| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Apple takes swipe at partner Microsoft in Mac ads | |
|
||
| Time: 06:43 EST/11:43 GMT | News Source: USA Today | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
You could say that insulting Microsoft and raiding its customer base is a calculated risk for Jobs and his often-offbeat ad agency, TBWA/Chiat/Day in Los Angeles. When the Apple founder returned in 1997, he hastily made peace with former enemy and Microsoft founder Bill Gates to prop up his tottering company, including an investment and applications software. Five years later, Jobs and TBWA/Chiat/Day are feeling their oats enough to take a swing at Microsoft, much like they skewered IBM in their "1984" Super Bowl commercial. That groundbreaking spot directed by Ridley Scott, whose later directed Oscar-winning films, also established the big game as the Super Bowl of advertising. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 216 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:58:27 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/16/2002 9:09:14 AM |
|
#2 - Yawn... same old tired rehtoric with no data to back up your claims.
News flash: XP probably outsold Mac OS X's total sales in XP's opening weekend. |
| #2 By 8589 (66.169.175.34) at 12/16/2002 9:42:12 AM |
|
#2 Nomdley, you are so funny. Been in a Best Buy lately? How much room is allocated for Mac Software as compared to PC Software? Nobody but old die-hard Mac Users, and a few computer illiterates are buying Mac's these days. And the latter end up either taking them back, or never using them.
Software is what it is all about. Most people want to play the latest games as soon as they are released. If a Mac version is made, it usually comes out months later. And of course, you have the upgrade hassles too. There are many more hardware upgrades for the PC than for the MAC, and the prices of these upgrades for the PC are much cheaper as well. No, Microsoft and the PC world is not threatened in the least bit by the Mac. But it is good for people to have a choice. But I think one day the world will see the necessity of a unified software solution. Imagine only needing to write for one platform.... And all add-ons work as intended with no conflicts. (this by the way doesn't happen yet with the PC market) |
| #3 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 12/16/2002 10:54:22 AM |
|
xcrax - "When Mac OS X has the version that runs on Intel platform then they might have a chance."
Why wait? Download it right here... http://www.wincustomize.com/skins.asp?QueryType=Object&searchtext=os+x&library=1&Category=All&Amount=5&pcat= Isn't os x basically just a skin anyway? I mean, feature for feature OS X is beaten by WinXP. For example, Movie Maker 2 compared to iMovie. http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/wmm2.asp |
| #4 By 2332 (12.105.69.158) at 12/16/2002 11:16:04 AM |
|
#12 - Well, not really. It's more than just a skin... its kernel is completely different, it runs a different rendering subsystem (which Windows will duplicate in its next release), etc.
But I agree that XP tends to be easier to use for most people. |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/16/2002 11:34:46 AM |
|
If Janie Porche had been using WinXP she wouldn't had to mess around with her digital camera.
In fact I bought this digital camera, see... and I was trying to plug it into my Mac SE/30 running System 7. Wouldn't work at all... I couldn't even find a place to plug it in! This post was edited by sodablue on Monday, December 16, 2002 at 11:39. |
| #6 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 12/16/2002 12:58:16 PM |
|
Nice link Jagged.
nom, Jagged's link supports what I said about Apple's marketing in the other thread. Of course, any MacWorld or independent benchmark would also support my comments. I especially like this comment, "Like all good propoganda, these ads contain a series of partial truths" I guess Apple will never change. Will they let history repeat itself and let this be their downfall once again? This post was edited by n4cer on Monday, December 16, 2002 at 13:02. |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/16/2002 6:24:58 PM |
| baarod, don't know where to start in explaining how idiotic half of what you posted is. |
| #8 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/16/2002 6:32:47 PM |
|
#16 - "The kernel is completely different, yes. It's not even Apple's!"
Yes, I understand the history of the kernel. But could you please define "Operating System Services"? Do you mean things like process management, network stacks, etc.? Your term is pretty vague. "the rendering Subsystem -- it's borrowed from NeXT who ripped off Adobe!" Interesting. Do you have a link for more information? I don't understand how Postscript could possibly be used for a graphics subsystem. You call it "Display Postscript", so perhaps this is something different that I've never heard of. "you need to learn Objective C and program to the old NeXT API that apple calls Cocoa" Yes, I know all about Cocaca... I've written some applications for Macs with it. I find it somewhat frustrating at times. Luckily Microsoft released the .NET Framework for OS 10.2, and while it is still somewhat limited on the Mac, it's substantially more enjoyable than Cocoa. "Slow hardware and tons of emulation and you end up with what OSX is ... slow. Painfully so." Well, OS X was REALLY slow... OS 10.2 is much better, but still can't even come close to competing with XP on similarly priced hardware. "Oh, and Microsoft will NEVER use Display Postscript to do rendering. I'm not sure where you heard that but it's just not true." I never said nor heard anything like that. I simply meant they are moving to a more flexible rendering engine for XP's successor. For instance, you will be able to natively render 3D objects directly on the desktop without the need for any other libs than GDI. In other words, they are emulating the visual style of OS X, not the underlying technology. "Microsoft's GDI+ and DirectDraw APIs offer far better performance and flexibility than a printer language turned jack-of-all-trades could ever hope to aspire to." Well, as it is now, it is a LOT of work to do some things in XP which are trivial on OS X as far as graphics go. Performance wise you are correct, GDI/DirectX smokes the native libs on OS X, and often beats out OpenGL. |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/16/2002 7:11:20 PM |
|
Yes, RMD, I appreciate some of your questions. Let's review:
Mach was developed at CMU, but Apple's kernel is from Berkeley? You are very confused. Yes, Avie was on the original Mach team with several other players. Steve personally recruited Avie to head software development at NeXT--the NeXTStep/OpenStep kernel has modifications beyond true Mach. The XNU kernel of Darwin/OS X is further modified from the original NS/OS kernel. Yes, what are OSSes? Many of the services are truly Mac OS only and are new to OS X, many are FreeBSD, some are GNU, some are from other Unices, some are from NS/OS, and many are legacy OS 9 services. Display Postcript was a wholely original implementation of Postscript--the same as others have developed proprietary Postcripts. Adobe isn't the only company with IP in Postscript--Apple does too as well as the others in the graphics field. Much of Postscript is now open for general implementations. Apple didn't rip Adobe off by using the implementation of Generic PDF. There is no reason to license the full Acrobat Postcript format as it allows for things like indexing, forms, interactivity, etc, etc, etc... and Apple is using Generic PDF only to display graphics. Anyone can freely use the Generic PDF format if they choose to pay the license--which Apple does and there is zero reason to use Acrobat PDF. Aqua isn't just Generic PDF. It is PDF (for 2D vectors and bitmaps), OpenGL (for 3D objects and transforms), QuickTime (for video and other media layers), and QuickDraw for legacy support. Aqua is a completely new graphics system that has no commonalities with, nevermind code from, Display Postcript, even the PDF/2D portion. So Apple will never use it either. You NEED to learn Objective C, but Apple doesn't use it? Doesn't that mean you don't have to use Obj-C? You can use C, C++, basically whatever you want to choose. Apple supports Objective-C and Java to call the Cocoa APIs. Carbon will be fully supported for years to come and doesn't implement Obj-C or Java. "There's really not that much Apple code in Mac OS X. It's got a Mac Classic emulator so you can run some of the old software and a porting library called Carbon but to write native OS X apps you need to learn Objective C and program to the old NeXT API that apple calls Cocoa -- but nobody does -- not even Apple." Wait, you mean they have full support for older APIs and services, an intermediary API for programming for both platforms, and a third API for future generations, but there's not much Mac code? Sounds like there's three times as much Apple code to me. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, December 16, 2002 at 21:33. |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/16/2002 7:15:13 PM |
|
Oh, and this one, please explain this one especially:
"That's why it would have been unseemly for Apple not to Open Source Darwin." Huh? Unseemly? What? Because Steve has trusted Avie to direct software strategy for him for over 15 years, and because Avie worked on a famous kernel project at college, they were forced to go Open Source because it would have been unseemly to do otherwise? Huh? You don't think they were asking questions like: "is this the best technology for us now and long term?" And: "can we make a hybrid proprietary and Open Source strategy work?" No, instead they said, "One of our employees once worked on an OS project so we have no choice otherwise, we're obliged now." Uh, huh. And didn't they use the exact same kernel in NextStep which was wholly proprietary (wrong, but....)? Why wasn't NextStep Open Sourced? This did not affect the decision to have a hybrid strategy. If there was any truth to such logic, and I can't see any logic at all, it's almost hard to understand how they have any revenue at all when they've got the likes of Jordan Hubbard, Wilfredo Sanchez, David Hyatt, and Dominic Giampaolo working for them. Ain't it? This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, December 16, 2002 at 22:01. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/16/2002 7:23:49 PM |
|
"I guess Apple will never change. Will they let history repeat itself and let this be their downfall once again?"
Apple's downfall was in '92 because some journalist with fluffball of a dog on his web site wrote an article about a limited print campaign? Does anyone remember these print ads? And the switch campaign is going to destroy Apple again? You so funny, enforcer. |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/16/2002 8:50:16 PM |
|
RMD, yes, NextStep/OpenStep used Display Postscript for graphics rendering and OS X uses Generic PDF to display 2D vectors and bitmaps. I'm unsure where your confusion arises: Postscript is a rendering language--vectors, layers, bitmaps, effects (alphas, shadows, glares, etc....), text effects (scaling, kerning, bold, italic, support for TrueType, OpenType, etc....), and other elements of visual rendering (aliasing, etc...).
Display Postscript was developed within NeXT using licensed Postscript--something many companies do... PS RIPs do not always use Adobe code, but comply with the Postscript license. PDF provides greater advantages as even its most basic format (generic pdf) contains a full implementation of PS, but can output universally readable PDF files (rather than proprietary encapsulated postscript files or raw PS) and has lesser licensing fees. That was the decision making process for abandoning DisplayPS. There were also other issues (limitations) I believe with Display Postscript like requiring even more proprietary hardware than what Apple uses--graphics cards and display bus, but I'm unsure of those details so don't hold me to this last detail. |
| #13 By 3339 (64.175.42.17) at 12/17/2002 12:43:45 AM |
|
out of curiosity, baarod and mooresa, what do you think is the Mac system? (mooresa, do you really think a GUI is just what you see, for real?) Because, baarod, you imply there isn't much OS there... So what's missing? Where is the complete lack of development?
You mention a kernal that began as a college kernel research project, that became the basis for kernel development and thinking for 9 years of academic research, was used by some OSes (Sun, QNX, OS/2, RS/6000) and modified and developed for for, on average, about 10+ years, was modified and used as a microkernel by a company (NeXT) with various other modifications for 11 years, that company "merged" with Apple (and IS largely that company now software-wise), and that modified kernel was further modified and used only as a microkernal in conjunction with some portions of another OS's "kernel" processes and then fine-tuned for 6 years for its own performance and also for the performance of the PowerPC/POWER line of processors--something that IBM has also been doing for (about) 10 years as well. And it's got all the benefits of FreeBSD and other Unixes and Linux tools and applications, if they are ported... and Apple intends to try to catch up with and sync to FreeBSD's ports... and there are other efforts to provide additional packages from various groups, yes. Okay? Sounds good, so what? You mention this as if it means there isn't large amounts of work here or as if it's not an added benefit. Because... ...it also includes the full environment of the previous system that, guess what?, is 100% fully functional at this point (10.2.2) and runs at native (OS 9) speed and performance. (This is from the experience of rarely needing to use Classic, but when I do it's an application like Flash, FileMaker, or Photoshop.) I really don't care about Classic because I hardly use it... I would like to uninstall it, but I'll just wait for my next computer. (You did know that, right? You don't need to install Classic if you want just the Carbon and Cocoa environments.) And... It also provides two other environments that offers nearly the entire feature set and user experience of the previous system and much more functionality and refinement. So what work didn't they do? What's missing that I'm not seeing? How has there not been from 17 (take your pick of the math 9 years CMU/Berkeley, 11 years NeXT, 11 years IBM, + 6 years Apple, whatever) to 6 or less (Apple minus some for dual development of OS 9 and Copland) of development? In the very least, can you tell me if you really think the core of Apple's OS is the same as the kernal of Avie Tevanian's college homework? This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 at 00:51. |
| #14 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 12/17/2002 10:30:16 AM |
|
Thanks, sodajerk, but I didn't mean that one ad campaign was key to Apple's downfall. I meant the pattern of misleading consumers and mistreating their partners, along with the failure to realise that they can't stay trapped in the past in regards to selling their platform. If it takes changes and adaptations, and even sacrificing some part of your past to insure you have future profitability and an increased user base, then you should swallow your pride.
Steve has to learn that he is limiting the potential of the company and the platform by always trying to be different, and ridiculing the platform that their potential customers posess with half-truths and total falsehoods. Even a lot of Mac users know the content of the Switch ads to be false / overly embellished, and the above link points out similar marketing in the past that was deemed just as rediculus by a Mac user no less. Sometimes you have to lay down your sword and embrace your enemy if you are to achieve true victory, rather than an endless cycle of chaos. Steve should learn from the company's past and look to Sun as a current example of what happens when your company is driven by hatred or jealousy of another person, company, platform, etc. Almost everything Sun has done for many years has been driven by its CEO's jealously/hatred of other companies/people. Now, there isn't a Keynote, conference or interview with Scott McNealey or one of his close comrads that doesn't contain some disparaging remarks about Microsoft or IBM. And IBM is one of Sun's better partners -- one of the few reasons for Sun's continued existence. Don't get me wrong. I don't think Steve is as bad as McNealey yet. But he should welcome all the help he gets in keeping the Mac platform alive, and remain open to the constructive criticism of his core userbase as well as PC users. And, he must be willing to make some concessions. The worse thing he can do is risk disenfranchising people that may otherwise think of buying into Apple -- their desktops, notebooks, servers, electronics, or just the software. -------------------- lol, whatever you say, nom :-) This post was edited by n4cer on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 at 10:32. |
| #15 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/17/2002 1:14:03 PM |
|
enforcer, I guess you aren't going to be happy when Apple makes a substantial push for AppleWorks (they are significantly overhauling it now to compete more equally and to have better compatibility with Office) and their own browser... Don't know when these are coming out, but they will be out this year.
Personally, I still think your view is funny. Most Mac users disregard the advertising. It's people like you and stubear (who is clearly obsessed with them) that go overboard. As for behaving like Sun--this year Apple introduced a new server product, came to own the mp3 player market in essence, released new iApps, substantially improved the OS, bought two leading pro video and audio tools companies, increased R&D to produce devices that people haven't guessed at yet, etc... Just because they are squarely aiming their advertising at people who are tired of WIndows, I don't see them sitting on their ass or just trying to FUD the competition. |
| #16 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 12/17/2002 2:26:58 PM |
|
I'm happy with whatever they can do to stay afloat, and increase their marketshare. The only exceptions to that (that I can think of right now) are misleading both current and potential userbase, and attempting to mislead others in the industry, and mistreating those who have helped you. Apple has made many statements that directly counter reality.
RE: Advertising I've seen many Mac users post about the Ads and what they think about them. They ads aren't disregarded. Heck, they are practically the most anticipated thing at MacWorld. It's like the Superbowl. The ads are the big event. As for as my view/feelings about the ads, I don't take them seriously as far as I'm concerned because I know better. :-) I do take their consequences seriously regarding users or potential users that don't know any better. In those cases, as with the last few threads over the past couple of days, I give the users the truth behind the half-truths as best I can to help them make an informed decision. Other than a sense of comedy or dissapointment upon first seeing one of the ads, etc., I have no real emotional involvement in the matter. At the end of the day, whatever happens, happens. RE: Apple/Steve I didn't mean to imply they were sitting around, doing nothing. As I said, Steve isn't as bad as McNealey. I actually have some respect for Steve. :-) I just hate seeing Apple/Steve make decisions for no other reason than his/Apple's ties to the past. Some things can be done better/easier if they can just break away from the elitest attitudes of the past. In short (I guess), I like the company, I like Steve, or at least find both somewhat amusing. I don't like the way some things are handled (mainly marketing and some product decisions). I hope the next MacWorld brings a faster OS and faster hardware for those waiting. I hope Apple completes their previously stated compliance with certain standards. I'd like to see no more fudged Photoshop benchmarks and Megahertz Myth demos. If I've left anything out, it's kinda hard to sum up something you've been exposed to for 20+ years. :-) Well, at least this. |
| #17 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 12/17/2002 4:59:52 PM |
| Jerk, my point was that the only distinquishing feature of OS X is its GUI. The rest has been done before, and Apple offers no significant advantages anywhere else. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 216 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:58:27 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
