Paul's Profile

  • Mar 07, 2007
  • 31
  • 0

Latest comments made by: Paul

  • Uh, Microsoft already does this. When you buy Vista Home Basic or Vista Home Premium, you get all the Vista Ultimate parts installed, too - but those Ultimate features are disabled. Give Microsoft your credit card and voila, your Home Basic system is magically upgraded to Ultimate. I don't see the "outrage" over this disabling of features. In fact, the Home Basic box mentions nothing about all the Ultimate features that are right on the install disks, hundreds of megabytes of features that are installed silently right next to all the Home Basic parts, but are hidden and deactivated until you pay up. In fact, the outrage of the 802.11n upgrade is entirely manufactured. If that reality is too bitter for you, it's your loss. It's laughable that anyone thinks Apple is out to make a buck by charging $2.00 for a software download that isn't keyed and can be freely shared, one that even allows multiple installs via its EULA. Totally laughable because most of you $2 whiners probably have already located free copies of the update software anyway. If Apple really wanted to make money, they would've wrapped it with iTunes DRM or something. So go ahead and laugh at SOX, but guess what? Apple still has both the feds and the CA attorney general breathing down their necks over ACCOUNTING issues. A-C-C-O-U-N-T-I-N-G. You have many members of the media doing their best to inflate the options backdating into Enron-like proportions just for the satisfaction of "teaching Jobs some humility." Tell me if it requires a Ph.d to not be as cautious as possible while dozens of governments accountants and lawyers are going through every inch of your books. Or maybe you're the type you likes to deposit your gambling earnings (unreported) into your checking account while the IRS is performing a full audit on you, cause your Blackjack winnings "isn't really income and the IRS would be dumb to think so." So if you're offended by my heavy sarcasm, sorry, but I'm frankly tired of all the incessant, inconsequential whining coming from a small group of high-falutin' Mac users. You think paying $2.00 for a feature that enables hardware capability that was never previously advertised is a rip-off? Fine. Choose to be unhappy and live in your unhappy world. Convince yourself that the hardware in your C2D Mac doesn't have 802.11n capability. Then head over to Amazon and plop down $82 for an pre-N ExpressCard to make you feel like you're not being ripped off Now you have pre-802.11n hardware and you're out $82 now, but even better, no one pulled the wool over your eyes ! SOOOO much better. Frankly, with all this whining, Apple should have shipped all Core2 Duo Macs with just straight 802.11b/g hardware, and if you wanted 802.11n, they should have said you can just go ahead and get yourself a new Mac (which is why owners of Airport Express and Aiport Extreme will have to do, to get the new draft-N capability in their routers). That surely would have been better than having to read vapid editorials like this. BTW, regardless of whether it's lame or not, Apple didn't make anyone buy a Mac saying "Well, it has 802.11n, we'll release an updater later." Apple said, "This Mac does 802.11b/g" and that's that. Like so many Mac rumors, you may have convinced yourself Apple "promised" something, but like so many rumors, projecting your own unrealistic or baseless wishes tends to bite you in the rear big time. It's just sad that some people seem to want to be constantly find ways to make the glass 1/2 empty, and laced with vinegar.
    Paul had this to say on Feb 01, 2007 Posts: 31
    Apple Charges Fee for Hardware You Already Have
  • "If someone buys a Mac to boot XP and then buys XP to run on it (or even if they already have it), the net gain in OS marketshare is pretty much nil" Beeblebrox, the market is not smart enough to separate the Mac users who run Mac OS X and the Windows users who run Windows on their Mac hardware. All the market is going to look at is whether the Mac has 5% or 10% or 15% marketshare. The argument that the Mac installed base, for example, numbers around 40 million or so flies by the heads of virtually everyone except Mac users. The market, as a whole, is too simplistic than to look at anything beyond the bottom-line marketshare number. Which is why this pledge is ill considered. Every Intel-owning Mac user should pledge to INSTALL Boot Camp, so that when the next Windows dweeb comes up to them and say, "Well, the Mac can't run...." you just hit Restart, hold down the option key, and sit back. For those who think Boot Camp is still a bad idea, just head over to and read John Gruber's assessment. Boot Camp makes XP the new "legacy" OS a la Classic. It's a set-up to make Windows obsolete! Just take a look at Boot Camp's Windows logo - [b]Apple altered the logo so that there is a big fat "X" located squarely in the center[/b]. That should give you an idea of how Apple is positioning Boot Camp.
    Paul had this to say on Apr 07, 2006 Posts: 31
    Take the No Windows-Booting Pledge
  • Some quotes from "The Matrix" that I think support the case for Boot Camp. Matrix Quote: "The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it." (Morpheus) Translation: No matter how sexy or superior the Mac is, Windows is so entrenched in the minds of so many, you could not convince them to switch to the Mac even if you gave it them for free. Heck, the vast majority of the world has absolutely no idea what the Mac is except that it's some strange, alternative thing. Matrix Quote: "Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. " (Morpheus) Translation: The only real way to convince someone to switch is to get them real, meaningful face time with the Mac. Matrix Quote: "The pill you took is part of a trace program. It's designed to disrupt your input/output carrier signal so we can pinpoint your location." (Morpheus) Translation: Any switch to the Mac after a life of being enslaved to Windows will be disruptive. But you will be free. Matrix Quote: "This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes." (Morpheus) Translation: Boot Camp is our world's equivalent of the device that makes those blue and red pills in the Matrix. The blue pill (Windows) is a comforting safety net, but the red pill (the Mac) promises glory and adventure. Without Boot Camp, the choice is much more difficult. Matrix Quote: "I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid... you're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone, and then I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you. A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you." Translation: The Switcher, now liberated, and having achieved his or her full potential because of the power of Mac OS X, acting as a catalyst for the eventual downfall of the Windows hegemony. Conclusion: Boot Camp is a critical element in Apple's ninja action to undermine Windows from within. Apple doesn't need to convert every Window user to win, just enough of the most influential users and Boot Camp makes that possible. Microsoft, like the machines in the Matrix, should be very, very afraid of the power and influence of these new-found Switchers.
    Paul had this to say on Apr 07, 2006 Posts: 31
    Boot Camp: Apple's Insanely Good Idea?
  • What is most interesting about the announcement is how Apple revealed that Boot Camp would a part of Leopard - talking about setting up a feeding frenzy for the WWDC! Can you imagine how many more people will be paying attention to WWDC just as a result of Boot Camp? And guess what! Steve Jobs will spend 5 minutes talking about Boot Camp, and then spend 3 hours showing off amazing, mind-blowing features of Leopard to a totally shell-shocked audience. And many of that audience will be from a Windows-only background, i.e. Windows users who had absolutely no idea how advanced Mac OS X had become but are watching WWDC simply because of interest Boot Camp. Is this a perfect set-up or what? On the one had, there is Windows XP in all its glory (*cough*) being compared directly to Mac OS X 10.5. With the media in a feeding frenzy the likes of which hasn't been seen since the 1984 commercial.... [b]WWDC 2006: How to get $200 million worth of advertising for Mac OS X 10.5 for free[/b]
    Paul had this to say on Apr 05, 2006 Posts: 31
    Unreal: Apple Officially Supports Windows with Bootcamp
  • I also agree that the ROKR is a total downer. Yet, in the end, the effect is that it makes the nano look all that much sexier. As Apple probably get little or nothing out of iTunes in ROKR, I'm sure Apple isn't unhappy about the fact that the nano is getting all the accolades. Secondly, the outdated design of the ROKR may serve a longer term objective. Everyone knows what happens to old phones: they get offered for free with a service contract. I would not be surprised if a year from now, the ROKR is selling for $99 with a service contract, and sometime after that, Cingular is handing them out free left and right. Apple may have sold 22 million iPods to date, but in terms of adoption, that number don't mean squat compared to the TVs, VCR, and DVD players. Clearly there are huge numbers of people out there who have never touched an iPod, never heard of iTunes, and don't understand the Apple reference in "Forest Gump." But I bet those people have a cell phone. That's the real purpose of the ROKR. Get tens of millions of credit cards on file by putting iTunes in a device that will be given away for free before long. 1.8 million songs sold per day may be impressive until the day hundreds of millions of people own an iTunes-enabled (free) phone...
    Paul had this to say on Sep 12, 2005 Posts: 31
    iTunes Phone Falls Flat, nano Goes Huge
  • MacGlee, I really enjoy reading AppleMatters and understand the concept of a journalistic hook, but in this case, the hook promotes a mythology that does a disservice to Apple and Mac users. This is especially true when so many Windows users and not a few Mac users believe the "Apple stole from Xerox" tale. Rather, I think the author would have made a more effective point by pointing out how different the Mac interface was from SmallTalk. It shows that Apple had a vision to do things not because it had already been done, but to go beyond and push the boundaries and do something new and, yes, different. I think with OS X, Apple is again trying to push the boundaries. It's not happening as quickly as it happened when the Mac was first introduced, but the author's observation that computing today is still very similar to computing in 1984 would still be valid without relying on the erroneous Xerox myth. That is, we are still welded more or less to the desktop metaphor of 1984. In all that time, no one has thought of something to replace that metaphor. So what then comes next? Maybe it's an entirely search-driven interface with Spotlight at the center. Spotlight is great, but it's still not good enough to replace the Finder just yet. Thus, I think the point would have been better made if there had been a call for Apple to make OS X the same kind of metaphorical leap that the Mac OS did with SmallTalk. As I said, Michaelangelo preceded Van Gogh by hundreds of years, but both used brushes and oil paints to create their works of art. No doubt Van Gogh was inspired by Michaelangelo (as all artists probably are), but no one would claim that having a Van Gogh painting is just like owning a Michaelangelo. What Apple has the opportunity to now is to advance the concept further and create the Picasso of operating systems - something inspired by the inspirations of the past, but in a class all its own.
    Paul had this to say on Aug 29, 2005 Posts: 31
    We All Use Xeroxes
  • I think it's a common myth that the Mac interface was heavily derivative of the Xerox SmallTalk interface. In fact, the Mac team was already hard at work when Apple was allowed to visit Xerox PARC in exchange for about a $1 million in stock. The PARC visit led to a quickening of the user interface concepts, but Apple went on to innovate several important features that did not exist in SmallTalk, such as overlapping windows and drag-and-drop. Yes, SmallTalk did not even have drag-and-drop. You can read about it from Bruce Horn himself, who worked at Xerox PARC and later became a key architect of the original Macintosh.,_Apple_and_Progress.txt&sortOrder=Sort by Date&detail=medium&search=xerox "Steve did see Smalltalk when he visited PARC. He saw the Smalltalk integrated programming environment, with the mouse selecting text, pop-up menus, windows, and so on. The Lisa group at Apple built a system based on their own ideas combined with what they could remember from the Smalltalk demo, and the Mac folks built yet another system. There is a significant difference between using the Mac and Smalltalk." So let's take a look at features that originated at Apple which Xerox did not have. *Drag and drop: try computing without this feature *Resource forks: double-clicking on a file automatically opens up the associated application on the Mac. Remove ".xls" or ".doc" extensions from the filename, and even XP has no idea what to do with the file. *Click-to-rename files and hard disk: try renaming documents by having to go through a wizard or using the command line instead of simply clicking on the file *Overlapping windows: SmallTalk didn't have this fundamental interface feature, either. *Pull-down menus: the Lisa group actually innovated this, which was quickly adopted by the Mac group. But no such thing in SmallTalk. *Control panels: the Mac innovated the concept of applying changes to your system configuration via Control Panels. Non-existent in SmallTalk. I think it's quite clear that without these totally Mac innovations, using a computer would be far more difficult than it is today. Xerox PARC had great ideas like cut-and-paste, but to say that we are all using Xeroxes today is a bit simplistic and frankly, simply wrong. We're no more using Xeroxes today than a Van Gogh painting is a derivative of a Michelangelo. Just because oil paint is common to both doesn't mean one is an iterated copy of the other.
    Paul had this to say on Aug 29, 2005 Posts: 31
    We All Use Xeroxes
  • I think Chris makes some great points. And the more songs Apple sells, the harder it will be to unseat the iPod from its throne. The fact that every other day, competitors are coming out with yet another "iPod killer" and proclaiming Apple to be doomed shows just how little they understand the mind of the consumer. No doubt part of Apple's success is the result of the ineptness of Apple's competitors. Hey Creative! How well is that $800 brick of a portable medai player selling without an easy way to download movies? So here are all these competitors, trying to do Apple in by using bows and arrows against Apple's tank, and when the arrows bounce off, their solution is to use more arrows on the hope that one will pierce the armor by some inexplicable miracle. But that's not that hard to understand, when it seems that most of them view the iPod's success as a total fluke. It just makes you wonder what will happen when Apple launches an iTunes-like movie download service and a movie iPod to go with it.
    Paul had this to say on Aug 23, 2005 Posts: 31
    iPod Shows Soft Underbelly? Not Just Yet
  • Another major inconsistency with windows on Windows is the disparity between MDI and non-MDI application. MDI (multiple document interface) apps like Photoshop and Excel put their document windows and floating palettes inside an app window. This is very annoying in that when you resize a document window, you often have to resize the apps window, too. It's twice the work. Yet MDI apps mix freely with non-MDI apps like Word. When you open up each Word document, each opens in its own window complete with toolbars and menus. Try this very harrowing and annoying example on Windows. Open up Word, Photoshop, and Illustrator. Then open up 3 documents for each app. Now try to switch back between the various document windows. Now try figuring out which palette belongs to which app. Now minimize a few document windows in both Photoshop and Illustrator, switch to another app and then try to find and open one of the minimized windows. If maximized, try to quickly switch to one of the other document windows for that app. Now try the same thing on the Mac. It's a world of difference.
  • Apple could really learn from Toyota, not Uncle Ben. I think if Apple really wanted to branch out, rather than letting other companies get "Mac OS X certified", it might make more sense for Apple to create independent but wholly owned subsidaries. The Lexus example above is appropriate for this reason. Lexus is actually a Toyota company, but Toyota realized that it couldn't take on BMW and Mercedes with the Toyota brand. It would also confuse the Toyota brand - look what is happening to VW when it stopped becoming a funky "people's car" company and started doing ultra-high end automobiles. Can anyone say "Phaeton" - that's a multi-billion dollar bomb right there and look how the Phaeton-type projects sucked away resources from VW's bread-and-butter cars like the New Beetle. So Toyota created an entirely new brand and company called Lexus that would focus only on the luxury market, while Toyota would continue to do what it was good at (making quality, value-based cars). A couple years ago, Toyota looked at its customer demographic and realized they were getting old. College grads weren't buying Toyotas. So what did Toyota do? They created Scion, a car company that would be focused on really funky, low-cost hip designs that would appeal to the youth demographic. And Scion has been a hit. Similarly, if Apple wanted to go after the high-end workstation/gaming market, then they could create a new company called "Xstation Inc." This company would be responsible for its own profit and loss and would have it's own marketing budget and strategy. It would be the Lexus to Apple's Toyota. Freed from the pressure of creating mainstream designs like the Mac Mini and iMac, they could focus like a laser on bleeding-edge, performance designs. And "Xstation" Macs would have their own unique look and feel distinct from the regular Apple Macs. And Lexus has paid off for Toyota in other ways, too, as the R&D Lexus has done has filtered to the rest of Toyota. Just as Toyota has done with Lexus and Scion, there's no reason Apple couldn't do something similar, rather than rely on finicky outsiders who are, by definition, competing with Apple and dealing with the dangers of diluting the Apple brand.
    Paul had this to say on Aug 19, 2005 Posts: 31
    What Uncle Ben Taught Me About Mac Hardware
  • I actually find the Windows GUI, on average, to be much more inconsistent than the Mac GUI, although the latter does have its inexplicable quirks (like the Mail toolbar in Tiger). I understand the point of the article in this series, i.e. there are things the Mac could learn from Windows. However, the GUI is not one of those thing in general. Sure, there are sporadic elements here and there, but for the most part, Windows has a highly inconsistent GUI. In addition, sometimes [b]consistency doesn't necessarily produce the most sensible design[/b]. Take the maximize example. Maximize on Windows opens a window to fill the entire screen, however large. But maximize on the Mac makes the window large enough to fit the content, but no more than necessary. Certainly, the Windows approach to maximize is more consistent. But try maximizing a MSN Messenger window on the Mac vs. maximizing it on Windows and tell me which makes more sense. On Windows, the Messenger window fills the entire screen. But really, do you want really want your Messenger window to stretch out across 1280, 1440, or 1600 pixels of space, when there is only a thin column of contacts? The Mac approach to maximize insures that the Messenger window doesn't needlessly fill the screen with a window that is mostly devoid of content, but only extends the window vertically as much as possible. Which method more sensible and more productive? Instead, the Mac would be better off fixing the things that annoy Mac users, without having to necessarily look to Windows for examples. Mac users know the things that annoy them, but Mac users would be better off if Apple found its own way of addressing those annoyances. Just take a look at the situation in the Linux world, where you end up with desktops like KDE and Gnome which go out of their way to slavishly duplicate the Windows experience feature for feature. In the end, you get a very trashy, frustrating, and highly inconsistent hard-to-use interface. The problem with Windows consistency is that often, the reason for that consistency sits on a shaky foundation, and when duplicated across the entire GUI, creates a disharmonious, counter-productive, and counter-intuitive interface.
  • Chris wrote: "Apple was making their own machines at during the clone period and had to endure the associated costs. Now Apple contracts out their manufacturing to Asia and this allows for more competitive pricing and more flexibility in manufacturing." I would also like to point out that this is the very reason that Apple would be more DISINCLINED to license OS X. When Apple operated their own factories, they had a hard limit on the number of boxes they could produce every year. Sure, they could make 4 million Macs a year? But if they needed to make 5 million? Apple needed to build a new factory, which took a lot of time and money. Now that manufacturing is contracted out, Apple can build 4 million or 10 million Macs a year. There is no need to rely on clone makers to increase marketshare today, which was the intention with the previous cloning effort. Thus, there is even less of a rationale for Apple to give away those hardware sales to competitors in return for a piddling licensing fee. You have to remember that Power Computing was offering as much $100 in Mac OS licensing fees for every box, yet that wasn't nearly enough to offset the lost hardware revenue. Apple went from being an $11 billion company to a $6 billion company partly as a result of that experiment. Now Apple is back to being a $12 billion company and has aims to become a $20 billion company. To get there, it's going to need every last hardware sale it can get. And it can do it without licensing OS X precisely because it contracts out all manufacturing like Dell.
    Paul had this to say on Aug 18, 2005 Posts: 31
    What Uncle Ben Taught Me About Mac Hardware
  • I think the problem with the whole "software vs. hardware" strategy is the interplay between software sales and hardware sales these days. Sure, software is more profitable in terms of percentage, but you have to sell much more software to equal hardware revenue. What's better? Making a 60% profit on $1 billion in sales, or 20% profit on $10 billion in sales? That's the kind of dilemma Apple is in these days, and why the whole shrinkwrap OS X for PCs is a lot more difficult to execute successfully than pundits would have you think. Everyone points to how much money Microsoft is able to print because of its software business, but Microsoft always had instant software revenue guranteed when it licensed DOS to IBM. Apple doesn't have that luxury because OS X for generic PCs would have to INSTANTLY sell tens of millions of units to keep the BUSINESS growing. What are the chances that this is going to happen? The chances are small and the risk is very high that you'll end up undermining your business for years until software revenue catches up. Sure, a lot of people by Macs because of industrial design, but that won't prevent a drain on hardware sales. There are a lot of people who would prefer the industrial design of an Alienware rig running OS X to that of an Intel PowerMac. There's no way Apple will produce a 9 lb. "laptop", but there are plenty of people who will go with a Dell XPS gaming notebook that has a top-of-the-line vid card running OS X instead of buying a PowerBook. Apple can't actually compete with the specialty PC makers because and the problem with OS X for Generic PCs is that Apple would suddenly have competition from a hundred companies like Alienware. People will still buy Macs from Apple, but just like the early cloning experience showed, hardware sales will fall through the floor. So Apple has a $499 Mini? There will be a dozen competitors selling $299 Mini-like machines running OS X, and these are areas that Apple doesn't want to compete in. This is why OS X for Generic PC will never happen - it's far too late in the game for Apple to become like Microsoft. Apple's strategy is focused on the hardware/software synergy. Once you realize that it's the artificial hardware/sofrware dichotomy imposed on the tech world that is the root cause of crappy hardware and even crappier software, you realize that the Apple Way is becoming the Holy Grail of the entire industry. Is it any wonder why Windows Media PCs are still so crappy after years and billions of dollars of development? And somehow Apple should replicate that strategy by releasing its software to vendors who are largely without vision nor have an understanding of consumer values?
    Paul had this to say on Aug 18, 2005 Posts: 31
    What Uncle Ben Taught Me About Mac Hardware
  • Apple is right to hold out on principle. Steve Jobs has publically stated in the past that the labels are making more profit per song sold on iTMS than they are selling physical CDs. Yet, the record companies want even more, even though they contribute nothing to maintaining the infrastructure that iTMS runs on. 2006 will be a critical year for Apple. It appears that Apple made some concessions in Japan, where there is a two-tier pricing scheme. Even so, the Japanese iTMS is selling songs for substantially less than its competitors, painfully undercutting them like the UK iTMS did. So I think it will all depend on how big iTMS can grow by the end of this year. If iTMS is doing a billion songs per year, then Steve Jobs will have some negotiating power. Perhaps enough to hold the line on pricing. The other thing is that consumers themselves have to be more aware and stop playing the part of the industry's bitch. If the record companies are successful in forcing iTMS to start selling songs at $1.19 each, then consumers have to immediately stop buying those higher priced songs, en masse. With digital music, that shouldn't be hard. (BTW, it was laughable seeing the Dave Mathews band suggesting fans write Apple support to complain about the DRM on their latest CD. Fans would do themselves a favor by sending in a lot of complaints to Dave Mathews and then returning that CD to the store, making it a costly failure for the record label. As has been shown over and over without exception, the only thing that wakes a record exec up to reality is seeing red ink.) There's probably other things that The Steve can do to play hardball. For example, iTMS might not promote higher priced songs as heavily on the storefront as regular priced songs, relegating those songs to ghetto areas of the store. But probably the best thing that can happen is iTMS gets big enough that it becomes more profitable for major artists to bypass the labels and sign with iTMS directly. So instead of the label getting 60% of the sale and then paying the artist a penny from that haul, artists could get 60% of the sale themselves, which could potentially dwarf any kind of deal they could get with a label. Once that happens, the labels would have to start treating their customers as something more than ungrateful dirty thieves.
    Paul had this to say on Aug 17, 2005 Posts: 31
    Absence of Aussie iTMS a warning?
  • You know, it will be especially funny, knowing that Microsoft seems to be making Vista into an answer for Tiger, because when Vista sees the light of day, Apple will be releasing Leopard. June 2006 at the WWDC seems like the most likely time Steve Jobs will let the world get a peek at Leopard, and if history tells us anything, I'm sure he's waiting until then to pull out the big guns, blazing away, on an unsuspecting Vista. The problem with Microsoft "innovation" today is that they are always looking backwards for ideas. The strategy has been to allow other companies to take the risk in introducing something new, copy the hell out of it and then put them out of business with monopoly power. The problem is that such a strategy only works if your competitor stops innovating. But if your competition continues to relentlessly improve their products and come up with entirely new one, then the copying-after-the-fact business model ends up leaving one mired in soon-to-be-obsoleted technologies. Just look at how futile Microsoft has been trying to copy Google with MSN Search while Google has been introducing innovative things like satellite maps. Or look at how unsuccessful Microsoft has been trying to duplicate iTMS, where it's still trying to work the bugs out of creating a simple, seemless buying experience for digital songs while Apple has already "been there, done that" and moving into the unexplored but potentially lucrative frontier of podcasts. And how long will it be before Microsoft's legion of programmers can get together to add podcasting support in Windows Media Player? I can probably tell you that by the time Microsoft gets around to copying that, Apple will have moved to the next frontier. And that's Microsoft's problem. Apple is moving so fast that they simply can't copy fast enough. Just look at how the intense effort to finish Vista is sucking away from all their other copying efforts. When was the last upgrade to MovieMaker? When was the last non-security patch WMP update? Is Microsoft still trying to convince us that using the XP file system is the best way to manage our photo collections as opposed to a dedicated database-oriented app like iPhoto? Microsoft still has no answer to GarageBand. The copying-as-business-model strategy is falling apart at the seems. So here is Microsoft, copying the hell out of Tiger. The marketing execs are probably all snickering over themselves in glee at the prospect of "beating Tiger" when Vista makes its debut in Decmeber 2006. So it shouldn't surprise anyone if Apple manages to completely blindside Microsoft with Leopard, and the results will be like watching a semi running into a Yugo at 60 mph. That's what the real story will be. "Leopard Leaps Over Vista" and not "Vista Offers Answer to Tiger."
    Paul had this to say on Aug 10, 2005 Posts: 31
    Vista=Copy of OS X