From Fortune:<P>"I don't want to toot our own horn too<BR>much, because it sounds arrogant, but<BR>the rest of the industry is trying to copy<BR>our every move again, just like in the<BR>'80s," says Jobs. "Every PC manufacturer<BR>is trying to copy the iMac in one way or<BR>another. And you can bet they'll be<BR>cloning iBook next year. The same goes<BR>for our software. Our QuickTime<BR>streaming video player has this sleek,<BR>brushed-metal look on the screen, and<BR>our iMovie digital video editing software<BR>on the new iMacs lets you make your<BR>home movies actually viewable. Well, a<BR>month ago Bill Gates announced that<BR>Microsoft's next Windows multimedia<BR>player was going to feature a<BR>brushed-metal interface, and that they're<BR>coming out with Windows Movie Maker.<BR>So now we've got Microsoft copying us<BR>again too. And I don't mind. I don't mind."<P>Jobs, as usual, has a vivid metaphor<BR>ready to explain why Apple geeks will be<BR>able to improve OS X faster than<BR>Microsoft geeks can improve Windows:<BR>"Think of Windows and our older Mac OS's<BR>as houses built with two-by-fours. You<BR>can build that kind of house only so high<BR>before it collapses from its own weight.<BR>So as you start to build it higher, you<BR>have to spend 90% of your time going<BR>back down to shore up the lower floors<BR>with more two-by-fours before you can<BR>go on to build the next floor. That leaves<BR>you with only 10% of your engineering<BR>budget to spend on actually<BR>innovating--it's why new versions of<BR>Windows always come out way late. On<BR>the other hand, OS X is like a software<BR>space frame made out of titanium. It is so<BR>strong and light and well designed that it<BR>lets us spend all of our resources<BR>innovating, not reinforcing the<BR>foundations." <P>Who wants to start?
Steve Jobs tells you how it is
- Thread starter Venture
- Start date
- Status
Well actually a lot of PC manufacturers _are_ trying to copy the iMac's design. iBook's wireless networking looks neat but er..I have nothing against Apple unlike most people here, but I've gotta agree that it looks like a toilet seat View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif My vote for coolest looking laptop goes to the thin Sony Vaios
His usual bombastic bullshit; he talks about Windows being late, how about OSX? Hello? If he thinks Windows 2000 is more of the same, he's mistaken. Boom.
What steve said in the article is true. Apple is very innoventive in most of there new products and sometimes instead of being innoventive like Apple some other companies choose to mimick Apple's products.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"I don't want to toot our own horn too<BR>much, because it sounds arrogant<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>He's so humble.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So now we've got Microsoft copying us<BR>again too. And I don't mind. I don't mind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>MIcrosoft is OK, but better not build a skin.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Think of Windows and our older Mac OS's<BR>as houses built with two-by-fours. You<BR>can build that kind of house only so high<BR>before it collapses from its own weight.<BR>So as you start to build it higher, you<BR>have to spend 90% of your time going<BR>back down to shore up the lower floors<BR>with more two-by-fours before you can<BR>go on to build the next floor. That leaves<BR>you with only 10% of your engineering<BR>budget to spend on actually<BR>innovating<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The Free BSD folks are taking care of the shoring up. What an acheivement for him.<P>[This message has been edited by Tao of Me (edited January 20, 2000).]
As I recall, Winamp, amongst other things, had the brushed metal look along time before the QuickTime streaming video player did. Hmmmm...Did Apple copy them?<P>Yes, some PC makers have clearly based their PC's off of the look of the iMac. I'd say that's a pretty true statement. <P>"iMovie digital video editing software on the new iMacs lets you make your<BR>home movies actually viewable": Not sure exactly what in the hell Jobs is trying to say here, but if we are talking about that iMovie "style" of simplistic user friendly interfaces for video editing, then Adamation's Personal Studio was out before Apple's software, and Sony has had simple, easy to use DV software (as well as Firewire connections) out longer than Apple as well. Should the CEO's of these companies point this out to Apple? The MS part of this that he's talking about seems pretty true though. I read a little about the MS program...<P>As for the "Think of Windows and our older Mac OS's as houses built with two-by-fours" analogy, I'd say uhhh well Mr. Jobs, have you forgotten NT somewhere in your analogy? I'd also point out that technically alot of OS X IS that old house. It just happens to be an VASTLY IMPROVED old house. Jesus, I'm no authority on it, but I've even seem more than a FEW programmers point out that Mach is an example of one the shittiest kernels in the whole industry. OS X doesn't even have a Fully Journaled Filesystem. That's like a space frame made out of titanium to him? I think he's stretching things a bit far here...<P><BR>
A HANDful of companies have copied the look of the iMac, none of whom garner much respect in the industry and all of whom are being sued. (Despite the fact that the Compaq Presario all in one machine was around way before the iMac.) He translates that to, ALL PC makers are copying us. And haven't they borrowed a thing or two from the PC side? Who developed USB (Intel), IDE drives? <BR>The video cards they are now using in their "hot" machines wouldn't exist if not for the PC.<BR>But hey, it's his job (hehe) to talk Apple up. <BR>OK then back to you-
Dan, all in one machines have been round since the 70's, not since Compaq Presario. If you want to make it an Apple/Compaq thing, try looking the Mac 128 or Lisa....All in one. But really all in ones r not new, it is the removing of legacy ports, designer style that r really the Mac's strong points. This may not be to everyones liking but it seems to working for Apple. The OS is also quite easy to use, but unfortunatly has a shit load of legacy behind it....not a good thing. Mac OS X should fix this, but until then....<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BR>Well, a month ago Bill Gates announced that Microsoft's next Windows multimedia player was going to feature a brushed-metal interface<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This is not true at all -- it uses the same interface as Win2K WMP.
OK, a couple of points: Of course I am aware that Apple was first with the all in one concept machine, but what I wonder is, why didn't they sue Compaq when they started selling the things in the early 90s? And since they didn't, wouldn't the same logic that has them suing everyone today meant Compaq should have sued Apple when the iMac came out? I mean, it's absurd! Things evolve. If others want to build on what Apple has done, I don't believe they have sole custody of the concept.<BR>The rest of your reply has little relevance with what I was saying. The OS is easy to use? You really are trying to drive me insane, aren't you?!<BR>Or does the mantra just come forth naturally, like a reflex. And then OSX comes up. Where did that come from?<BR>OK, back to you-
Apple has never sued anyone for making an all-in-one computer. Apple sued a bunch of people for making all-in-one computers with translucent blue cases that resemble the iMac to such a degree that they infringe on the iMac's "trade dress" protection.
Give me USABILITY in a computer first, then I'll worry about what the damn case looks like. I thought we were trying to get *rid* of the box anyway? I'd just as soon have a superslim high-def monitor on my desk, and a mic to feed my commands to the natural language processor.
many companies have tried to copy the iMac look, sure to a poweruser the case doesen't interest much, but Apple has shown that for many consumer it does (BTW hving no fan is nice). This concept and his look have been copied.<P>I think that when Steve spoke about the titanium frame basis he wasn't only referring to Darwin, but also to Cocoa (alas Openstep), and i don't know another OS with such a complete OO API.
<BR>Dan <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A HANDful of companies have copied the look of the iMac, none of whom garner much respect in the industry and all of whom are being<BR> sued. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I don't know who you have respect for, but Compaq, Dell and I think Gateway have all come out with computers following the same concept as the iMac. And Apple isn't sueing any of them. Not only that but both MS and Intel have endorsed companies making machines along the same ideas. I am not sure who is left that you have respect for.<P><BR>
Looky here... Steve Jobs showing how it is...<p>-- View image here: http://homepage.mac.com/amul/steve.jpg --
<p>That would be a Toshiba laptop. Nice -- View image here: /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif --
<p><font size="1" color="gray">Courtesy of Amul on AI</font>
<p>That would be a Toshiba laptop. Nice -- View image here: /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif --
<p><font size="1" color="gray">Courtesy of Amul on AI</font>
First of all, the refence to the 70's has nothing to do with Apple. I remeber cleaning out my dads shed in the early 80's, and finding some ancient piece of hardware, monochrome monitor, those hugh floppy disk, like 8 or 9" wide. THe thing was an all in one, i.e Apple did not make the first all in one. As I sure you can see from the other posts, Apple didn't sue because it was an all in one machine, they sue it because the visual design of the eOne and the others....i.e colour, the position of the color, the intergration of the hand in away they was nearly identical to that of the imac. It is a visual design issue....even the boxes they were packaged in were almost the same design as Apple as well.<P>It's weird how PC people will say the intel designed USB, and hack on Mac people for Firewire, it was a consortium of different companies, just like firewire. I imagine that would be the same for IDE, which I believe is based on IBM ISA Bus. PCI on the other hand though is intel Designed.<P>The reason I mention the Mac OS is that the target group for the imac, i.e education and first time consumers, will probably find the Mac OS easier to use for there word processing and web browsing. <BR>
Resteves, using the same concept as an iMac is not copying the looks of an iMac.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't know who you have respect for, but Compaq, Dell and I think Gateway have all come out with computers following the same concept as the iMac. And Apple isn't sueing any of them. Not only that but both MS and Intel have endorsed companies making machines along the same ideas. I am not sure who is left that you have respect for<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>My my my... more mis-information. <P>Compaq and Dell didn't make iMac look-alikes, and Gateway did a <I>concept</I> of the all-in-one design that resembles an iMac and all-in-one Compaq (do you see it using colored, translucent casing like the eMachine?). I think you are getting mixed up on "concepts" and "blatant ripoffs" such as this. eMachines has no respect in the computer industry, and have been sued by Apple and have lost. <P>As far as intel and M$ endorsing "iMac" look-alikes, you are wrong there, too. They are endorsing systems that look like furniture (such as a foot stool and other household furnishings). They know better than to endorse a computer that's an eye-sore (except if you live in an apartment as seen on NBC's "Friends", but that's besides the point). <P>[This message has been edited by total1087 (edited January 21, 2000).]
Ummm... I dunno how you define "respect" but just about anyone I know who knows anything at all about business knows e-machines built an incredible fucking business in an <I>amazingly</I> short time - and everyone I know who knows computers knows e-machines did this by offering an incredible amount of value, functionality, and <B>reliability</B> for the money. <P>And, I might add, they were able to do this because they began with an <I>open</I>, widely supported platform (Me, selling my agenda again)<P>Not respected? Compaq should wish for as much repsect.<BR><P>[This message has been edited by poptones (edited January 21, 2000).]
poptones -<P>That might be true, but where I come from, one would rather get an Apple system than an eMachine system anyday of the week (that, my friend, is saying a <B>LOT</B>).<P>Did you know that they are owned by Daewoo? That is how they were able to spring out of nowhere and become so big (would YOU get a Daewoo car?).
Now, now total. Last time I checked you were not part of the ID scene or designer scene. You may find it an "eye sore", but this is your personal opinion. I really don't think you can speak for microsoft....not that I agree with resteves. Microsoft and intel are attempting to remove the floppy and legacy ports by something like 2001/2, Intel moving to a less PC look....but the thing is, your tower/desktop my look funky, but the monitor is going to look...well...old skool. Sort of destroys the whole thing really. All in ones allow the manufacturer to control the look of a machine.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Microsoft and intel are attempting to remove the floppy and legacy ports by something like 2001/2, Intel moving to a less PC look<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Very true. This is what I was trying to point out.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>but the thing is, your tower/desktop my look funky, but the monitor is going to look...well...old skool. Sort of destroys the whole thing really<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>That's entirely at how you look at it. Who said that monitors (CRT's in particular) will be staying at the same design? Ever seem an SGI 1600SW (seen here)? I have one at work. It doesn't look "old skool" to me at all. But that's me.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All in ones allow the manufacturer to control the look of a machine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Also very true. But, I don't like being stuck into something like that (that's why I just switched from a tower to a desktop; felt like changing). On the other hand, I know plenty of people that want something exactly like that. And do you know what I reccommend(sp?) for them to get? An iMac of course! <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now, now total. Last time I checked you were not part of the ID scene or designer scene. You may find it an "eye sore", but this is your personal opinion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Again, you are absolutely correct! I personally see the "current crop" of iMacs as an eye sore (IF you have the option to change the color of the case, THEN my opinion would change). Then again, the new crop (the graphite ones) look very nice (especially with OSX thrown in there)! <P>Wow. I just wish resteves could debate like this (along with DJ S)... Thanks for a great and no-flames post, Happy_Aardvark!!
PC's are copying the iMac look? Hmmm....<P>(Opens the lid on his clone easily)<P>Try doing that on an iMac without, ooh, some form of angle-grinder.<P>Why do people even listen to this jumped up marketing slimeball? We all know it was Woz who was the brains of that particular double-act.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><I>Originally posted by resteves:</I><P>Dan I don't know who you have respect for, but Compaq, Dell and I think Gateway have all come out with computers following the same concept as the iMac. And Apple isn't sueing any of them. Not only that but both MS and Intel have endorsed companies making machines along the same ideas. I am not sure who is left that you have respect for.<P><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Oh PLEASE, these companies haven't made knockoffs of the iMac and you know it. Come on! We were talking about knockoffs not similarly designed computers. <BR>THAT's what I am saying, Apple can't OWN the concept. <BR>Other mass produced automobiles followed the Ford. Should Ford have sued all of the other automakers?<BR>Dan<P>
<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Wow. I just wish resteves could debate like this (along with DJ S)... Thanks for a great and no-flames post, Happy_Aardvark!!<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well I tried, but most didn't bother to read what I actually wrote, and instead assumed I as saying something they could jump on. Let ma try to recap<P>Jobs said that PC's were once again mimicing Apple.<BR>Dan then insinuated that Jobs was wrong because not "all PC makers" were mimicing, only those with no respect in the industry.<BR>I realized that Jobs was refering to following a concept lead, and Dan was taking that to mean only direct visual rip-offs.<BR>I tried to clear this up by saying that *many* PC companies were following the *concept* lead, and I was very careful in making sure I was refering to the concept, and not the visual design. Thus keeping in line with the original Job's quote.<BR>Others have read into that that I believed that Dell etc were wrong, or that only Apple should be able to make AIO's, or that they should all be sued. <BR>NO, I did not say that, and don't think it. What Dell etc have done is precisely the way it should be done. (okay, iPaq is a bit obvious, but whatever.) eMachines and Sotec should have been sued, they were trying to rip off the look. Dell, etc are using a similar concept. <BR>Some seem to imply that Apple will sue just because it is an AIO, or that Apple (and users) think that Apple invented the AIO. Wrong on both assumptions. Apple just doesn't want visual rip-offs, and AIO have been around forever. Apple is the one to first see a current market for easy to set up consumer AIO's, while dropping alot of legacy stuff. There is nothing wrong with others following suit.<P>There, how is that... View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<P>
total, the 17" LCD by SGI is awesome, I will not debate this. But if the color is not that of the SGI(sort of purple/grey) the funky bright red PC your purchase is going to look a bit out of place. If a PC company(other than SGI....not many) could do the same, then fair enough. The case unfortunatily(how do you spell than, god, english was never my strong point , is that most companies r willing to wait for other companies to produce monitors or the monitors they hack together r third parties rebranded. The only companies I know of who do other wise r sgi,apple and sony(add more it other exist).<P>With reference to resteves, really total most of what he says is reasonable correct...I not saying always...but most of the time....some might not read it in. In the same case I have been very wrong(not really, but I sure I have to some people...I have been quite offensive to some, you know who you are and why I have). This would apply to yourself to I imagine, but as all of you say(including myself), this is the battle front....let none be spared View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif<P>chipper regards <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What steve said in the article is true. Apple is very innoventive in most of there new products and sometimes instead of being innoventive like Apple some other companies choose to mimick Apple's products.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This one kind of proves the point. Since Steve is, in fact, <B>GOD</B> everything he says must be believed 100%. I don't know what the hell innoventive is, but if it the same as innovative what have we seen from Apple lately? Pretty cases - woohoo! Marketing Bullshit - Lots of it, of course that is Steve <B>GOD</B> Jobs biggest skill. If Steve says jump do you 2% (Mac users) wait for him to tell you how high. Have you gotten your personal thanks from him for the Gulfstream V?
<BR>Okay, perfect example. When we talk about Mac-bashing-zealots, we refer to posts such as the one above (Clump) In it, he says nothing useful, doesn't add anything to the conversation. And without any verification lumps all mac users into the same type, and proceeds to insult all of them. This is what is meant...<P><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><I>Originally posted by Venture:</I><BR>And you can bet they'll be<BR>cloning iBook next year.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>somehow I doubt this.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The same goes<BR>for our software. Our QuickTime<BR>streaming video player has this sleek,<BR>brushed-metal look on the screen, and<BR>our iMovie digital video editing software<BR>on the new iMacs lets you make your<BR>home movies actually viewable. Well, a<BR>month ago Bill Gates announced that<BR>Microsoft's next Windows multimedia<BR>player was going to feature a<BR>brushed-metal interface, and that they're<BR>coming out with Windows Movie Maker.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So a "brushed metal interface" is a big deal now? WHO CARES? As for editing home movies, I've been doing that on my PC for two years now.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Jobs, as usual, has a vivid metaphor<BR>ready to explain why Apple geeks will be<BR>able to improve OS X faster than<BR>Microsoft geeks can improve Windows:<BR>"Think of Windows and our older Mac OS's<BR>as houses built with two-by-fours. You<BR>can build that kind of house only so high<BR>before it collapses from its own weight.<BR>So as you start to build it higher, you<BR>have to spend 90% of your time going<BR>back down to shore up the lower floors<BR>with more two-by-fours before you can<BR>go on to build the next floor. That leaves<BR>you with only 10% of your engineering<BR>budget to spend on actually<BR>innovating--it's why new versions of<BR>Windows always come out way late. On<BR>the other hand, OS X is like a software<BR>space frame made out of titanium. It is so<BR>strong and light and well designed that it<BR>lets us spend all of our resources<BR>innovating, not reinforcing the<BR>foundations." <BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Let's not forget that that is exactly what Apple has been doing with MacOS for the past 15 years. <BR>
I suppose, to carry SJ's metaphor, 'titanium' is in short supply, because his 'space age' OS is waaaaayb ehind schedule.....<P>He may not like 'wooden' 2x4's, but they are plentiful in supply. And if Windows 9x is made with wood, then what is the methaphoric equivalent for NT? Graphite polymers? And MacOS < 9? What is that made of? Jello?<P>I swear, he says things every so often just to piss me off.<P>Dajjal
Dajjal<P>OS9 is made from engineered heat-treated dimensionally stable lumber. It just behaves like particle board when you stress the memmory addresses. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<P>
<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> somehow I doubt this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>But you doubted they would want to copy the iMac, and they did that. I bet you were one of the people that said the iMac and iBook would flop.<P> <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So a "brushed metal interface" is a big deal now? WHO CARES? As for editing home movies, I've been doing that on my PC for two years<BR> now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You are missing the point. The issue was that Apple came out with a movie editor, MS comes out with one, Apple decides to use the brushed metal, MS decides to use the brushed metal. Whether it is a big deal or not is up to debate.<BR>And yes, you could do video editing for a long time on the Mac also. But what is new is having a consumer computer sold geared towards this. Firewire for input/output and a truly easy to use and configure editing program. Even PC world gives iMac/iMovie a thumbs up.<P>normally, the big deal with Apple is not that is does what no one else does/can, but rather that it makes it easier.<P>
The irony I see here is that almost 100% of the new Aqua UI features he presented so proudly can be found in some form or other on Windows but not on the classic MacOS.<P>Jobs is a weasel at best, a liar at worst.
How 'bout, on NeXT, <I>theeeen</I> Windows, then Mac. Gates is a cribbing from Mac/NeXT weasel at best, at worst, the richest man in the world who controls my car with tiny transmitters planted in my head. Stop the voices...STOP THE VOICES!
<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The irony I see here is that almost 100% of the new Aqua UI features he presented so proudly can be found in some form or other on<BR> Windows but not on the classic MacOS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>HuH? Okay, the Dock is sort of like the taskbar, but come on, Windows can't do what Quartz does, and a lot of what Aqua does takes quartz.<P>Windows has dialog boxes tied to the window it came from ?<BR>Windows has icons that can change with the window/program it represents?<BR>Windows can use transclucency throrought the OS?<P>ETC.<P><BR>
from resteves:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Windows has dialog boxes tied to the window it came from ?<BR>Windows has icons that can change with the window/program it represents?<BR>Windows can use transclucency throrought the OS?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I've been hearing/reading about this ever since the MWSF show, but other than being eye-candy, <I>what good is it</I>? How is it beneficial to the user, other than to look pretty?<P>I can see the potential of having an icon that's a miniature view of the full window it represents, but c'mon -- this has got to be limited to the size of the icon, and how much stuff is in the window. For example, how would the Ars home page (text 'n' all) look in a 64x64 icon on an 800x600 desktop?<P>But transparency? That's something I envision a number of users turning off after the first few times they've looked at it, particularly on slower machines.
Uh, yes Windows 2000 does all those things. Changing the icon is the responsibility of the developer, but frankly, you can't expect to put a picture of a whole window into a tiny little icon and have it be useful...and 128x128 icons take up WAAAAYYY too much screen real estate. Those screenshots of all that junk at the bottom of OSX make me cringe.
Sigh, another pointless UI battle. My point was far more broad than this, resteves. Apple steals, Microsoft steals, we all steal. Ideas spread, even good ones.<P>Now...<P>- Dialog boxes tied to windows: nope.<BR>- Icons that change with the program: huh? Each Windows program can set its taskbar icon and text to be whatever it wants. And many tray icons are animated or change to indicate status.<BR>- Translucency: yep. Windowblinds does this, and IIRC there are some GDI+ API's in W2K that allow similar effects.<P>I think you're making much ado about very little. The things that I saw on the MacOS X demo (as shown on ZDTV) that Windows has had for years include file-browsing-in-a-window, live window drag, apps bombing and not crashing the system, the whole taskbar thing, minimize-to-taskbar with animation, etc., etc.<P>Again, these are just instances. The general point is that most UI concepts are in the general noosphere of design and usage. No one owns them. And Jobs is just being a jackass spouting about Microsoft copying Apple these days. It's as absurd as saying the OS X copies NT in multitasking and virtual memory.
- Status