cards.  Now MCA was 
not only not helping IBM, but a liability.

Footnotes
----------
[1] I doubt I could anyway.  It's hyperbole.
[2] Let's assume it's true for the sake of this discussion, evidence
     to the contrary notwithstanding.  ;-)

-- Ben "chmod a-x ~/bin/tact" Scott