What's wrong with a Zune 'iPhone killer'?

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> At 13 Dec 2008 18:49:02 -0600 Jon Ribbens wrote:
>
>> If you want to claim Microsoft "made PC's accessible", I'll refer you
>> to my earlier challenge - name 3 successful, useful and innovative
>> things that Microsoft invented that enhanced PC accessibility.
>
> Why, exactly, did they (or do they) have to "invent" anything? Should
> I stop using my Panasonic clock radio because Panasonic didn't invent
> the clock or the radio? My Toyota because they didn't invent the
> automobile?
>
> Microsoft is primarily an OS manufacturer. Their job, as I see it, is
> to build a platform that 3rd-party companies (or they themselves) can
> build software to run on. Judging by the vast arena of software
> available for PCs, I'd say they succeeded.
>
>
>

Apple fanbois run on the illusion if OSX won't run it, you don't need to
see it. Apple's been that way since its inception. The DOS/Win users
were all running thousands of neat freeware on their PC XT clones and
the Fruit fanbois had to just stand there and HOPE His Majesty would
fall in love with something and tell Woz to code something like it. If
that didn't happen, they'd just do without it, rather than admit their
mistake and go get a cheap Chinese Win box that would run everything
without paying $495 for some Applesoft box from His Majesty's larder.

This phony nonsense has a new name, now, to keep His Majesty in power
and money. It's called the iPhone App Store....the blessed programs for
the drooling masses....

The head apologists will now attack the obvious......

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

---

› See More: What's wrong with a Zune 'iPhone killer'?

On 2008-12-15, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 13 Dec 2008 18:49:02 -0600 Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> If you want to claim Microsoft "made PC's accessible", I'll refer you
>> to my earlier challenge - name 3 successful, useful and innovative
>> things that Microsoft invented that enhanced PC accessibility.
>
> Why, exactly, did they (or do they) have to "invent" anything?

Did I say they did? Other posters claimed that Microsoft are
innovative and lead the industry from the front with their numerous
inventions. I was just pointing out that this is rubbish.

> Should I stop using my Panasonic clock radio because Panasonic
> didn't invent the clock or the radio?

I don't know, do you think you should? I certainly haven't suggested
anything of the sort.

On 2008-12-15, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
> Apple fanbois run on the illusion if OSX won't run it

For someone who claims they don't like Apple, you sure seem fixated on
talking about them all the time, even when they're nothing to do with
what anyone else is talking about.

It must be that Zionist media conspiracy, controlling your brain and
making you think those Naughty Thoughts about Steve Jobs. Make sure to
wear your tin-foil hat next time!

Jon Ribbens <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 2008-12-15, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Apple fanbois run on the illusion if OSX won't run it
>
> For someone who claims they don't like Apple, you sure seem fixated on
> talking about them all the time, even when they're nothing to do with
> what anyone else is talking about.
>
> It must be that Zionist media conspiracy, controlling your brain and
> making you think those Naughty Thoughts about Steve Jobs. Make sure to
> wear your tin-foil hat next time!
>

See? Here's an apologist now!

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 13 Dec 2008 18:49:02 -0600 Jon Ribbens wrote:
>
>> If you want to claim Microsoft "made PC's accessible", I'll refer you
>> to my earlier challenge - name 3 successful, useful and innovative
>> things that Microsoft invented that enhanced PC accessibility.
>
> Why, exactly, did they (or do they) have to "invent" anything?

Jon is confused about what "invent" means. To non-techies, an invention
involves a tangible end-user product like an MP3 player or a microwave
oven. The core technology, both hardware and software, is where most
patents for inventions occur.

In fact, Microsoft has a whole division dedicated to licensing
technology that they invented but that they can't integrate into their
products, or that is outside their core business.

There's a good article about this at
"http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2005/09/microsoft_resea.html".
It includes three examples that he's so desperate for.

It's popular for non-technical people, and Apple fan-boys, to bash
Microsoft. In fact, what Apple is good at, and it's no less difficult
than inventing core technology, is at using that technology to make
successful consumer products. Microsoft's few forays into hardware were
always tied to promoting more OS sales. Some of these products were very
good and successful, i.e. their keyboards and mice, some were flops,
like the Zune.

On 2008-12-15, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jon is confused about what "invent" means.

Wrong again. I understand why you keep repeating this lie, since if
it were true it would make your side of the argument much easier.
Since it isn't, you'll have to try harder I'm afraid.

> There's a good article about this at
> "http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2005/09/microsoft_resea.html".
> It includes three examples that he's so desperate for.

Three examples of things that, on the face of it, sound identical to
things that have already existed for a long time, and were not
invented by Microsoft. Unfortunately, all the links in that article
are broken, so it's slightly tricky to find further information.

On 2008-12-15, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> You seem to be irritated by the idea they haven't, as if their great success
> making "commodity" products is somehow "evil."

I am irritated by claims that they have been successful by creating
good products. They are, obviously and unarguably, a very successful
business, when measured by market share and money made, and I'm not
knocking that in any way. But very successful in the sense of good at
creating high-quality software? I don't think so.

> So, if I give you your point that they have mostly restyled other's ideas
> and repackaged them (successfully, I might add, since Office unseated
> programs like 1-2-3 and Wordperfect from their prior industry leadership
> positions), can you tell me what technologies have they "destroyed?"

They have destroyed software quality as a market force. People don't
choose the best product, they usually don't even realise there *is*
a choice. Things like Linux and OpenOffice are changing that slowly,
but it'll be a long time before there's any real competition.

People have come to *expect* buggy, slow, low-quality software.
Because they have come to expect it, it's what they get. Not only
that, but because such software is therefore "good enough", there
is little incentive for programmers to do better.

> My apologies if I interpolated your statement to mean that any manufacturer
> (i.e. Panasonic) has set their industry back by not innovating in their
> marketspace. Apparently that power is unique to Microsoft?

It's unique to monopolies. You'll notice that Microsoft has a
monopoly, while Panasonic does not. That makes a very big difference.

Microsoft are not "evil", but they are a monopoly, and monopolies are
almost always detrimental to the market in which they operate.

SMS <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 13 Dec 2008 18:49:02 -0600 Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>
>>> If you want to claim Microsoft "made PC's accessible", I'll refer
>>> you to my earlier challenge - name 3 successful, useful and
>>> innovative things that Microsoft invented that enhanced PC
>>> accessibility.
>>
>> Why, exactly, did they (or do they) have to "invent" anything?
>
> Jon is confused about what "invent" means. To non-techies, an
> invention involves a tangible end-user product like an MP3 player or a
> microwave oven. The core technology, both hardware and software, is
> where most patents for inventions occur.
>
> In fact, Microsoft has a whole division dedicated to licensing
> technology that they invented but that they can't integrate into their
> products, or that is outside their core business.
>
> There's a good article about this at
> "http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2005/09/microsoft_rese
a
> .html". It includes three examples that he's so desperate for.
>
> It's popular for non-technical people, and Apple fan-boys, to bash
> Microsoft. In fact, what Apple is good at, and it's no less difficult
> than inventing core technology, is at using that technology to make
> successful consumer products. Microsoft's few forays into hardware
> were always tied to promoting more OS sales. Some of these products
> were very good and successful, i.e. their keyboards and mice, some
> were flops, like the Zune.
>

What upsets me is the raw hatred of anything Micro$oft or Bill Gates.
I've been around since M$ had 12 employees and one little computer on
DOS 1.0 he bought, some try to say stole but he bought it, from others.
Because he is so amazingly successful, it's not jealousy, it's hatred.
That's too bad. I've heard him talk then and 4 other times as he grew
up and matured....well, what passes for matured in the computer geek
community.

Way too many in computing have never visited:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx
to see what he does with his billions. Bill and Melinda give away
nearly as much money as most governments. It's a staggering sum very
few others on the planet come anywhere near, even though many others are
nearly as filthy rich.

I have a hard time hating someone whos feeding and housing and doctoring
so many little mouths across the planet. The foundation is HUGE and
growing faster than the business.

Then, of couse, we must compare him with:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news....fortune/index
4.htm

"Last year the founder of the Stanford Social Innovation Review called
Apple one of "America's Least Philanthropic Companies." Jobs had
terminated all of Apple's long-standing corporate philanthropy programs
within weeks after returning to Apple in 1997, citing the need to cut
costs until profitability rebounded. But the programs have never been
restored.

Unlike Bill Gates - the tech world's other towering figure - Jobs has
not shown much inclination to hand over the reins of his company to
create a different kind of personal legacy. While his wife is deeply
involved in an array of charitable projects, Jobs' only serious foray
into personal philanthropy was short-lived. In January 1987, after
launching Next, he also, without fanfare or public notice, incorporated
the Steven P. Jobs Foundation. "He was very interested in food and
health issues and vegetarianism," recalls Mark Vermilion, the community
affairs executive Jobs hired to run it. Vermilion persuaded Jobs to
focus on "social entrepreneurship" instead. But the Jobs foundation
never did much of anything, besides hiring famed graphic designer Paul
Rand to design its logo. (Explains Vermilion: "He wanted a logo worthy
of his expectations.") Jobs shut down the foundation after less than 15
months."

Sorta puts a different light on Bill Gates the greedy monster, doesn't
it?

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:9Wv1l.5451$%[email protected]:

> Since it's the season to be bombarded by "It's a Wonderful Life" on
> TV, perhaps you could guide us, Clarence-the-Angel-like, into the
> computing Utopia we'd all be living in if Microsoft had never been
> born and set us all back 10-20 years?
>
>

Yecch. None of us typing on this subject could have afforded to own a
computer if it hadn't been for Micro$oft making so much competition between
the hardware manufacturers. Can you imagine if all companies were like
Apple with this proprietary nonsense and no competition from Microsoft?! A
little laptop computer would be $8,995!

A word processor would be $895 and NOONE would be giving away SHAREWARE!

"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > Todd Allcock wrote:
> >> At 13 Dec 2008 18:49:02 -0600 Jon Ribbens wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you want to claim Microsoft "made PC's accessible", I'll refer
> >>> you to my earlier challenge - name 3 successful, useful and
> >>> innovative things that Microsoft invented that enhanced PC
> >>> accessibility.
> >>
> >> Why, exactly, did they (or do they) have to "invent" anything?
> >
> > Jon is confused about what "invent" means. To non-techies, an
> > invention involves a tangible end-user product like an MP3 player or a
> > microwave oven. The core technology, both hardware and software, is
> > where most patents for inventions occur.
> >
> > In fact, Microsoft has a whole division dedicated to licensing
> > technology that they invented but that they can't integrate into their
> > products, or that is outside their core business.
> >
> > There's a good article about this at
> > "http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2005/09/microsoft_rese
> a
> > .html". It includes three examples that he's so desperate for.
> >
> > It's popular for non-technical people, and Apple fan-boys, to bash
> > Microsoft. In fact, what Apple is good at, and it's no less difficult
> > than inventing core technology, is at using that technology to make
> > successful consumer products. Microsoft's few forays into hardware
> > were always tied to promoting more OS sales. Some of these products
> > were very good and successful, i.e. their keyboards and mice, some
> > were flops, like the Zune.
> >
>
> What upsets me is the raw hatred of anything Micro$oft or Bill Gates.
> I've been around since M$ had 12 employees and one little computer on
> DOS 1.0 he bought, some try to say stole but he bought it, from others.
> Because he is so amazingly successful, it's not jealousy, it's hatred.
> That's too bad. I've heard him talk then and 4 other times as he grew
> up and matured....well, what passes for matured in the computer geek
> community.
>
> Way too many in computing have never visited:
> http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx
> to see what he does with his billions. Bill and Melinda give away
> nearly as much money as most governments. It's a staggering sum very
> few others on the planet come anywhere near, even though many others are
> nearly as filthy rich.
>
> I have a hard time hating someone whos feeding and housing and doctoring
> so many little mouths across the planet. The foundation is HUGE and
> growing faster than the business.
>
> Then, of couse, we must compare him with:
> http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news....fortune/index
> 4.htm
>
> "Last year the founder of the Stanford Social Innovation Review called
> Apple one of "America's Least Philanthropic Companies." Jobs had
> terminated all of Apple's long-standing corporate philanthropy programs
> within weeks after returning to Apple in 1997, citing the need to cut
> costs until profitability rebounded. But the programs have never been
> restored.
>
> Unlike Bill Gates - the tech world's other towering figure - Jobs has
> not shown much inclination to hand over the reins of his company to
> create a different kind of personal legacy. While his wife is deeply
> involved in an array of charitable projects, Jobs' only serious foray
> into personal philanthropy was short-lived. In January 1987, after
> launching Next, he also, without fanfare or public notice, incorporated
> the Steven P. Jobs Foundation. "He was very interested in food and
> health issues and vegetarianism," recalls Mark Vermilion, the community
> affairs executive Jobs hired to run it. Vermilion persuaded Jobs to
> focus on "social entrepreneurship" instead. But the Jobs foundation
> never did much of anything, besides hiring famed graphic designer Paul
> Rand to design its logo. (Explains Vermilion: "He wanted a logo worthy
> of his expectations.") Jobs shut down the foundation after less than 15
> months."
>
> Sorta puts a different light on Bill Gates the greedy monster, doesn't
> it?

Nope. Melinda is the one behind giving money away, not Bill Gates. If it was
up to Bill Gates he would be Emperor of the World by now (that world being
named "Planet Microsoft" and overflowing with garbage that keeps falling
apart).

Larry wrote:

> What upsets me is the raw hatred of anything Micro$oft or Bill Gates.
> I've been around since M$ had 12 employees and one little computer on
> DOS 1.0 he bought, some try to say stole but he bought it, from others.
> Because he is so amazingly successful, it's not jealousy, it's hatred.
> That's too bad. I've heard him talk then and 4 other times as he grew
> up and matured....well, what passes for matured in the computer geek
> community.

I've worked extensively with both Apple and Microsoft. One of
Microsoft's biggest problems in terms of image was the result of one of
their biggest strengths, which was open hardware. Until Microsoft set
some standards for hardware and drivers, and established WHQL to enforce
these standards, they were plagued by unstable systems, and the OS was
always blamed. It took an 800 pound gorilla to bring some sanity to
hardware and drivers. Yet Microsoft was always willing to listen to
hardware manufacturers both at the component and system level when
setting these standards. People complained about the original Mac being
a closed system, but there were very good reasons for this approach.

Apple was a very profitable customer back in the days that they wanted
custom ASICs for functions for which there were already very inexpensive
standard products. Fortunately, Jobs put an end to this kind of nonsense
when he returned.

On 2008-12-15, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
> Way too many in computing have never visited:
> http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx
> to see what he does with his billions. Bill and Melinda give away
> nearly as much money as most governments.

Mmm, the Bill and Melinda Gates Charitable Foundation for the
Promotion of Microsoft. Don't do me no favours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_an...ion#Criticisms

"Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2008-12-15, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Way too many in computing have never visited:
>> http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx
>> to see what he does with his billions. Bill and Melinda give away
>> nearly as much money as most governments.
>
> Mmm, the Bill and Melinda Gates Charitable Foundation for the
> Promotion of Microsoft. Don't do me no favours.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_an...ion#Criticisms

Wow- those are serious charges- the foundation invests it's money to earn
more so it can give away more, and, *gasp* they pay local doctors too high a
salary.

The bastards!

Stuff like this is why I can't take your MS bashing too seriously. While
the criticisms of the foundation in the Wiki are legitimate, (if minor) why
can't the Gates haters simply say "MS has x,y, and z wrong with it" and
acknowledge Gates' charitable work without assuming it must be "evil by
association." That attitude implies if Gates or Microsoft actually did
something "right" in your eyes, you'd still criticize it. Take Ted Turner,
for example- even if you don't like him or his politics, it's hard to
criticize his charitable works, either. Disliking someone or his "empire"
doesn't automatically invalidate everything he does. For example, IMO, it's
hard to put a negative spin on trying to find a cure for AIDS.

"Your Name" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Sorta puts a different light on Bill Gates the greedy monster, doesn't
>> it?
>
> Nope. Melinda is the one behind giving money away, not Bill Gates. If it
> was
> up to Bill Gates he would be Emperor of the World by now (that world being
> named "Planet Microsoft" and overflowing with garbage that keeps falling
> apart).

So, in your mind, a guy worth 8 bazillion dollars, who is trying to achieve
World Domination from his Blofeld-like secret lair inside an underwater
volcano somewhere, gives away billions of dollars ONLY because his wife
makes him? Hmmm... hardly "Emperor of the World" material, then, is he?

After he finally completes his Infernal Weather Machine designed to hold the
entire planet for ransom, I hope he makes it snow on your house first,
before it's OS crashes, rendering it harmless.

On 2008-12-16, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> Wow- those are serious charges- the foundation invests it's money to earn
> more so it can give away more, and, *gasp* they pay local doctors too high a
> salary.

The allegation is that they invest unethically, such that the good
stuff they do is outweighed by the bad things they do.

> Stuff like this is why I can't take your MS bashing too seriously.

It wasn't meant to be taken too seriously ;-) I notice you'd rather
dismiss it as a whole with a wave of your hand though, rather than
address the actual points I made...

> While the criticisms of the foundation in the Wiki are legitimate,
> (if minor) why can't the Gates haters simply say "MS has x,y, and z
> wrong with it" and acknowledge Gates' charitable work without
> assuming it must be "evil by association."

I am suspicious of the true aims of the charity, yes. But also I don't
think Bill can "buy virtue" by giving away some of his ill-gotten gains,
given that he's got more money than anyone could ever spend in their
lifetime anyway.