Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 52
  1. #31
    David Friedman
    Guest

    Re: Did Apple just trump AT&T? It appears so...

    In article <C378D111.9C0CF%[email protected]>,
    Snit <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "David Friedman" <[email protected]> stated in post
    > [email protected] on 12/2/07 8:50 PM:
    >
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> In article <[email protected]>,
    > >> O x f o r d <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>> Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play
    > >>>> in Steve Jobs's world?
    > >>>
    > >>> After a world wide search going on for nearly 2 months, 24/7 by 1000's
    > >>> of people, nobody has come up with the secret you keep.
    > >>
    > >> You mean, after a search through your underwear and with you sticking
    > >> your head in the sand and refusing to see the answer spoon fed to you,
    > >> YOU haven't come up with the answer.
    > >>
    > >> Hint: the answer isn't in the sand, nor is it in your underwear.

    > >
    > > Wikipedia entry:
    > >
    > > Adele Goldberg (born July 22, 1945) is a computer scientist who wrote or
    > > co-wrote books on the programming language Smalltalk-80. In the 1970's
    > > she worked for Xerox's PARC laboratory on the Xerox Alto. She refused to
    > > give Steve Jobs a tour of the laboratory unless her superiors would
    > > order her to, which they eventually did.
    > >
    > > She is currently working for Neometron, Inc., of Palo Alto, California.
    > > Goldberg was born in Cleveland, Ohio, and grew up in Chicago, Illinois.
    > > In 1994 she was inducted as a Fellow of the Association for Computing
    > > Machinery.

    >
    > I think the answer to the question, though, is that Adele is the one who
    > (grudgingly) gave a short demo of Xerox technology to Jobs and others from
    > Apple. The value of the demo is under some debate, but clearly it had some
    > influence on Jobs, Apple, and - ultimately - the home computer market as a
    > whole.


    Hard to tell.

    As best I recall, there were two other computer firms doing similar
    projects--home computers with graphical interfaces based on the Xerox
    Parc work--at the same time as Apple (Atari and Amiga). So if Apple
    hadn't done it, perhaps one of those would have taken over the role
    Apple actually played.

    --
    http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
    Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
    Published by Baen, in bookstores now



    See More: Did Apple just trump AT&T? It appears so...




  2. #32
    Snit
    Guest

    Re: Did Apple just trump AT&T? It appears so...

    "David Friedman" <[email protected]> stated in post
    [email protected] on 12/2/07 11:08 PM:

    > In article <C378D111.9C0CF%[email protected]>,
    > Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> "David Friedman" <[email protected]> stated in post
    >> [email protected] on 12/2/07 8:50 PM:
    >>
    >>> In article <[email protected]>,
    >>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In article <[email protected]>,
    >>>> O x f o r d <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play
    >>>>>> in Steve Jobs's world?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> After a world wide search going on for nearly 2 months, 24/7 by 1000's
    >>>>> of people, nobody has come up with the secret you keep.
    >>>>
    >>>> You mean, after a search through your underwear and with you sticking
    >>>> your head in the sand and refusing to see the answer spoon fed to you,
    >>>> YOU haven't come up with the answer.
    >>>>
    >>>> Hint: the answer isn't in the sand, nor is it in your underwear.
    >>>
    >>> Wikipedia entry:
    >>>
    >>> Adele Goldberg (born July 22, 1945) is a computer scientist who wrote or
    >>> co-wrote books on the programming language Smalltalk-80. In the 1970's
    >>> she worked for Xerox's PARC laboratory on the Xerox Alto. She refused to
    >>> give Steve Jobs a tour of the laboratory unless her superiors would
    >>> order her to, which they eventually did.
    >>>
    >>> She is currently working for Neometron, Inc., of Palo Alto, California.
    >>> Goldberg was born in Cleveland, Ohio, and grew up in Chicago, Illinois.
    >>> In 1994 she was inducted as a Fellow of the Association for Computing
    >>> Machinery.

    >>
    >> I think the answer to the question, though, is that Adele is the one who
    >> (grudgingly) gave a short demo of Xerox technology to Jobs and others from
    >> Apple. The value of the demo is under some debate, but clearly it had some
    >> influence on Jobs, Apple, and - ultimately - the home computer market as a
    >> whole.

    >
    > Hard to tell.
    >
    > As best I recall, there were two other computer firms doing similar
    > projects--home computers with graphical interfaces based on the Xerox
    > Parc work--at the same time as Apple (Atari and Amiga). So if Apple
    > hadn't done it, perhaps one of those would have taken over the role
    > Apple actually played.


    Sure: if Apple never existed we would *not* still be using CLI computers...
    we would be using some form of GUI. Still, it was Apple who deserves the
    credit, even if someone else likely would have done something relatively
    similar had they not.


    --
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
    --Aldous Huxley




  3. #33
    David Friedman
    Guest

    Re: Did Apple just trump AT&T? It appears so...

    In article <C378EDCD.9C119%[email protected]>,
    Snit <[email protected]> wrote:

    > > As best I recall, there were two other computer firms doing similar
    > > projects--home computers with graphical interfaces based on the Xerox
    > > Parc work--at the same time as Apple (Atari and Amiga). So if Apple
    > > hadn't done it, perhaps one of those would have taken over the role
    > > Apple actually played.

    >
    > Sure: if Apple never existed we would *not* still be using CLI computers...
    > we would be using some form of GUI. Still, it was Apple who deserves the
    > credit, even if someone else likely would have done something relatively
    > similar had they not.
    >


    Some of the credit. The original work was done at Xerox, and Atari and
    Amiga were selling GUI machines at about the same time as Apple,
    although they didn't up being as successful.

    --
    http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
    Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
    Published by Baen, in bookstores now



  4. #34
    Snit
    Guest

    Re: Did Apple just trump AT&T? It appears so...

    "David Friedman" <[email protected]> stated in post
    [email protected] on 12/2/07 11:27 PM:

    > In article <C378EDCD.9C119%[email protected]>,
    > Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>> As best I recall, there were two other computer firms doing similar
    >>> projects--home computers with graphical interfaces based on the Xerox
    >>> Parc work--at the same time as Apple (Atari and Amiga). So if Apple
    >>> hadn't done it, perhaps one of those would have taken over the role
    >>> Apple actually played.

    >>
    >> Sure: if Apple never existed we would *not* still be using CLI computers...
    >> we would be using some form of GUI. Still, it was Apple who deserves the
    >> credit, even if someone else likely would have done something relatively
    >> similar had they not.

    >
    > Some of the credit.


    Of course. Fair enough.

    > The original work was done at Xerox, and Atari and Amiga were selling GUI
    > machines at about the same time as Apple, although they didn't up being as
    > successful.


    And let us not forget our friends at Microsoft: they have helped push the
    GUI in some ways as well... though they clearly were not at the forefront
    really pushing things. At least not on their own OS, anyway.


    --
    Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
    Feel free to ask for the recipe.






  5. #35
    Snit
    Guest

    Re: Did Apple just trump AT&T? It appears so...

    "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> stated in post
    [email protected] on 12/3/07 3:56 AM:

    > In article <C378AE84.9C082%[email protected]>,
    > Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>> Anyway, Jobs and company saw nothing BUT the GUI, and completely missed
    >>> the significance of the network and the printing. COMPLETELY.

    >>
    >> And yet Apple was very early in the home networking environment (did
    >> *anyone* beat them to that... think of the old PhoneNet adapters) and they
    >> pretty much created the desktop publishing industry.
    >>>
    >>> Jobs was so blind, it wasn't funny.

    >>
    >> Support?
    >>

    >
    > Plenty. Just read the record.
    >
    > I'm waiting for Oxtard to go back to what he was SPOON-FED and read it.
    >
    > Oh, wait--you're oxtard, aren't you?
    >

    You sure spew a lot of accusations when you cannot support your claims. Oh
    well.


    --
    Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers




  6. #36
    Snit
    Guest

    Re: Did Apple just trump AT&T? It appears so...

    "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> stated in post
    [email protected] on 12/3/07 3:53 AM:

    > In article <C378D111.9C0CF%[email protected]>,
    > Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> I think the answer to the question, though, is that Adele is the one who
    >> (grudgingly) gave a short demo of Xerox technology to Jobs and others from
    >> Apple.

    >
    > That's half the answer.
    >

    And the only "half" that will be posted, being that you shan't ever add
    anything of value, eh?


    --
    If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
    Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)








  7. #37
    Snit
    Guest

    Re: Did Apple just trump AT&T? It appears so...

    "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> stated in post
    [email protected] on 12/3/07 10:32 AM:

    > In article <C3796EAC.9C1F1%[email protected]>,
    > Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>> That's half the answer.
    >>>

    >> And the only "half" that will be posted, being that you shan't ever add
    >> anything of value, eh?

    >
    > Still waiting for Oxtard, the sole expert of Apple history, to reach
    > into the archives and tell everyone...
    >

    Interesting excuse... basically you want others to read your mind to figure
    out what *you* think is important. Heck, Adele Goldberg has a pretty large
    influence in many areas, so what one thing you are thinking about is pretty
    much a guessing gsme. SmallTalk and its influence on AppleScript /
    HyperCard? Is that what you are thinking? Who knows... you are simply not
    willing to say unless people play your game.


    --
    God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?






  8. #38
    Henry Flam
    Guest

    Re: Did Apple just trump AT&T? It appears so...

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In article <C3796EAC.9C1F1%[email protected]>,
    > Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > > That's half the answer.
    > > >

    > > And the only "half" that will be posted, being that you shan't ever add
    > > anything of value, eh?

    >
    > Still waiting for Oxtard, the sole expert of Apple history, to reach
    > into the archives and tell everyone...


    Don't you ever get tired of boring everyone to death?



  9. #39
    Snit
    Guest

    Re: Did Apple just trump AT&T? It appears so...

    "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> stated in post
    [email protected] on 12/3/07 5:06 PM:

    > In article <C3799BD7.9C25F%[email protected]>,
    > Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>> Still waiting for Oxtard, the sole expert of Apple history, to reach
    >>> into the archives and tell everyone...
    >>>

    >> Interesting excuse... basically you want others to read your mind to figure
    >> out what *you* think is important.

    >
    > Not at all.
    >
    >> Heck, Adele Goldberg has a pretty large influence in many areas, so what one
    >> thing you are thinking about is pretty much a guessing gsme. SmallTalk and
    >> its influence on AppleScript / HyperCard? Is that what you are thinking?
    >> Who knows... you are simply not willing to say unless people play your game.

    >
    > That Oxtard misses it, and that you miss it, is your problem.


    Gee, I even played your guessing game. Face it: you are merely playing it
    to get attention...



    --
    Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21217782777472




  10. #40
    News
    Guest

    Re: Did Apple just trump AT&T? It appears so...



    Henry Flam wrote:

    > Don't you ever get tired of boring everyone to death?



    You're late to post, but in the running, scoring well.



  11. #41

    Re: Did Apple just trump AT&T? It appears so...


    On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:59:13 -0700, Oxford
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T
    >is now scared of Apple and its business intentions...


    Why are you posting this in a Nokia group?




  12. #42

    Re: Did Apple just trump AT&T? It appears so...


    Why are you posting this in a Nokia group?



    On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 07:21:39 -0800, "Cubit" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Lawyers.
    >Contract terms.
    >
    >"Oxford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]..
    >> This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T
    >> is now scared of Apple and its business intentions...
    >>
    >> Keep in mind, the iPhone is only one small update away from making EVERY
    >> iPhone compatible with VoIP, then simply dropping the old cell network
    >> like a hot potato.
    >>
    >> AT&T needs to be very careful here, Apple is a much stronger company, so
    >> they need to play nice or end up like IBM.
    >>
    >> ---
    >>
    >> Important Parts Here:
    >>
    >> What I believe is troubling the relationship between AT&T and Apple is
    >> the upcoming auction for 700-MHz wireless spectrum and AT&T's discovery
    >> that -- as I have predicted for weeks -- Apple will be joining Google in
    >> bidding. AT&T thought its five-year "exclusive" iPhone agreement with
    >> Apple would have precluded such a bid, but that just shows how poorly
    >> Randall Stephenson understood Steve Jobs. Steve always hurts his friends
    >> to see how much they really love him, so AT&T probably should have
    >> expected this kind of corporate body blow.
    >>
    >> To his credit, Stephenson took the dispute to the streets this way,
    >> showing he isn't intimidated by Jobs. It was a bold and rare response
    >> for big business and was definitely unexpected by Cupertino, which won't
    >> underestimate AT&T again.
    >>
    >> I'm not privy to any inside details here, but there are two ways I can
    >> see Jobs rationalizing his auction position and they aren't necessarily
    >> exclusive. He could claim to intend the 700-MHz auction participation as
    >> a pure investment, just a good use for the $30+ billion Apple has
    >> squirreled away.
    >>
    >> Nah.
    >>
    >> Or Jobs could tell AT&T that Apple is investing solely in a DATA network
    >> for which it has no voice ambitions. Maybe all MacBooks will soon get
    >> 700-MHz access cards.
    >>
    >> This excuse rings truer, but of course it would still be a scam on
    >> Steve's part.
    >>
    >> It would not surprise me at all if this were the case and when the
    >> 700-MHz network is finally up and running Jobs claims astonishment that
    >> the most popular data application is Voice over IP, a direct competitor
    >> to AT&T Wireless. This may be part of the reason why Apple has been so
    >> slow approving third-party iPhone applications. Wouldn't your first
    >> application be a VoIP client?
    >>
    >> ---
    >>
    >> Full Article Here:
    >>
    >> http://snipurl.com/1uh83
    >>
    >> -

    >
    >





  13. #43

    Re: Did Apple just trump AT&T? It appears so...


    Why are you posting this in a Nokia group?



    On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 04:25:21 +0000 (UTC), Craig Ian Dewick
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >Oxford <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >>This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T
    >>is now scared of Apple and its business intentions...

    >
    >>Keep in mind, the iPhone is only one small update away from making EVERY
    >>iPhone compatible with VoIP, then simply dropping the old cell network
    >>like a hot potato.

    >
    >>AT&T needs to be very careful here, Apple is a much stronger company, so
    >>they need to play nice or end up like IBM.

    >
    >Glad that iphones are still regarded purely as a gimmick here in Australia.
    >They're a load of ****.
    >
    >Craig.
    >--
    >Craig Dewick - http://lios.apana.org.au/~craig http://jedi.apana.org.au/~craig
    > Email to [email protected] - [email protected]
    > Always striving for a secure long-term future in an insecure short-term world
    > Have you exported a crypto system today? Do your bit to undermine the NSA.





  14. #44

    Re: Did Apple just trump AT&T? It appears so...


    Why are you posting this in a Nokia group?



    On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 10:54:26 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >"Oxford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]..
    >> Keep in mind, the iPhone is only one small update away from making EVERY
    >> iPhone compatible with VoIP, then simply dropping the old cell network
    >> like a hot potato.

    >
    >Internet tablets such as the Nokia N800 already support VoIP... and I'd defy
    >you to find many people who routinely use one who aren't also carrying a cell
    >phone. The landscape is certainly set to change in the next, say, five years
    >but today for a serious phone user (who cares primarily about reliability and
    >not so much about the cost) wirelesss VoIP alone isn't viable.
    >
    >> Or Jobs could tell AT&T that Apple is investing solely in a DATA network
    >> for which it has no voice ambitions.

    >
    >Anyone would see through that -- once you already have a data *network* in
    >place, adding the extensions to support prioritized traffic (needed to get
    >decent performance for VoIP) is easy.
    >
    >





  15. #45

    Re: Did Apple just trump AT&T? It appears so...


    Why are you posting this in a Nokia group?



    On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 05:56:14 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >In article <C378AE84.9C082%[email protected]>,
    > Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> > Anyway, Jobs and company saw nothing BUT the GUI, and completely missed
    >> > the significance of the network and the printing. COMPLETELY.

    >>
    >> And yet Apple was very early in the home networking environment (did
    >> *anyone* beat them to that... think of the old PhoneNet adapters) and they
    >> pretty much created the desktop publishing industry.
    >> >
    >> > Jobs was so blind, it wasn't funny.

    >>
    >> Support?
    >>

    >
    >Plenty. Just read the record.
    >
    >I'm waiting for Oxtard to go back to what he was SPOON-FED and read it.
    >
    >Oh, wait--you're oxtard, aren't you?
    >





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast