On CBS MoneyWatch: How to Haggle on Your Rent
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 16 of 137:
Next »
« Previous
Xerox, Apple, and MS
"XEROX was first with GUI's, but they were too obsessed
with making copiers to be able to market anything "non-
paper".

Xerox Parc (a Research Centre) was working on GUI
concepts. They brought together a number of researchers,
many of whom developed their own GUI concepts before
joining Xerox, and many went on to become Apple
employees. These technologies were put in Alto, and
anyone using this system would not confuse it with the
original Mac (they were completely different beast).

Xerox's research into a GUI was to build a document
distribution system, Apple's a Personal Computer.

" So they gave their ideas away - and the MAC and Windows
were born."

Apple created many of the metaphors used on the PC
desktop, not Xerox. Apple's work on the GUI predates Job's
visit to Xerox Parc. Apple's trip to Parc certainly had an
effect, but by no stretch of the imagination could the Mac
be described just as a rip-off of Xerox work.

When we speak of rip-off we should look at Windows. Yes
Apple did license some of their technology to MS (they say
under coercion, but given MS practice since then who are
we to believe;-)

MS not only riped-off Apple's metaphors, but also data
structures, code, names and concepts. Anyone working on
windows applications from a Mac Toolbox background is
shock at the API similarities (as I was in 92 when I was first
exposed to Windows 3.1).

Neither the Mac or windows was born of the work at Parc
(though it contributed). However, windows was born
directly from the work at Apple.

"MS won, because their OS was built for PC's - PC's which
were built by dozens of vendors (hundreds now), vs the
MAC, which lost because it was only for APPLE computers."

MS provided DOS for use with the new PC IBM developed
from third party chips. It was never meant to be cloned and
built by "dozens of vendors (hundreds now)". The clone
market was created when Compaq clean room reverse-
engineered the BIOS proving that a clone was possible and,
later, legal.

Gate's cleverness (luck?) was signing a non-exclusive
contract for MS-DOS with IBM, which then enabled then to
ship it with the clone PCs (remember at the time there was
no clone market).

Apple lost market share for a number of reasons including
stupid decisions (with the benefit of hindsight) by a
succession of CEO's and the aggressive (and at times
illegal) practices of MS.

But is market share everything? Apple still produces some
of the best machines, has a solid profitable business and a
superb OS years ahead of their rivals. Constantly
recognized for their innovations and contribution to the IT
industry, Apple is also one of the most recognized and
popular brands internationally.

"Get a clue, or better yet a history book."

Exactly.
Posted by: Richard Flude   Posted on: 01/31/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Interesting  Bobby Sskcat | 01/30/04
Free publicity  IT_User | 01/30/04
should m$ trademark "virus"?  stephen732@... | 01/30/04
So says you...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/30/04
No, so says a U.S. judge  IT_User | 01/30/04
Rants  Chris Moller | 01/30/04
Frequently?  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 01/31/04
and even better still  nograin | 01/30/04
Right, just like....  rock06r | 01/30/04
Question about Xerox  IT_User | 01/30/04
Darpa  rock06r | 01/30/04
No, I'm not in charge of black projects  IT_User | 01/30/04
Ig No Rant.  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 01/31/04
I am pretty sure...  rock06r | 02/01/04
RE: I am pretty sure...  JakAttak | 02/02/04
Xerox, Apple, and MS  Richard Flude | 01/31/04
superb OS years ahead of their rivals.???  richdave | 04/16/04
Apple control  BruceWheelock@... | 01/30/04
I think CSC's Threads is a much better precedent  IT_User | 01/30/04
No joy  IT_User | 01/30/04
Two flaws in your argument.  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 01/31/04
both appropriate and legal.  richdave | 04/16/04
I still don't see  Arrg | 01/30/04
It doesn't  IT_User | 01/30/04
Come on  vferrara | 01/30/04
Not that clear to me  IT_User | 01/30/04
Not sure, but...  vferrara | 01/30/04
Interesting how you termed it  IT_User | 01/30/04
Remember the initial hype?  vferrara | 01/30/04
I remember that image  IT_User | 01/30/04
Changing the first letter.  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 01/31/04
It would be both legal and proper for  richdave | 04/16/04
Seems to me...  Jose Jimenez | 01/30/04
windows  prrawlins | 01/30/04
Exactly right.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/30/04
Even if Lindows loses, they win  vferrara | 01/30/04
If MS loses..  d_jedi | 01/30/04
how about  prrawlins | 01/30/04
Look out AppleWin!  IT_User | 01/30/04
Boy, you sure do have it in for Linux, don't you?  emartin_z | 02/02/04
I Didn't realize that..  Arrg | 01/30/04
opps precedent not president  Arrg | 01/30/04
Re: I Didn't realize that.  PottHead | 01/30/04
Not quite  vferrara | 01/30/04
Not Windows, MS Windows.  neil ubich | 01/30/04
Hmmm...  James T. Kirk | 01/30/04
Once again, not quite.  vferrara | 01/30/04
To flip it though  IT_User | 01/30/04
Proportionate response  rapson | 01/30/04
Less an overreaction, to be sure  IT_User | 01/30/04
However...  el1jones | 01/30/04
Maybe you're right ... maybe not!  vferrara | 01/30/04
Good point about confusion  IT_User | 01/30/04
It could..  d_jedi | 01/30/04
A reasoned response  IT_User | 01/30/04
Now why would you be disappointed to own the  richdave | 04/16/04
the word windows  prrawlins | 01/30/04
Que?  NemesisNL | 01/30/04
True, but...  neil ubich | 01/30/04
Toys 'R Us...  Confused by religion | 01/30/04
Except this one  IT_User | 01/30/04
Trademarked name still up for debate  jasonp@... | 01/30/04
You're right, almost  IT_User | 01/30/04
Windows in the dictionary Lindows isant (nt)  nite_w0lf | 01/30/04
wrong, see my message below  hipparchus | 01/30/04
Same song, second verse  aduana@... | 01/30/04
You don't understand the issue  rock06r | 01/30/04
generic terms  Joe Blow_z | 01/30/04
286  d_jedi | 01/30/04
Mr. Nonsense  rock06r | 01/30/04
Nonsense doubled  davidpz@... | 01/31/04
learn to read  rock06r | 01/31/04
Civiliy isn't your long suit...  IT_User | 01/31/04
There wasn't a public distribution version  AbsolutelyNot | 01/31/04
TechDiva - sure of your names?  IT_User | 02/01/04
understand  prrawlins | 01/30/04
Even they were not first  rock06r | 01/30/04
Try again  zd-spam | 01/30/04
OK expert  rock06r | 01/30/04
Generic term IN THE INDUSTRY  IT_User | 01/30/04
Generic term?  davidpz@... | 01/31/04
Absolutely!  IT_User | 01/31/04
Actually, the trade name is Microsoft.  richdave | 04/16/04
Son Micro, RedHap Linux, POracle Corp, AOHell  FilledOut | 01/30/04
Glad you mentioned AOL.  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 01/31/04
You're welcome  FilledOut | 02/02/04
Off topic, but  Update victim | 01/30/04
Lindows is a name (a place name)  hipparchus | 01/30/04
Close, but what does this have to do with anything  vferrara | 01/30/04
try an encyclopaedia that's where I found it  hipparchus | 01/30/04
Windows trademark  jasonp@... | 01/30/04
Nope, only in the same industry  IT_User | 01/30/04
So what's the industry?  jasonp@... | 01/30/04
hehehe  prrawlins | 01/30/04
Not up to legislature, thankfully  IT_User | 01/30/04
I should have said "Lindow man" + surname Lindow  hipparchus | 01/30/04
But..  d_jedi | 01/30/04
and  neil ubich | 01/30/04
I had enough of those confusion ...  GraysonPeddie | 01/30/04
Kleenex...  wploger | 01/30/04
Uhh, it's a DUTCH judge  Spoon Jabber | 01/31/04
Uhh, it's also an AMERICAN case  wploger | 02/02/04
LINDOWS by accident  prrawlins | 01/30/04
Protection from confusion  Domb2 | 02/02/04
You must be easily confused.  jkozura_z | 02/02/04
Judge, Jury, Executioner  d_jedi | 01/30/04
Interesting  IT_User | 01/30/04
I assume..  d_jedi | 02/01/04
There is an AppleWin  IT_User | 01/30/04
big difference..  d_jedi | 02/01/04
Windows actually an infringement, proof here.  Ironiclife | 01/30/04
Lindows used a "Lin"  IT_User | 01/30/04
What is your source?  rock06r | 01/30/04
Check a litle deeper  IT_User | 01/30/04
Well that just worms my apple  FilledOut | 01/31/04
maybe they could  JWatson77 | 01/30/04
Do you honestly believe that's a good thing?  rock06r | 02/01/04
you missed the point  JWatson77 | 02/01/04
i would like to here the end results of this  JWatson77 | 01/30/04
Wow, Microsoft continues to generate bad publicity.  DonnieBoy | 01/31/04
Copyright law..  d_jedi | 02/01/04
The point is valid  IT_User | 02/02/04
5 countries is not all of europe and....  hipparchus | 02/01/04
You should always file everywhere.  rock06r | 02/01/04
This might be part of the strategy  IT_User | 02/02/04
Easy solution: use a name that doesn't leach of Windows Trademark  marksashton | 01/31/04
Easier solution:  Spoon Jabber | 01/31/04
hmm..  d_jedi | 02/01/04
What trademark are you referring to?  IT_User | 01/31/04
Exactly  nite_w0lf | 01/31/04
But it does make it legitimate  rock06r | 02/01/04
Landmark Case  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 02/01/04
LINDOWS = LOSERS = MORONS  usapride | 02/01/04
Troll bait  jellyclock | 02/02/04
That's just wrong and mean  FilledOut | 02/02/04
Do any of you actually run businesses?  Domb2 | 02/02/04
RE: Do any of you actually run businesses?  pshempel | 02/02/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here