Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.8 $; site ccvaxa
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari
Subject: Re: DRI agrees to change GEM ; why?
Message-ID: <2800013@ccvaxa>
Date: Sun, 27-Oct-85 22:47:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.2800013
Posted: Sun Oct 27 22:47:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 29-Oct-85 01:32:57 EST
References: <2298@ukma.UUCP>
Lines: 28
Nf-ID: #R:ukma.UUCP:-229800:ccvaxa:2800013:000:1341
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!preece    Oct 27 21:47:00 1985


> This article reminds me of those who said in 1980 that IBM's entry into
> the personal computer field would "legitimize" the industry.  (Remember
> when "PC" meant "a personal computer", not "an IBM-compatible 16-bit
> MS-DOS computer"?  Remember Osborne and Victor?  Remember when micros
> were an adventure?) /* Written 11:36 am  Oct 24, 1985 by
> davidl@teklds.UUCP in ccvaxa:net.micro.atari */
----------
Would you claim that the micro industry would be be better off if
IBM had not come in?  Think for a moment of all those builders of
IBM clones.  IBM has very nutritious coattails.  Apple may or
may not have been wise in suing DRI, but they would almost certainly
sell more Macs if IBM made one just like it than they do now. [Note
to flamers: it's just my guess against yours, but I don't mind if
you really insist on telling me why yours is better.]

Personally, I think an obviously Mac compatible interface, available
for the IBM, would be good for Apple's visibility in corporate
offices and that it's better to be perceived as a technological
leader, willing to share your insights with the rest of the industry,
than as a miser, jealously guarding the insights you stole from
those who preceded you.  Which, rightly or wrongly, is the way a lot
of see Apple.

-- 
scott preece
gould/csd - urbana
ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece