EXS 24 Logic Sampler Users Group

Paul Nicholls wrote:
>Murray,
>
>What you have said in regards to the contribution of Apple to a certain
>style of computer interaction is perhaps also a form of mythology and does
>not respect the differences between the work at the Park center and what was
>finally produced on the first Mac. 

Hi Paul,

My first point was simply that this idea first saw the light of day at the
PARC not Apple. There were versions of the basic stuff in the 60's believe
it or not. I have seen a film of a demonstration of very early stuff along
these lines. Now what do you think -- how long would one company be the
sole purveyor of this general type of interface? Monkey see monkey do. The
first Macs (18 years ago now) had 128 kB of RAM and were slowed down quite
a bit by the GUI -- once hardware got to the point where a user friendly
interface was practical it was_inevitable_ that it would be everywhere. 

Apple had a great headstart but they were greedy and didn't make the move
being a software company. If they had licenced their OS Jobs would now be
in Gates position. Remember Gates insight all those years ago -- what if
hardware was free? He quit school and started Microsoft. Jobs missed that
one. He still doesn't get it. He still wants to sell a box with his
company's software inside at a luxury item price. There would be no Toyotas
or Hyundais in Jobs' utupian vision -- only black Porsches.

Other companies copied the ideas they saw realised in the Mac. So what? One
brand of TV was the first with a remote control. Somebody somewhere made
the first sequencer. Logic's arrange page is a whole lot like Cubase's on
the Atari  and nothing at all like Notators on the Atari. Do we hear people
squealing about this sort of appropriation of other companies ideas?

>However, that is not the point at all. I
>was really commenting on the state of mind of Steve Jobs (and really, is it
>so unreasonable to point out that Bill Gates has engaged in many forms of
>unethical business practise). I am reasonably certain that Steve Jobs does
>think that way and therefore he has no sympathy for users who are being
>screwed by the discontinuation of Windows software. I am just saying that he
>is getting quite aggressive and he has a very strong ego. I am also pointing
>out that the Apple corporate strategy might be coming directly Steve.

In all probability you are correct. He is an autocrat. What seemed
offensive in 
this context was the impression I got that YOU thought this way too. You
wrote this:

>If buying Emagic seems
>unbelievable, yet happened, there is nothing to suppose that Apple will not
>make a similar move in the area of software synths. It makes sense, even
>though Emagic makes great synths and samplers too. Perhaps Mac users should
>even suggest this to Steve, our pal.

This struck me as inflammatory -- that's why I said lets give it a rest. 

How about if I had posted something like the following instead?
___________
>Perhaps PC users should suggest that Bill Gates buy Adobe -- the Bush 
>Government is eating out of M$'s hand -- and then they could cease 
>all development on the Mac platform for M$ Office and all Adobe products   -- 
>just out of pure bloodymindedness. I bet this would strengthen the PC
platform 
>and Gates has a big ego n'all. 
_____________

>I don't think Apple wants a people to be working cross-platform. I think he
>does not want the kind of CPU and hardware complaints we see here on this
>list. What Apple wants is a concentration of compelling software only on the
>Mac OS.

A drowning man will clutch at a straw. 
A drowning man with 4 billion dollars is in a 
position to clutch at a lot of things I guess.

Regards,
M