Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Jul 2005 14:16 UTC
Apple Earlier this week, Ars Technica's Jon "Hannibal" Stokes published an article which claimed to show the *real* reason why Apple went Intel. In his article, 'Hannibal' says that part of the reason for IBM and Apple's failed business relationship was that Apple tried to pull 'stunts' to get more out of IBM than they were entitled. David K. Every begs to differ.
Thread beginning with comment 3568
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not convincing
by Rehdon on Wed 13th Jul 2005 14:45 UTC
Member since:

I find it extremely amusing that, after the initial, sensible caveat that "To pretend that IBM is immune and Apple is arrogant requires complete denial about IBM's corporate culture", the author goes on and on explaining that Apple are immune from "corporate culture", that they are the *good* ones wronged by this insensitive Behemoth named IBM. Really, that's all that happened for the author, many of Hannibal's fine points (like Apple's erratic behaviour: to clone or not to clone? Copeland, BeOS or Next?) aren't even considered, all the less addressed.

I know about a "reality distortion field" affecting Steve Jobs, perhaps it's viral ...


Reply Score: 5

RE: Not convincing
by on Wed 13th Jul 2005 21:36 in reply to "Not convincing"
Member since:

Amen. I think the worst move Apple made after bringing 'The Steve' back was to kill the Mac Clone market. Had they left well enough alone, they would have most likely sold more machines running Mac OS, they might not have pissed off Motorola and perhaps the MacPC would be as ubiquitous as the IBM compatible PC.

But one has to wonder, should everyone start using PCs with IBM/Freescale PPC CPUs, what then is going to be the definition of an IBM compatible pc?

Reply Parent Score: 0