Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Aug 2005 17:44 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 25383
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Re: innovative company....
by on Tue 30th Aug 2005 21:49
in reply to "Re: innovative company...."
RE[2]: Re: innovative company....
by on Tue 30th Aug 2005 23:08
in reply to "Re: innovative company...."
RE: Re: innovative company....
by protagonist on Wed 31st Aug 2005 04:25
in reply to "Re: innovative company...."
I don't recall anywhere in the article where he said that because OS X had certain features in it MS could not implement them. By the same token I didn't read any M$ sillyness into it. To me it looked to be a pretty straightforward attempt to make a few comparrisons. Methinks we sometimes tend to read to much between the lines.
As for innovation, big companies tend towards the status quo while real innovation tneds to come from small companies. I know that is a generalization, but it is a reasonable accurate one.
Bill
RE: Re: innovative company....
by on Wed 31st Aug 2005 13:40
in reply to "Re: innovative company...."
RE[2]: Re: innovative company....
by on Wed 31st Aug 2005 13:53
in reply to "RE: Re: innovative company...."







Member since:
So, because another OS has a certain feature, Windows shouldn't implement it? Do you really believe OSX didn't imitate other systems?
Also, stop this "M$" sillyness, makes you sound like you are 14. A company needs to make money in order to survive. It gives people jobs. Apple also charges money for they OS.