# Stupid Move on Apple's part



## malexgreen (Jan 3, 2003)

http://news.com.com/2100-1040-979129.html?tag=fd_top

I thought that the price for the iApps was already included in the system price!


----------



## d8n_two (Jan 3, 2003)

If this comes to pass, Apple is continuing to eliminate many of the selling points that I use when recommending the Mac platform to my friends and colleagues.  While I'm glad to see that these apps will still come free on new computers, there's no doubt updates that add "must have" features will cause riots (well, not quite) like those when Jaguar pricing was announced.  It's a shame.  Apple must really be hurting.


----------



## voice- (Jan 3, 2003)

Tsk, tsk...they are only adding to the number of nails in their coffin...I have a feeling that for every switcher the ads bring in another Mac user switches back due to these stupid moves of Apple...


----------



## kendall (Jan 3, 2003)

Microsoft thrives on stuff like this.  They will just offer comparable products on Windows for free and watch Apple slowly bleed to death as users flee to the darkside.


----------



## Inline_guy (Jan 3, 2003)

Do you think it is really that bad?  While yes, everyone gets biter when something was free and now is not; I just don't see this kiling Apple.  Or adding to Apple's "death in any way.  If they are $50 for lets say.... 3 iApps, I can live with that.  That is cheap.  And software is expensive to make.  I had no problem paying for Jag and I will have no problem paying for iApps.

Matthew


----------



## marz (Jan 3, 2003)

First iTools, now this?  Very sad to see this happen if it's indeed true.   I switched about a year and a half ago, and have had new mac envy for a few months now.  But another move like this is going to keep Apple a bit player in the market.  When will Apple realize that the only way to turn the tide is to bite the bullet and become a software company.  Put the i386 version of OS X on the store shelves and watch the switchers flock into the Apple stores in droves to UPGRADE their Windows machines.  Then when they're good and happy with the OS and Apps, they'll want to upgrade their machines to the new AMD powered Apple machines because they'll still be the damned sexiest machines out there.


----------



## bubbajim (Jan 3, 2003)

I am so tired of this bait 'n switch method that Apple is adopting.  I this come out to be true, that every iApp will be deleted from my machine.  I still will not subscribe to their .Mac and I sure in [That Hot Place] don't plan to buy freeware gone shareware overnight.

If you intend to keep a happy consumer base, you should have offered that apps at a price from the beggining.  That way the people that really like to pay for this kind of software can do so.  Offer a demo and let the people who don't pay for determine if they would like to pay for this software.

I don't need iPhoto.  There are many other ways to organized and tweak my photos.
I don't need iTunes.  There are way many more options/solutions for that.
I don't need iCal, there is one right there on my wall.
I don't need iSync, I got Hotsync Manager.
Other iApps don't relate to what I do so I can't say why I wouldn't need them.  I like their programs, but I don't like being dupped into liking them so much that I have no choice but to pay an additional fee to keep them up to date.  Sound like a drug dealer system to me.  Get me hooked on the crack by offering it for free (a sample) then when I get hooked on it, then charge me an arm and a leg for it.  This is the path Apple is taking and it leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth.

I love Apple and it's hardware/software, I just don't like the game they are playing.


----------



## RacerX (Jan 3, 2003)

> *by Joe Wilcox:*
> Apple also did not give Jaguar--the first significant upgrade to Mac OS X--to Mac OS X users for free. Instead, the majority of these customers had to pay $129 to receive the upgrade, which was released less than a year after OS X.



Okay, the last time I checked there were 12 months in a year. So how did 17 months become _less than a year_? Also why would this be considered any different from Mac OS 8, 8.5, and 9 which were all non-free upgrades spaced apart about the same amount of time that 10.0 and 10.2 were? And was 7.1 free? Or 7.5? Or 7.6 for that matter?

As for the issue of paying for iApps, this person who can't even get dates correct doesn't strike me as much of an authority on Apple. This sounds more like a solution to a slow news day. 

Lets wait until Apple does something before complaining, or at least complain about something they have already done. We really don't need to worry about things that haven't happened yet (and we have no proof that it is going to happen).

And *marz*, if that plan didn't work for Be why would it work for Apple? Be had a great OS that they couldn't get Windows users to use for free on PCs. Moving to x86 and becoming a _software company_ couldn't be a worse idea for Apple. The history of the industry is littered with companies that died (or were wounded) switching to x86.

If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Apple to move to AMD.


----------



## voice- (Jan 3, 2003)

Come to think of it, with iTunes gone I won't have a single app keeping me from switching to Windows. To be true, the switch will be made either way, but now I might even sell this Mac...

There's something I never thought I'd do...


----------



## marz (Jan 3, 2003)

RacerX... I don't want to get off on a rant here (Dennis Miller) ... the difference between Apple and Be, Apple has a following already, and Apple has lots of wannabe customers that don't want or can't afford to buy their hardware.  That's why it would be different for them to sell the OS and Apps for x86.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.


----------



## Giaguara (Jan 3, 2003)

i use iTunes .. practically only taht of those apps. I could do a calendar app myself if i needed one. No for those upgrades at least from here.. First jaguar, then mac.com... if the old versions would become then like icab was today "sorry your version has expired, please get the new version" i will be pissed off. itunes is okay but... what the next? 50 $ to upgrade the ipod software from 1.1. to 1.1.1 or somethign like that?? no good


----------



## Inline_guy (Jan 3, 2003)

Voice- what are you talking about?

"Come to think of it, with iTunes gone I won't have a single app keeping me from switching to Windows."

I switch about 8 months ago.  And right now I have three iApps in my dock.  But that did not happen right at first.  One of those iApps I am on the verge of dumping unless it gets better on ver 2.  One I rarely use, and the other (iTunes is always on).  I love iSync though, but I don't need it in my in my dock.

I use my mac for many reasons.  The main reason is not the apps.  It is the OS.  I love it.  In fact I used to HATE Apple computers before OS X.1!  I had to use them for school and vowed never to buy one.  That chanced when I played with OS X.  I love OS X and it keeps getting better.  And I will keep paying for my upgrades.  

I also like .mac.  At first I payed for the $50 price just to keep my e-mail, but now I use every feature it offers.  I have no problems paying $100.00 a year for it (and I am not a rich guy).

If you are buying a pricey mac for one stupid app (iTunes) then switch.  And quite crying because a company is charging for some of its more advanced software.

Sell your mac, and if you do let me know.  Maybe I will buy it off you.

Matthew


----------



## aishafenton (Jan 3, 2003)

Wait a minute!!!

The rumor was that they would charge for an upgrade for iMovie, iDVD and iPhoto.. all other iApps will remain free. 

Plus the new versions of iMovie,iDVD and iPhoto will still be free with any new OS or computer... just that you'll have to pay for the new versions if you get them seperately.

So not to much of a big deal, right?


----------



## OSX_MAN (Jan 3, 2003)

I think all this complaining is from a bunch of spoiled brats. You bought a Mac and got all of Apple's iApps with the price of the computer. They do not however have to continue to give you free things after the sale. There are not taking away anything they gave you.

With your logic Apple should give you RAM to keep you up with the new Mac, or even how about a new CPU. No company just keeps giving you upgrades for free for ever. I have never seen Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft Office, etc. give away free upgrades.

If you want the latest and greatest, quit asking for a handout and pay up!


----------



## Urbansory (Jan 3, 2003)

I only use iTunes, so no big deal at this time. Apple has award winning software that we had the priviledged to recieve for free, although i don't use iDvd, iMovie or iPhoto, others find them highly useful. As a designer i see myself on a Mac for as long as Apple is around. Considering how much Final Cut is and DVD studio, the nonprofessional really shouldn't complain. i wish i could get Final Cut at a lower rate. Apple needs to keep their company profitable to operate, so this is something they fell they must do. Apple could give us some minor small additions we rant about, that might smooth things over a bit.


----------



## boi (Jan 3, 2003)

i hope there's an option to just buy iPhoto for $20 (assuming it's $50 for all three). i really like iPhoto.
maybe this means there will  be significant upgrades, eh?


----------



## RacerX (Jan 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by marz _
> *RacerX... I don't want to get off on a rant here (Dennis Miller) ... *



We're ranting about something that is very possibily untrue... how off rant could we really get?

Anyway, the BeOS actually did have a following. So did NEXTSTEP and Solaris. The results of moving to x86 were all the same, either the end of the company or the eventual drop of x86 support*. OS/2 Warp even had market share and the _IBM_ name going for it and ended up gone. Also, if developers didn't write for the x86 version of Rhapsody, why would they all of a sudden want to write for an x86 version of Mac OS X? Jobs has tried x86 twice and both time it was unsuccessful, why would he be inclined to try a third time?


(* Sun dropped support for Solaris for x86 but brought it back after some core Solaris users made the point that they wanted a laptop Solaris solution and would be willing to pay for the OS)


----------



## Ricky (Jan 3, 2003)

Perhaps the new paid upgrades will actually be something you'd WANT to pay for.  I'd pay for iTunes as it is, but I don't use the other iApps enough to pay for them.

I guess Apple finally shot itself in the foot again.


----------



## Inline_guy (Jan 3, 2003)

Here is the thing people. You are explaining why Apple should charge for some of its iApps. 

Many of you have over and over said, "the only iApp I use is iTunes"  Or "I really don't use many of the iApps."

If that is the case then why would Apple want to dump more money into making new version  of these applications when you don't use them.  It is a total waste of time and money on their part.  So they say.  Humm... iPhoto (not everyone uses), iMovie (is only good if you have a camera), and iDvd (requires a DVD burner and again a camera).  Let the people that use them and love them, pay for a small upgrade fee.  The other option for Apple is to just stop updating them.  Guys you said it yourself.  You don't use them!

It really makes perfect sense.  I have an iMac with SuperDrive, but have yet to make a DVD or edit anything but a few quicktime movies.  Two iApps I do not use!  Will I buy the upgrade.  Yes, because I soon plan to get a DVD Cam.  And I will want to play with those Apps then.  But if you don't use them, then there is no lose for you!

Quite being dumb. This step makes 100% perfect sense!

Matthew


----------



## toast (Jan 3, 2003)

I have paid my iMac 1500 ($1500) because I knew that, combined with my DSL connection, I could get plenty of quality freeware from Apple. This includes iTunes, in priority, but also Mail, TextEdit, AppleWorks etc.

All these applications have kept me from pirating Audion or Word, for instance.

The OS is expensive enough. The hardware is too. The Web services are too. If the software becomes $50/upgrade, I'll add a "Cracked Applications" folder to my Carracho server. Too bad for Apple.

But, as RacerX stated, I'm not really worried.


----------



## bubbajim (Jan 3, 2003)

Sorry to cause any mixups.. I did not mean that iTunes was on the list of Apps to start charging a fee to use.  I meant that if Apple continues down this path all iApps would eventually become shareware.  I use the term shareware because they offer it as a trial then ask for money, except they make no mention about a trial period (oh that's right, I thought it was gonna be free).  I wouldn't consider myself a brat nor anyone else here, but I would consider myself a fool if I didn't complain when someone gives me something for free and then comes knocking on my door and say, "Sorry, I changed my mind.  Could you pay for that free gift now?"  I'll be the first one to slam the door in Apple's face.  I was perfectly happy with other apps before Apple came out with their 'Free' iApps.  Now with the exception of a few apps out there innovation for 'iApp Competing Products' are a rare breed (I miss my SoundJam).  And again with the bait 'n switch... get everyone hooked on the free apps, forget about the other commercial products... join us... we'll take care of your needs.  Then once you are all cozy and warm with the app, they pull a Microsoft.  I'd swear that sometimes Steve Jobs must be related to Bill Gates.

Inline_guy.. I agree that it makes sense for business, but for customer loyalty it is not a good move for the reason I stated above.  If Apple does go through with this (if the rumor is true).  We will get over it. Some will buy, other will throw a finger in the air.  For Apple this is what they need to do to make money.


----------



## mac-blog (Jan 3, 2003)

Okay, did I miss the boat here? Since when were some of these apps free? They may have been bundled with systems or software, but iMovie is not a free app ($49.00), AppleWorks is not free ($79.00), and iDVD is not free ($19.95). AppleWorks was free with a bundle of software with some iMacs, but if you got AppleWorks 5 you didn't get AppleWorks 6 from Apple for free. People who got AppleWork 6 have been lucky that all upgrades so far have been to 6.x.x versions, but if 7 comes out, it isn't going to be free.

bubbajim, Apple isn't going to make you pay for what you already have. You would only pay for new versions. Maybe when you buy some new hardware you could get them for free again, or maybe Apple would include them in Mac OS X v10.5 or something like that, but what the article is talking about is an iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD bundle for less than what iMovie and iDVD cost from Apple now. No "bait 'n switch" here, you own what you have. If you want something better/newer pay up for it (or wait for another bundle to come along). The only place I know of that offers "upgrades for life" is Stone Software.

So, what is everyone's problem again?


----------



## tm311 (Jan 3, 2003)

While i can see both sides of the argument, I have not seen apple IMPROVE .mac the way they promised, it is still pretty mch the way it was when it was free, and it has been a pay site for many many month's. As for charging for the iApps. Last i checked they alreadt charged me for them when i bought jaguar, and they will continue to charge me when i upgrade to the next os. So to me this feels like double dipping and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and will make it eaier for me to keep quiet the next time a friend talks about buying a gateway. A couple years ago i would gave been all over them , talking up the mac OS benefits. Now with Apple taking my money every chance they get , I say let Apple spend the time getting new customers.


----------



## wtmcgee (Jan 3, 2003)

if they do this the right way, i think not too many feathers will be ruffled.

if the more casual iApps like iTunes, iCal, iChat, iSync stay free, and programs like iPhoto, iMovie and iDVD come at a price, i think that would be acceptable.  hopefully there would be some sort of option to buy just the programs you want, since iPhoto is kind of neat, but i don't have a DV cam as of yet, so i have no use for iMovie  or iDVD.

but the people saying they'll sell their macs if apple does this, you gotta be kidding me.  granted, i can see the 'bait and switch' argument... but if you don't feel as if the programs are worth your money, or feel as if they aren't worth paying to upgrade, do one of two things:

1) dont upgrade (yea, thats right... you dont HAVE to upgrade last time i checked.)

2) find a suitable replacement. don't like iTunes?  there's a couple of great mp3 player programs out there, some free, some you have to pay for.   there's fire, adium, proteus for you iChat people. if you don't like iCal or iSync, use the palm desktop software that comes with your palm.   i haven't looked around, but i'm sure there's a suitable replacement for every iApp they could possibly charge you for.

i guess we'll all know next week, eh?


----------



## Inline_guy (Jan 3, 2003)

Ding ding ding...

Mac-blog.  Wow.  As a new switcher, I did not even know you had to pay for the other versions!.  That is funny.  Now this thread seems like a silly post.  You Mac-Blog did not miss the boat.  We did!  

Good to know.  can't wait until MWSF!

Matthew


----------



## toast (Jan 3, 2003)

I hate that. Waiting MWSF just to know if we're going to pay more or not... Nothing exciting, nothing revolutionary, nothing Apple in this !

If the charging of the iApps is the biggest surprise of MWSF then Apple's dead. I *really hope* something will make me change my mind next week. I also *really hope* this rumor is wrong. Otherwise, Apple doesn't say "Hello" to its customers. It says 'Fcuk off and get the credit card ready you dumbhead'.

Wow ! I'm so angry about this... yesterday a PC friend just came home and tunrt to me : 'François, I'm just a dummy. All I need a computer for is listening music, browsing the Web, typing text and making Excel files. And I bought a PC, what a dummy I am, Macs are nice, simple, and they come with all the good applications (he was looking at iTunes, TextEdit, AppleWorks) already installed !'

I hope I'll never have to tell him I had to crack any of those.


----------



## ccuilla (Jan 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Giaguara _
> *I could do a calendar app myself if i needed one.*



I love this one. I am a software engineer. I've written NEXTSTEP (the predecessor to Cocoa and OS X) applications. I couldn't do close to what Apple has done in less than a week. Full-time. At my current bill rate...If Apple charged $50 for iCal ONLY...I'd be in the hole after the first hour of work!

Sheesh. How much is your time worth?

If the iApp isn't useful to you...fine don't use...don't pay for it...don't complain about it.


----------



## ccuilla (Jan 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *If the charging of the iApps is the biggest surprise of MWSF then Apple's dead.*



Nope. You are wrong. Sorry.




> *Macs are nice, simple, and they come with all the good applications (he was looking at iTunes, TextEdit, AppleWorks) already installed !'
> 
> I hope I'll never have to tell him I had to crack any of those.*



And at this point we have no idea (and probably very little chance) that this will change.

At most, I expect Apple to CONTINUE their practice of charging for the upgrades of iMovie, iDVD (and new to this...iPhoto). Probably as a bundle.


----------



## Inline_guy (Jan 3, 2003)

Toast.  What is your major malfunction?  Apple ALREADY charges for iMovie, and iDVD and even AppleWorks for that matter!  They are not now..... or have been in the past a FREE upgrade!  Understand!  Look....

Scroll down and look for AppleWorks, iDVD, and iMovie!
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APP...rPageLeftSoftwarePromo.1.1.0.3.1.0.17.3.1.1.0

What was that.  They already cost money!  What?  Shocking!  Deal with it!  Software cost money......  And if your friend buys a mac he STILL gets them on the machine.  Man.  It is not that hard to understand.  Like Mac-Blog already said; this is NOT NEW NEWS!  

They are now and will remain already installed on new machines.  The only versions of these apps that are free upgrades are the dot dot upgrades.  Like 7.x.x You get the x's for free.  As soon as it goes 8 you will have to pay.  Nothing new.  You get it.  Threatening to steal only does one thing, and that is to show your poor character (and I am not referring to monetarily poor!)

Matthew


----------



## MacLuv (Jan 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> * Jobs has tried x86 twice and both time it was unsuccessful, why would he be inclined to try a third time?*



Maybe it's not the idea but the igit trying to implement it. In this case, Steve Jobs.

(No need to reply, I'm just being a wise ass).


----------



## boi (Jan 4, 2003)

apple is just adding iphoto to its list of iapps to charge for. no big deal, i guess. i hope other iapps (the less powerful ones) don't follow suit.
what some people are missing (inline for one) is that yes, they cost money, but those of us who paid $1800 for a mac and another $800 for an lcd think we've paid our dues. we paid that money to receive iphoto, itunes, ical, etc. under the notion that they would be supported as long as we had the machine. now apple is charging money for the upgrade to iphoto, which is kind of buggy as it is.
think of it as buying a $8 cheeseburger every day, getting 'free' french fries. now alluvasudden you're just stuck with an $8 cheeseburger. bummer.


----------



## MLapointe27 (Jan 4, 2003)

When I bought my PowerBook these apps were given for free.  They never said shareware.  While on the other hand when I bought my Windows XP desktop I got copies of Norton AntiVirus and a demo copy of Photoshop that both said they were 30 day trials right in the open.  Here's the way I view this.

I bought my HDTV bigscreen about 6 months ago from Pioneer.  If Pioneer came to my door years later and told me they need another 200.00 dollars to pay a license fee so they could continue to make a profit I would kick them in the as* and run them over with my car.  I allready bought my HDTV so if they can't make a profit now then put that cost into HDTVs being sold now.  That's the way it goes.  Why should Pioneer expect me to pay them more money so they could make a profit.  It's not my fault they didn't charge an extra 100 dollars for my TV just to make sure.  That's there problem not mine.

Why should apple expect consumers who have allready bought their computers for lots of money to have to shell out more money because they can't make a profit.  Big smart Stevie should of thought of that a year ago.  Isn't that what he's being paid millions of dollars.  Oh and if someone says he doesn't have a salery of millions of dollars just let me tell you that bonuses are just another way around that.  The smart thing to do is too put the cost into new computers.  There allready priced high as it is so to add another 50 or 100 dollars wouldn't kill me.  I may be a multi-millionaire but I still remember where I came from.  I try to do everything that's fair with my company while still trying to make enough of a profit to be able to afford R&D for new products.  I just gave my top 150 employees brand new flat panel iMacs for Christmas and I am highly thinking about getting my next 150 top employees an HDTV instead of a computer.  I don't like how Microsoft does business.  They are the worst when it comes to hiring actual employees and providing them benefits.  Almost everyone is either temp or contract with no benefits.  For the last 3 years I have allways gotten my top 150 employees Mac computers.  I call a meeting every year on Jan 1st at 9 am and tell everyone what will be next years Christmas gift.  Since all of my employees have or can get medical and other benefits from day 1 of hire for 80 dollars per month and then after 90 days they can get benefits for 10 dollars per week.  I also contribute 15% to their profit sharing.  I believe to take care of your existing and future customers you have to first take care of your employees.  All of my employees know that they could be one of the 150 people who could win a Mac.  These top 150 people are based on how many sick days they take, how well they perform their jobs and last but not least how much fun they have doing their job.

Apples biggest mistake is that they are not taking care of their existing customers.  If they stop taking care of their existing customers than in almost 95% of cases they will not take care of their future customers.  This is the direction that apple is moving towards that I don't like.  I've always given away Macs because Apple was a great example of what my company stood for.  The customer is always the first priority in every decision this company makes.  The price may have been high to buy these Macs but Apple made up for it like no other computer company has before.  By doing everything they can for the customers and not always for profits.  I only have 200 employees total and the remaining 50 employees didn't go home to chirstmas empty handed.  They wen't home with 500 dollar gift cards for Best Buy.  I take care of my employees the best I can.  They have great incentives to do the best they can.  When you have employees who are taken care of with benefits and pay (I don't over pay but my starting pay rate is way above the minimum for the job) with little to worry about and have 2 weeks vaction in the first year and get paid for 40 hours for a 36 hour work week and can choose to take a 1:15 minute lunch break or work all the way through and go home 2 hours early (45 minutes less work this way) and still get paid for 40 hours.  When you have employees who will go extra lengths to be one of the top 150 workers to bring home a Mac computer and for the other workers who just had a bad year can still get a 500 dollar gift card for BestBuy.  What do you get with all of this. Very hard workers who all are happy with thier jobs and have on of the lowest turn over rates in your industry.  Your workers spend more time making these products better and the work harder to get it done the right way.  Some of my products have gone through years of R&D and once it wen't into being built you would be amazed how many workers came into my office and said why they didn't like something or how it could be better which you could of never fould out from R&D.  All of these workers have put their effort and time in making products better.  For every 100 units we sell our next 100 units have new features.  If one of my first 100 units customers call and say they wan't this feature if they send back the unit they have we'll send out the most current unit and we sell these older units for less with the same warranty.  Between one model we have over 10 different revisions to make this model better and any customer who wan't the lastest revision can have it.  The customer can only get one revision for free so if they wan't to wait until the last revision that's fine and if they don't and they buy a revision that addresses one of their problems and then the last revision address something else they wan't they can return their current unit and get the last revision for 75% off of the current units price.  You see how this works.  We are always in the best interest of the customer.  When they send back these units we sell them for cheaper and if we have to cover the next customer for an extra 6 months than the original products warranty well than so what.  If my company can't afford to cover these products for an extra 6 months than what the hel* am I doing even selling these products.  I look at it this way.  When I go to eat out I always give around 25% tip.  Here's the way I see it.  If my bill is 100 dollars and the standard tip is 15.00 if I can't afford an extra 10.00 dollars than I can't afford to go out at all.

Sorry I went on and on but this is something that bothers me over and over and always will until I pass away.


----------



## aishafenton (Jan 4, 2003)

> I may be a multi-millionaire but I still remember where I came from



MLapointe27 can I have some money


----------



## aishafenton (Jan 4, 2003)

I agree with what you're saying MLapointe27, but I never thought that Apple giving me copies of AppleWorks, iMovies and iDVD with my computer would mean they'd keep giving me free copies once they brought out newer versions. iMovie and iDVD have always clearly been a commercial product that is a bonus gift for buying a new Mac. 

To use your analogy. It would be like if I bought a HDTV big screen about 6 months ago from Pioneer and they bring out a new model. Now I don't expect them to come around to my house and say here's our new model for free!! I mean I wouldn't say no if they did though.

Having to pay for iPhoto on the other hand is a bit different, and a surprise - since it has till now been freeware. Oh well ;-(


----------



## Austin Powers (Jan 4, 2003)

Yeah baby!


----------



## Inline_guy (Jan 4, 2003)

MLapointe27.. Wrong.

This is what you said.
"When I bought my PowerBook these apps were given for free. They never said shareware. While on the other hand when I bought my Windows XP desktop I got copies of Norton AntiVirus and a demo copy of Photoshop that both said they were 30 day trials right in the open. Here's the way I view this."

Do you think before you write.

Here is the situation.  Apple has given you iMovie Ver 2.0  on your computer with purchase. Not shareware buddy.  They have given you iDVD Ver 2.0 with your computer.  Not shareware.  They are not now asking you to pay for your 2.0 versions.  They are saying if you want Ver 3.0 (NEW SOFTWARE) then you must pay for it.  Like any normal human.  Like any normal business.

This is what it would be like.  If you got a Windows XP computer with Photoshop 5 installed.  You are happy.  Wow it seems free.  This is great!  Then Photoshop 6 comes out.  And what is this. .... They are making me pay for it!  That isn't fare.  The gave me the other one with the computer.  They must not value their customers!!!  No you FOOLS.   DUH!  That is what they do.  By buying a computer you have no right to NEW FREE SOFTWARE... No matter how much you paid for you computer.

I can't believe how thick you people are.  This is not bate and switch.  They gave you programs with your computer.  Those are yours.  No trial.  No anything.  Enjoy.  However if you want new software you will pay for it.  Or not have it!

I got a World Book Ver 6.0.2 CD with my mac.  If World book makes a Ver 7.0 are they going to just put it on their site for me!  Nope.  They say, come buy it!  Duh.. This is how the world works.  

Some of you guys act like Apple owes you something for using their computers.  Wrong.  You are not doing them a favor.  You bought a product.  If it is now not what you want, because you made an asinine assumption that all Apple software is free, then you are a fool.

Matthew


----------



## lukepetschauer (Jan 4, 2003)

So I'm curious:

If they're going to charge for operating system upgrades, why would anyone pay for upgrades to the iApps? Ostensibly the upgrades to the OS would come with the new & improved iApps, so just keep a tight grip on your wallet (or purse, I guess) and but 10.3, 10.4, ad infinitum.

A standard/pro pricing scheme would seem to be much more beneficial.


----------



## chevy (Jan 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Inline_guy _
> *Toast.  What is your major malfunction?  Apple ALREADY charges for iMovie, and iDVD and even AppleWorks for that matter!  They are not now..... or have been in the past a FREE upgrade!  Understand!  Look....
> 
> Scroll down and look for AppleWorks, iDVD, and iMovie!
> ...



Fully agree... nothing is for free.

The only point is how much does it cost ? And will I pay this amount for it ?

I'd like to have the choice of limited upgrade (one or two iApp) or full upgrade (OS + all iApp) both at reasonnable price.


----------



## Gregita (Jan 4, 2003)

I just wanted to thank the members who have provided the voices of reason.

You know who you are.


----------



## hugheba (Jan 4, 2003)

if they start charging for iApps will the open them up more?

For example, would you be able to use your external DVD-R with iDVD?


----------



## toast (Jan 4, 2003)

I agree I was badly informed, I didn't know iDVD, for instance, was already charged.

But I will not pay for, say, iPhoto. My iMac was way more expensive than a PC, I had in mind the fact it came with excellent freeware such as iTunes, iMovie and so on. I will not pay for products I already paid for !

Free iApps were part of the promise Apple made to customers. It's a great lack in their customer relationship if they aren't able to clearly state & explain that only version 1.0 is free.

Never mind. I know I'm not totally right here, but fcuk it ! If Apple asks me to PAY for iPhoto, I'll say no. However, I'm convinced AppleWorks will stay 6.x for a long time, just as iPhoto and the others won't change vers# too quickly.


----------



## TommyWillB (Jan 4, 2003)

Maybe they should consider making more SKU's of OS X... Say a Business version with no iApps and a Home version that has them.


----------



## TommyWillB (Jan 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *...If Apple asks me to PAY for iPhoto, I'll say no...*


 I'm very close to switching from iPhoto to iiew Media Pro, and the only reason I haven't yet is because I'm hopefull that a new improved version of iPhoto will be released at MacWorld.

So iView costs $90 and I have some serious usability issues with it. If Apple can improve the feature set to something close to iView, then I WILL pay for it. 

(But I understand that I'm probably the exception. I would not expect my Mom to pay for it, nor do I think she should.)

The fact is that Apple probably thought they were going to get lots of $ from folks payng to have pictures printed and made into books... but in my opinion why use digital cameras if your goal it to have paper prints?


----------



## fryke (Jan 4, 2003)

Well, if iMovie, iPhoto and others still come free with every Mac (but you'd have to pay an upgrade price for a later version), I could live with that, I guess...


----------



## MLapointe27 (Jan 4, 2003)

Do you see Microsoft charging for Windows Movie Maker and Windows Media 9 Series Player and Encoder which are very very much updated versions.  No NO No.  Windows Media 9 Series has Windows Media lossless and multi-channel high quality codecs.  They have added 5.1 surround sound streaming which no other media player supports as of yet.  These are much so brand new features that cost money to make and they can still offer it for free.  Why can't apple do this if they are indeed thinking different from Microsoft as far as the customer goes.  It seems that now Microsoft is the company thinking different as far as the customer goes.  If Apple starts charging for any of the iApps and starts charging for OS updates than they are no different than Microsoft.  Hey if I keep Windows XP I will get free service pack updates for many years to come and as far as I know the next version of Windows will highly updated and will come out at the earlist in 2005 and will cost me who has Windows XP about 100.00 to 150.00 to upgrade I would assume.  Now if Apple comes out in 2004 with a 130.00 update and again in 2005 with a 100.00 update and lets not forget about 2003s 100.00 update.  If this happens I believe Apple is now worse than Microsoft as far as a customer is concerned here.  I'm not upset with one singular act that Apple is doing now I'm worried about how many other singular acts will follow down the road.

As far as I'm concerned with the new features Microsoft put into Windows Media 9 Series Player and Windows Movie Maker 2 they could of easily charged for these breakthroughs but they didn't.  Do you see my point.  In my opinion for 5.1 channel support and to be able to encode 5.1 surround without having but buy Minnatonkas software again is well worth a 50.00 upgrade price.


----------



## Urbansory (Jan 4, 2003)

You can't compare Microsoft and the their software at this point, they are trying to keep Apple pinned down, thats why it's free and the updates gets better. The truth is the iApps by Apple are better for the nonprofessional, well as far as i'm concerned. Like i said before, unless you know the pain of shelling out big bills for professional software, upgrades to the iApp family will be more than reasonable for the nonprofessional. Look at the huge difference in Photoshop and PS Elements, the price gap is huge, and Elements has a ton of features which kinda pisses me off considering I paid a grand for the Web Design Collection. And as someone pointed out, a lot of us said we doon't really use most apps, so Apple should charge, except iTunes.


----------



## ccuilla (Jan 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MLapointe27 _
> *Do you see Microsoft charging for Windows Movie Maker and Windows Media 9 Series Player and Encoder which are very very much updated versions.*



Not YET.


----------



## MLapointe27 (Jan 4, 2003)

What does Microsoft have to worry about.  They control 90% more of the market than Apple.  For god sakes Apple has trouble getting it's 5% customer base upgraded to OS X.  For every 10 windows computers that are sold there are only 1 mac computer sold based on market share and that's been getting worse for apple.  Their problem is price not quality.  Most people are very happy with Windows XP as I am overall.  So for what you can get for the money on the windows side and with Windows XP which has yet to crash for me since I got it on exactly October 25, 2001.  It only crashed when I installed beta software which is too be expected.  Most people who use there computers for productive uses don't install beta software when Microsoft's website tells them by installing this beta software could cause system instability.  So while people can continue to get more and more for their money and have Windows XP which runs great and has sold more than 30 million copies not including corporations buying Windows XP.  Microsoft has nothing to worry about as far as apple goes.  By Microsoft still offering their software updates free and Apple having to charge for more updates is only going to help Microsoft in the long run.  One Mac users keep on paying more and more and getting less and less Mac users will eventually buy a windows as their next computer.  You won't get rid of your mac and neither would I but instead of spending bad money after bad money I will spend this money for windows xp hardware and/or software.

So in short by Apple starting to charge for this stuff they are only killing themselves quicker.  For Apple to have a chance they have to go to an x86 type line.  If they go to AMD that does not mean that you can buy OS X for 130.00 at the store and run it on your existing PC which is what most people think.  What it does mean is yes you can run Windows XP and OS X on a dual boot.  But Apple can use a non-flashable ROM or something like that that the OS will scan for to allow installation of Mac OS X.  So by going to AMD you will still be forced to buy from Apple to get the motherboard with that ROM to be able too install OS X on but it will also allow people like me to also install Windows XP.  You will still have to buy from Apple but these computers will still be sexy and the key much cheaper and faster.  Since AMD is one of the bigger companies they can make more of these chips faster and cheaper and in bigger quantitys.  This in my opinion will be the only way Apple could gain more market share.  I will admit their there OS is by fare the best OS around but for most consumers their wallet does the looking and picking of computers.  If I can go to a store with a budget of 2000.00 dollars and I can buy a desktop with a Pentium 4 processor and at least 1Gig of Ram and a DVD-burner and a 19 or 21 inch flat panel monitor.  For most consumers parts they would sacrafise the best OS that's mac and go with Windows XP which isn't exactly bad and get all of this extra hardware such as more RAM, faster processor, better video card, better sound card, a much bigger monitor.  I will in all probability continue to buy Macs for myself because I don't have nere to budget constraints that most consumers do but there are not nearly as many people like me as their are average people and Apple needs to make a dent on these average people because the high end consumers will never make up for Microsofts 50%+ average consumers.  It's just as simple as that.


----------



## MLapointe27 (Jan 4, 2003)

Now I'm not a professional as far as using my computer and let me tell their are a lot of music and TV buffs that are not experts who all love Windows Media 9 Series.  Apples products are way better than Microsofts products...you are way wrong.  Does apples iTunes allow me to stream 5.1 surround sound.  Does Apples iTunes allow me to make my own 5.1 surround sound mix without having to buy a Minnetonka products for thousands of dollars.  Does Apples iTunes allow me to rip lossless audio of of my cds at smaller file sizes.  No No No.  I can't say anything about iPhoto because I haven't used Windows Movie Maker so I'm just talking about Windows Media 9 series.  I can buy a DVD player for 200.00 that supports Windows Media 9 series and when hooked up with an HDTV big screen I can encode my home videos in Windows Media Video 9 in High Definition quality.  I have on Time Warner Cable a Music Video on demand channels that has some new songs in DD5.1 and so buy hooking up my cable box to my soundblaster live drive using the digital out by just following easy menus that anyone can use i can encode this music video in HDTV 1080i resolution and in Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound and with my DVD burner I can burn this onto a blank DVD in its native WMA format and when played on my Windows Media capable DVD player using the component input on my HDTV I can watch this music video in HDTV with Dolbly Digital 5.1 surround sound.

You tell me right now if Apple iTunes can do this right now without any extra software and I'll shut up.  If you can find other software that can do this for free (not demo or shareware) with iTunes you tell me and I'll shut up.( I know if you pirat software you can do it but me nor the average consumer pirats software so don't mention it)  It has to be totally legally free.  My mother has done this herself with a little bit of my help and she doesn't work in any computer related field nor has she ever worked in this field.


----------



## toast (Jan 4, 2003)

The debate is getting too precise and complicated on video for me.

My point stays: free iApps are one of Apple's strengths. If they decide to charge them, they're shooting themselves in the foot (I'm talking of iPhoto).


----------



## Urbansory (Jan 4, 2003)

I wasn't comparing iTunes when i said iApp family, i was refering to the ones they will charge for. Although i did see a photo app on Windows that was, well i hate to admit it, but it just blew me away. HDTV has no set standard, so no big deal on jumping on that at this point, but the fact that it is being done is kinda sweet. As far as proccessors, i don't care, I just want pure speed, NO HANGUPS, and I'll be satisfied till a newer chip is released. I've been using Apple since I was around 6 or so, I used Windows, it doesn't work as good, give me a Mac any day. Like i said, the iApp family is great for the nonpro, useless for me, although i use iPhoto once in a blue moon.


----------



## RacerX (Jan 5, 2003)

> *by MLapointe27:*
> Hey if I keep Windows XP I will get free service pack updates for many years to come and as far as I know the next version of Windows will highly updated and will come out at the earlist in 2005 and will cost me who has Windows XP about 100.00 to 150.00 to upgrade I would assume. Now if Apple comes out in 2004 with a 130.00 update and again in 2005 with a 100.00 update and lets not forget about 2003s 100.00 update.



Okay, reality break! Lets make sure we are comparing these operating systems correctly here.

First, Apple: I paid about $100 for Mac OS 8 and nothing for 8.1. I paid about $100 for Mac OS 8.5 (about a year and a half after 8.0) and nothing for 8.6. I paid about $100 for Mac OS 9 (another year and a half after 8.5) and nothing for 9.1 and 9.2. I paid $30 for Mac OS X Public Beta, about $100 for Mac OS X 10.0 and nothing for 10.1. After 17 months with 10.0 and 10.1 (23 months if we count the Public Beta) I paid about $130 for 10.2. I have never paid for an x.x.1 increase from Apple and most x.1 increases have been free.

Now Microsoft: I seem to remember upgrading from Windows NT 3.51 to Windows NT 4.0 for a little more than $200. All 6 service packs were free for Windows NT 4.0. Then Microsoft released Windows 2000 Professional (aka NT 5.0) which was close to a $300 upgrade. Again, service packs have been free. And now Microsoft has released Windows XP (aka NT 5.1) for another $200 for the upgrade. I'm sure the service packs are going to be free again, but just wait for the NT 5.2 upgrade price!



> Now I'm not a professional as far as using my computer... (on and on and on)



No No No, I can't afford any of that hardware to even consider what you are talking about. Forget about stealing software, I would have to steal to get the hardware! Also how is this supposed to look compared to your first post (Macs as rewards for your best employees),   I'm finding all this way out of character. You don't seem to know Macs but you sure seem to know Windows (to a greater degree).

Yep Yep Yep, _No-No-No-Guy_ doesn't seem to fit the bill.


----------



## RacerX (Jan 5, 2003)

> *by the No-No-No-Guy:*
> For god sakes Apple has trouble getting it's 5% customer base upgraded to OS X.



And how long did it take Microsoft to move their customers to Windows NT?

(note: Windows NT 3.1 was release July 17th 1993 for those trying to figure it out)


----------



## kendall (Jan 5, 2003)

Microsoft was never trying to move all their customers to NT.  They have yet to terminate support for Windows 98.

I think Apple is in a bit of a bind.  According to several sources, the "switch" campaign has done absolutely nothing for them.  Windows users aren't coming over plain and simple.  Apple needs money.  Who better to tap then their loyal user base?  I'm sorry but some of you are fanatics and would buy dog turds if they had an Apple logo on them.  Apple knows this and uses it to their advantage quite often.

Significantly faster Macs seem at least a year away if not more.  iMac sales are declining sharply.  PowerMac sales are next to non existant.    The only way to succeed is to be constantly changing.  I think Apple is starting to realizing this and trying new things.  Hopefully they find the money they need in selling services and software.  I think once they do this though, it will enable Microsoft to have a tremendous advantage over them.  Microsoft will just make and bundle comparable apps with Windows giving people even less reason to switch to a Mac.


----------



## RacerX (Jan 5, 2003)

> *by kendall:*
> Microsoft was never trying to move all their customers to NT. They have yet to terminate support for Windows 98.



Actually that is not true. From the time that NT was under development, the goal was to drop the 16/32-bit hybrid version of Windows within a short period of time. Microsoft truly believed that people would move to NT 4.0 because it was better than Windows 95/98. They thought that the lack of movement was perception which was why NT 5.0 was renamed 2000 (basically to get people to move to it because it followed in line with the _year_ naming pattern that 95/98 had set. When that didn't work they ended the line with the release of ME and moved everyone over to XP (NT 5.1). They terminated support for Windows 95 last year, and they are terminating support for Windows 98 within the next year. Microsoft (and Gates) got tired of waiting for people to realize that the NT line was a better operating system than the DOS-based Windows, and they forced the issue. They *are* moving all their customers to NT.



> I think Apple is in a bit of a bind. According to several sources, the "switch" campaign has done absolutely nothing for them. Windows users aren't coming over plain and simple. Apple needs money. Who better to tap then their loyal user base? I'm sorry but some of you are fanatics and would buy dog turds if they had an Apple logo on them. Apple knows this and uses it to their advantage quite often.



Thanks for the _gloom-and-doom_ report, nice to see you never change on the issues. I haven't seen reports either way (other than a few articles which can't keep the facts straight to begin with, which in my book makes them poor sources). As for _fanatics_ and your tasteless choice of descriptions of them, I can't say either way. I personally use and have paid for alternatives to apps I've gotten for free from Apple (both Apple products and MS products bundled with my systems). I have always used what works best for me, if Apple makes it or not. As Apple is making enough good products and they are no where near the state they were in back in the dark times (which was not during an industry wide depression), I still don't see where Apple has anything to fear... or Apple users for that matter.

Sorry to disappoint you, but having watched Apple through all of it's _ups_ and _downs_, I would have a hard time classifying this as a _down_ time. But don't feel bad, maybe next year they'll be in the hard times you always seem to be wishing on them. Like all those other people who have been predicting the death of Apple, if you keep saying the same thing long enough some day you may actually be right.


----------



## kendall (Jan 5, 2003)

Do you have a better explaination of why Apple has decided to charge for .Mac and now possiblely select iApps?  Its not doom and gloom, its a simple fact.  sorry to disappoint  you but you failed to quote me mentioning that *Hopefully they find the money they need in selling services and software.*  Somehow you interpreted _*a bit of a bind*_ as me predicting the death of Apple.  Interesting.  I guess it makes your reply that much stronger?

Also, unlike Apple, MS didn't kill support for Windows 95/98 like Apple did with OS 9.  If MS truly wanted all users over to NT, they could have killed 98 long ago and forgot about backwards compatibility.  Also, few home PCs shipped with Windows NT/2000?  If Microsoft was adamant about users switching to NT, wouldn't they have seen to it that the PC companies shipped NT/2000 instead of 95/98?  I think there is very little truth behind what you are saying.  Now with an NT OS across the line they are moving people to NT but I highly doubt that was their goal since 1993 as you are suggesting.


----------



## KKBFiredancer (Jan 5, 2003)

hmmmm.....im sure everyone is unhappy now, but just like .mac, it will still be a success...


----------



## wtmcgee (Jan 5, 2003)

as long as they don't start charging in another package for the other apps, i'll pony up 50 bucks for those apps if they're much improved.

if they start charging 50 or so for an ichat, ical, itunes bundle.... no way jose.


----------



## sirfulcrum (Jan 5, 2003)

> Actually that is not true. From the time that NT was under development, the goal was to drop the 16/32-bit hybrid version of Windows within a short period of time. Microsoft truly believed that people would move to NT 4.0 because it was better than Windows 95/98. They thought that the lack of movement was perception which was why NT 5.0 was renamed 2000 (basically to get people to move to it because it followed in line with the year naming pattern that 95/98 had set. When that didn't work they ended the line with the release of ME and moved everyone over to XP (NT 5.1). They terminated support for Windows 95 last year, and they are terminating support for Windows 98 within the next year. Microsoft (and Gates) got tired of waiting for people to realize that the NT line was a better operating system than the DOS-based Windows, and they forced the issue. They are moving all their customers to NT.



Get your facts right. Microsoft has wanted to move people to a pure 32-bit OS for years, but they never wanted to do so with NT 4.0. NT 4.0 was meant strictly as a corporate workstation, and having worked with it, I can tell you it was a pure nightmare to set up in terms of driver installation and such. That was the first major strike against NT 4.0 as a consumer OS. The other major strike was that driver support was nowhere near as broad as Win95 at the time, so it was extremely unfriendly in terms of compatibility for stuff like joysticks and other consumer gear. And NT 4.0 couldn't run DOS apps like games, which directly accessed the system hardware themselves. That violated NT's security model where the kernel is the traffic cop handling all calls to the hardware, not the applications.

With Windows 2000, Microsoft managed to vastly improve installation and management. Plug and Play and all that other stuff had been successfully integrated into the NT kernel. The driver database was there. Still, it wasn't quite ready for consumer prime time because of trouble with certain Win9x aplications, mainly games. That's why Windows 2000 Professional was geared toward corporate workstations, and an interim version of Win9x (the deservedly much-hated Windows Me was developed).

With WindowsXP, Microsoft has finally completed the migration to a pure 32-bit OS for both consumers and professionals. They incoporated better legacy support for apps, even throwing in a Compatibility Mode function that allows the OS to fool the application that it's running in Win9x. Driver support is massive. Application support is massive. Stability and Reliability are there. All future Microsoft OS' will be built on the XP/NT technology. There will no longer be two seperate OS lines built on DOS and NT, they will all share the same NT codebase from this point out. That is what Microsoft has been wanting to do since 1994, and they finally got there. And now they're at this point, they're actively pushing their consumer customers to upgrade to XP for the same reason Apple is pushing its customers to upgrade to Jaguar; XP is a better OS in terms of security, reliability, stability, speed, and multimedia. But unlike Apple, MS still continues to support its older OS'.

While it's true that this doesn't include Win95, it's also true that Microsoft has publicly stated (and this is also on their site) that six years is the lifetime they'll actively support an OS version. MS still supports Win98 and WinMe, but Win95 and DOS are both over six years old and now are history. Fair enough, six years is ancient history in computing.

How old is OS 9, and how quickly did Apple kill it's support of it? I bet you it's been far less than 6 years.


----------



## toast (Jan 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by KKBFiredancer _
> hmmmm.....im sure everyone is unhappy now, but just like .mac, it will still be *a success... *



Wasn't a succes in my opinion. Threads about .mac being down have been countless on this board. Plus, many people rejected it completely. It was just a financial success, i.e. it did make some benefits for Apple. If that's the only thing Apple is aiming at, then I don't share a lot with this company any more.

____
Don't they dare charge my iTunes !


----------



## Jason (Jan 5, 2003)

simple question.. what do you guys mean by killing support of os9?


----------



## RacerX (Jan 5, 2003)

> *by kendall*
> Do you have a better explaination of why Apple has decided to charge for .Mac and now possiblely select iApps? Its not doom and gloom, its a simple fact. sorry to disappoint you but you failed to quote me mentioning that *Hopefully they find the money they need in selling services and software.* Somehow you interpreted *a bit of a bind* as me predicting the death of Apple. Interesting. I guess it makes your reply that much stronger?



I did not say that you were hoping for the death of Apple... just that you want to be the to ring in the bad times.

As for .Mac, a company doesn't have to be in trouble to realize that they have a money sink hole which people had figured out how to abuse. People were get 2, 3, as many as 6 accounts under the old system. It had to be shut down as it was running. How would you get rid of people with multiple accounts but at least try and keep people who want the service and use it as Apple originally envisioned? Their solution actually works if you ask me.

Also I have yet to hear that anything is actually changing at Apple with regards to iApps. As Mac-blog so astutely pointed out, some of these are already being charged for by Apple (and have been for a long time). It looks like iDVD is actually only the cost of shipping (which is probably a size issue), iMovie is about $50 and iPhoto is getting to the size (already past it if you ask me) where a download become difficult. Instead of paying $20 for both iDVD and iPhoto and $50 for iMovie (totaling $90), Apple sounds like they are bundling the upgrades into a single $50 package (the current cost of _just_ iMovie). Apple must be in real trouble if the are willing to drop off $40 that they could pocket.


----------



## RacerX (Jan 5, 2003)

Ah yes, history lessons. I love the history of the computer industry. Lets address both *kendall* and *sirfulcrum* posts on the subject together.



> *by kendall*
> Also, unlike Apple, MS didn't kill support for Windows 95/98 like Apple did with OS 9. If MS truly wanted all users over to NT, they could have killed 98 long ago and forgot about backwards compatibility. Also, few home PCs shipped with Windows NT/2000? If Microsoft was adamant about users switching to NT, wouldn't they have seen to it that the PC companies shipped NT/2000 instead of 95/98? I think there is very little truth behind what you are saying. Now with an NT OS across the line they are moving people to NT but I highly doubt that was their goal since 1993 as you are suggesting.



and



> *by sirfulcrum*
> Get your facts right. Microsoft has wanted to move people to a pure 32-bit OS for years, but they never wanted to do so with NT 4.0. NT 4.0 was meant strictly as a corporate workstation, and having worked with it, I can tell you it was a pure nightmare to set up in terms of driver installation and such. That was the first major strike against NT 4.0 as a consumer OS. The other major strike was that driver support was nowhere near as broad as Win95 at the time, so it was extremely unfriendly in terms of compatibility for stuff like joysticks and other consumer gear. And NT 4.0 couldn't run DOS apps like games, which directly accessed the system hardware themselves. That violated NT's security model where the kernel is the traffic cop handling all calls to the hardware, not the applications.
> 
> _(and on and on, you guys can see the post above, no sense in quoting all of it)_
> ...



Talking about people needing to get their facts straight, wow! Lets address the _Mac OS 9 is no longer supported by Apple_ claim. Where in the world are you guys getting that one! That couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Mac OS 9 is still supported by Apple, but they are not going to ship any new versions. For that matter Mac OS 8 is still being supported by Apple. In fact I can find things for pre-Mac OS 8 operating systems on Apple's site (which you would have a hard time doing with Windows 95 information on Microsoft's site). Please learn the difference between _support_ and _shipping_ because all the claims about Mac OS 9 could be applied to Windows ME at this point using your flexible definitions.

On to Windows NT.

As a former Windows NT 4.0 power user (and I was never a "corporation") from 1997 to 2000 where I spend all day working in Photoshop on a Windows NT 4.0 Workstation and managed a Windows NT 4.0 Server used by our office of 5 computers, I have a good deal of experience with that OS and what was going on with it.

Strange as it may sound, Microsoft has worked against the same pressures that it used to its advantage in this industry. Microsoft wanted people to move to Windows NT 3.x from Windows 3.1/3.11, but found that people needed a bridge to get them past their 16-bit code. That bridge was supposed to be Windows 95. Microsoft had planned the movement of their customers from Windows 3.1/3.11 to 95 to NT 4.0 (NT 3.1/5.51 had failed to get enough driver support because companies didn't see that it had a large enough user base... the same thing Mac OS X faced early on).

Plug-n-play was not a Windows 95 feature (it was first pushed as a feature of Windows 98), but because it was based on the same underlying code as the DOS version that came before it, porting drivers wasn't that much of a burden for companies. Windows NT required a substantial investment in developing drivers, and Microsoft was having a hard time showing that they could provide the users needed to get a return on investment. Any new operating system faces this problem, and NT being a Microsoft OS didn't help it in any way. Users always drives development. Gates had from the begin of the NT project thought it was the future of Microsoft and thought that they would be able to get users based on how much better it was (and it was better, I supported Windows 95/98 systems while working on Windows NT 4.0, and it was much better). They didn't think they would need to drop production of the other line to get people to move, they thought quality was enough.

The games issue... games were never high on Microsoft's list of important apps when thinking about their operating systems. Game makers wrote to the masses which were still using Windows 3.1/3.11/95 and Microsoft wasn't seeing games as important in the early to mid 90's. It wasn't until their failure (again) to move people to NT with version 4.0 that they realized that games were important. They didn't think computers should be used for games, and so to push gamers off their computers without losing customers they started development of the X-Box who's only purpose was to give gamers something better to run their games on than their computers so that they could finally rid themselves of the 95/98/ME line and move to NT.

None of the NT line were any harder for _home users_ to use than any other version of Windows, but finding supported hardware and drives sure made it look that way. Once running, a _home users_ would have less problems with an NT OS than any version of 95/98/ME. The problem wasnt Microsoft, it was the makers of hardware that made it difficult.

Yes, I think we now have our fact straight.


----------



## sirfulcrum (Jan 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *
> 
> The games issue... games were never high on Microsoft's list of important apps when thinking about their operating systems. Game makers wrote to the masses which were still using Windows 3.1/3.11/95 and Microsoft wasn't seeing games as important in the early to mid 90's. It wasn't until their failure (again) to move people to NT with version 4.0 that they realized that games were important. They didn't think computers should be used for games, and so to push gamers off their computers without losing customers they started development of the X-Box who's only purpose was to give gamers something better to run their games on than their computers so that they could finally rid themselves of the 95/98/ME line and move to NT.
> ...



Thanks for the revisionist history. Too bad it's false. NT 4 shipped in 1996. The Xbox project started in 1999, and it wasn't because they wanted to move gamers off the PC to a console. Xbox was started because (1.) The Sony Threat of PlayStation 2 and future PlayStations establishing a potential PC replacement in the living room (2.) To get Microsoft into the living room, paving the way for future MS digital devices and (3.) There's a lot of money to be made in video games and for a company looking for new revenue streams now that Windows and Office growth is slowing, it makes sense for Microsoft.

You think I'm making that up? Just read Dean Takahashi's Xbox book. By the way, Dean used to be with the Wall Street Journal, and he's a crack reporter. And I was a very close observer of all this as well, including spending an hour in Japan talking at length with the guy who came up with the Xbox idea. His name is Seamus Blackley.

And you'll notice that Microsoft maintains two gaming lines: PC and Xbox. And most MS PC games are vastly different in style and genre from most MS Xbox games. Microsoft still supports PC gaming 100-percent. It's flight simulators and real-time strategy games versus football and platform games. PC gaming remains a multi-billion dollar a year industry, and MS wants a big slice of that pie. It is already one of the largest publishers of PC games, and the hardware division is on top in terms of joysticks and gaming devices.

As for your other points, yes, Windows 95 was always supposed to be the bridge from DOS to NT. But NT 4.0 had horrible hardware support (the driver issue), it was a mess to use compared to Windows 95. (Just try installing and configuring a modem in NT 4.0 and not ripping your hair out.) And NT 4.0 didn't make a splash, because it sucked in hardware support and application support. Sure it could Office and Photoshop, but most consumers back in 1996 couldn't really care. It was about games and other applications.

Microsoft then set its sights on Windows NT 5.0, but development on NT 5.0 took nearly four whole years. Microsoft was having problems trying to incorporate stuff like Plug&Play, USB, and other new technologies into NT while feature-itis kicked in as they attempted to make an all-encomposing OS that would work for workstations, consumers, and servers.

The delays kept resulting in having to ship out Win 98, which was billed to be the last DOS-based Windows OS, and then having to settle for DOS-based Windows Me when it was clear they couldn't get a consumer version of 2000 ready in time.

But don't just take my word for it...
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/win2k_gold.asp


----------



## MLapointe27 (Jan 5, 2003)

You can't compare apple and windows NT.  Microsoft never tried to upgrade home users to the NT kernal.  Windows 9x whas for home users.  I never even went to Windows 2000 because I couldn't get much multimedia hardware that supported Windows 2000.  The reason why Windows 2000 didn't support much multimedia hardware is because it was a frikin business operating system.  I went to the NT kernal when Windows XP came out because that was designed with multimedia in mind and most importantly it was the first NT kernal OS that was designed for home users.

You have two versions of Windows XP.
Windows XP Home Edition
Windows XP Professional Edition

Did you ever see a Windows NT home edition or a Windows 2000 home edition.

Plus Windows NT and Windows 2000 have always cost more money than Windows 98 & ME because it was for businesses with business features that home users don't use.

You can't compare a business OS with a home OS.  It's like compaaring Windows .Net Server with Windows XP Professional.  They are both bases on the NT kernal but one is more expensive than the other and one is designed for servers and the other is designed for the clients accessing that server.

As far as I remembered when I went to bestbuy and circuit city I don't remember ever seeing home computers preloaded with Windows NT nor Windows 2000.

Now I didn't want to bring up the past here but I felt I had too.  Now when I was talking about the direction Apple was moving in from the present to the future that's when I mentioned the next version of Windows and the direction that Apple was heading in.  Then someone has to bring up the past when I was clearing talking about the present to the future.  I don't care what Apple or Microsoft has done in the past because it's allready been done and can't be changed and people have to look at the future and not the past.  I always gave macs to my employees in the "past" before they starting doing this stuff.  I said that I'm not going to be getting macs for my employees for next Christmas (in the future) and I based this on where I see Apple going to in the future not where they have been in the past.

Everybody thought Green Bay Packers could never lose in Green Bay in the playoffs because of their past history.  Well Green Bay lost yesterday because as I said people live in the past and never in the present.  As this game came to an end we now know that the past means crap and doesn't decide out future.  So from now on if you post a message please mention points that relate to the present and/or the future because the past doesn't mean crap as far as what could or will happen in the future.  Apple in the past was always more interested in customers while Microsoft wasn't.  Since the past means noting and only the present and the future means something we may find out the Microsoft becomes more interested in customers and apple becomes less interested in customers.  You never know what could or will happen and that's why we live our lives.


[edited by jason: name calling is a no-no, expect a pm]


----------



## RacerX (Jan 5, 2003)

> *by sirfulcrum:*
> Thanks for the revisionist history. Too bad it's false. NT 4 shipped in 1996.



It isn't, but you are welcome for the history lesson. Windows NT 4.0 was release in _August_ 1996, a year after Windows 95. As I have said before, the driver issue wasn't Microsoft's fault (no more than the driver issues with Mac OS X are Apple's fault).

By the way, loved your link:



> *from sirfulcrum link (quotes ca 1997):*
> "Bet the future on Windows NT," Gates said. "We're driving the business market to use that product as rapidly as possible, and it'll be a variation using the same technology that we use to drive NT into the consumer market. New *personal computers* will come with the refinement of NT 5.0 the same way they come with Windows 95 today."
> 
> _and_
> ...



Thanks for the supporting documentation!  The only way it could have been better would be if your link went to a site that covered NT all the way back to it's beginning as OS/2. Starting at NT 5.0 Beta skips a lot of important information.

Feel free to post more support for my arguments, saves me time.


----------



## RacerX (Jan 5, 2003)

MLapointe27, 

I'll wait for your post to be cleaned up before responding.


----------



## toast (Jan 5, 2003)

That *was* fool, Racer... LOL


----------



## evildan (Jan 5, 2003)

This is a general warning to the lot of ya!

Pause. Breath. Be nice to each other. 

The true test of a person's character is how they treat their enemies.

Oh and MLapointe27... Thanks for twisting the knife on the Green Bay Packers. I don't think "everyone" expected them to win, but the team does traditionally do well at home. By all accounts, they should have won that game.

But, case in point to those that are in the midst of an argument, it's not always about winning. Sometimes it's about how you treat the person you're playing with.


----------



## jeb1138 (Jan 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by evildan _
> *...it's not always about winning. Sometimes it's about how you treat the person you're playing with. *





> _Originally posted by kendall _
> *I'm sorry but some of you are fanatics and would buy dog turds if they had an Apple logo on them.*



Is kendall really a moderator?


----------



## toast (Jan 6, 2003)

Let's close this crap. Feels childish.


----------



## karavite (Jan 6, 2003)

All I know is I cannot see ever paying money for iCal!


----------

