Re: opinon piece from odf-interest mailing list wrt apple, opendoc, etc.

Joe Kiniry (
Sun, 30 Mar 1997 18:15:10 -0800 writes:
> At 02:13 PM 3/30/97 -0800, you wrote:
> >------- Start of forwarded message -------
> >Newsgroups: mlist.odf-interest
> >Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 08:14:27 -0800
> >Reply-To: ODF-Interest@CILabs.ORG
> >From: (Arni McKinley)
> >X-To: OpenDoc Development Framework Discussion List <ODF-Interest@CILabs.ORG>
> >Subject: Ellison and Apple buyout, comments
> >
> >I wrote an Opinion a couple of weeks ago that fits Ellison's approach as
> >described in the morning Chronicle, but had some additional thoughts which
> >he'll find interesting. The Opinion follows a summary.
> >
> >Summary:
> >(1) Apple's strength is its operating software, not its hardware. Always
> >has been. Few people ever bought Macintosh for the hardware. When Ellison
> >buys Apple, he should put the focus there, not on hardware.
> WRONG WRONG WORONG. If you actually believe this, stop talking about Apple
> right now. Apple's ease of use OS granted has been a big part, but it was
> (as in years past) Apple's hardware that kept them alive. Built in SCSI,
> Networking, first with CD-ROM's, built in Digital Video, etc. No one else
> has ever offered computers that featured all that standard, and I don't
> think anyone still does. (Well NeXTStations but we won't go there, and no
> Amiga doesn't count.)

i'm unsure about your evaluation of mac hardware tim. i mean, sure,
they had some great integrated features early (scsi, networking,
video, high-speed bus, internal hardware task-parallelism, etc.), but
look where that got them. oh, wait, you said amiga's _don't_
count. :)

the only thing wrong with your and this author's arguments are the
fact that the soft didn't take advantage of the hardware _enough_.
the scsi driver is a perfect example (if you don't know what i'm
talking about, simply put, the driver continued to use interrupt
polling and lacked pure dma transfers until very recently).

i applaud many of apple's hardware moves (build in networking, move to
powerpc, and use of scsi being three), but to believe that no one else
offers as many features as standard is ignoring the facts. just about
every large pc vendor matches apple's flexibility and breadth without
compliant and at lower cost, as sad as that is. don't begin to argue
about those special mac features like dig vid; i'm only talking about
the features that the other 99% of the populous gives a shit about.

> >(2) Apple's problems have always been a deep lack of executive and
> >marketing understanding about the technology Apple owns. The execs and
> >marketing have rarely understood the benefits of their technologies at a
> >gut level. Most rarely used the technology themselves so they couldn't see
> >its advantages. The engineers were always light years ahead. OpenDoc is the
> >latest casualty, but there have been many others. Ellison should change
> >that.
> >
> Wrong again. Apple's problem has been they have ignored the people that
> were buying Macintosh's. It's the classic case of a love/hate relationship.
> Yes, the arty types in pony tails and goatee's buy our products, but they
> aresn't corporate Amerika, and we have to be accepted by corporate Amerika.
> That thinking has just about put them out of business.

i'm a little confused. are you saying that mac users must be accepted
by corporate america and thus macs must as well?

> >(3) Apple currently lacks a focus. While the rest of the world focuses on
> >network computing, Apple could be focusing on document centric computing
> >and clean up on the market now dominated by Microsoft. Ellison should have
> >Apple become the world's document centric leader and tie the OpenDoc
> >technology (or some equivalent based on Java) to its Notes technology. What
> >are people going to do with all of the JavaBeans and information they get
> >off the net. The answer is that they are going to SHARE that information in
> >personally designed, customized documents. Since Oracle knows about shared
> >documents from its Notes business, document centric computing simply rounds
> >out Oracle's business model.
> Wrong again. Apple finally has realized that they are 1) not going to win
> the desktop, 2) not going to be accepted by corporate America 3) not going
> to be the server solution 4) sell a hell of a lot of Macintosh's to certain
> segments of the computing population, that also happens to be the creative
> giants of the world.

if (1) through (3) are true, apple is left with commodore's pitch.
remember it?

"amiga, computers for the creative mind."

i'm afraid that probably won't cut it, but we'll see. i'm wishing
apple all the luck in the world, but i wouldn't bet 2 cents on their