Re: "Why Microsoft Should Fear Intel Macs"
- From: Edwin <thorne25@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 18:58:49 GMT
Jim Polaski wrote:
In article <HTYLg.8630$yO7.4554@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Edwin <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
ewin-lost blather snipped.
The clones were licensed.How did it have "full control"?IBM had no control over IBM clones. Apple had full control over its clones.Explain how that changes anything.And cloning turned out *so* well for IBM in the long run, didn't it?You missed the part (or was it just too difficult for you to understand) about how PC cloning was done "without IBM's blessing." Apple's clones were licensed.
How could they have used that control to change how well cloning turned out for them?They could have spelled out what type of machines the cloners were allowed to build, in the licensing terms.
Why? Were you in a coma while this was going on?You'll have to document that claim...Apple tried cloning and after trying it they felt that they revenue they were gaining through licensing agreements didn't make up for the revenue they lost due to reduced hardware sales.Apple stopped cloning because the clone makers thoroughly embarrassed them by producing better computers than Apple did, for less money. They didn't follow Apple's formula of supplying the low end and mid range markets with crippled, underpowered machines. They made computers that challenged Apple's high end, yet were priced like mid-range and below.
No, edwin-lost, YOU were the one in the coma.
You got it back-asswards, as usual, Jim.
We've been over this before in the past and you didn't pay attention then, and you're not paying attention now either. IBM failed to protect is design and other parts of the original PC which allowed Compaq to birth the first clone.
Even if we accept what you wrote above, how does that make me wrong in saying IBM had no control over IBM clones?
Nobody will be surprised when you can't answer.
As for Apple's cloning efforts BEFORE SJ came back, Apple entered into cloning licenses that were a better than good deal for the cloners.
You mean licenses that allowed fair competition between all Mac builders?
Power Computing was *supposed* to only sell in markets that Apple wasn't interested in,
Now comes the time for you to supply the type of documentation that you, Alan, and other Maccies are always clamoring for: document the contract terms that spelled out which markets the cloners were allowed to sell in.
but then Power Computing's first ads were in MacWeek, going for the Apple's market space.
That takes nothing from what I wrote above.
Second, Apple made little on the licensing and had little control given the contracts that were not SJ's which I think were Amelio or Spindler's.
IOW, you're just making this up as you go along.
Thus, SJ cancelled the cloning since it was literally costing Apple, not making a profit.
Right, for the reasons I gave above.
Apple was losing two ways, in the market place and with the licensing contract.
That's the same reason put two different ways.
--
"But SunOS was just a purchased OS. Like Apple,
Sun purchased and [sic] OS and then developed it. No more."
-- Alan "Wrong Again" Baker
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Why Microsoft Should Fear Intel Macs"
- From: Jim Polaski
- Re: "Why Microsoft Should Fear Intel Macs"
- References:
- Re: "Why Microsoft Should Fear Intel Macs"
- From: Edwin
- Re: "Why Microsoft Should Fear Intel Macs"
- From: Jim Polaski
- Re: "Why Microsoft Should Fear Intel Macs"
- Prev by Date: Re: Blu-ray in Macs?
- Next by Date: Re: Brian Valentine leaves M$ for Amazon.
- Previous by thread: Re: "Why Microsoft Should Fear Intel Macs"
- Next by thread: Re: "Why Microsoft Should Fear Intel Macs"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
