Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #69215 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-01-28 08:53 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-01-30 10:50 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 155 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Apple's in trouble again Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 08:53 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-28 14:41 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2015-01-28 08:47 -0600
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-28 15:14 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-28 15:18 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Julian Gomez <jeg@polished-pixels.com> - 2015-01-29 00:06 -0800
Re: Apple's in trouble again Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-28 10:55 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-01-28 11:11 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-28 17:02 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2015-01-28 17:14 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2015-01-28 21:18 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-28 21:34 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-28 15:31 -0600
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-28 21:41 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-28 13:24 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-28 23:10 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2015-01-28 13:23 -0700
Re: Apple's in trouble again Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-28 13:52 -0700
Re: Apple's in trouble again JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-28 15:56 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-28 16:01 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-28 14:09 -0700
Re: Apple's in trouble again nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-28 16:15 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-28 22:01 -0700
Re: Apple's in trouble again sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-01-29 18:16 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-29 20:23 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-29 22:18 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-01-30 00:38 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-30 15:15 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-29 20:36 -0700
Re: Apple's in trouble again sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-01-30 04:31 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-29 14:30 +1300
Re: Apple's in trouble again Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-28 22:25 -0700
Re: Apple's in trouble again Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-29 10:42 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-29 07:50 -0700
Re: Apple's in trouble again Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-29 16:11 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-29 16:40 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-01-29 18:19 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-29 20:25 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-01-29 23:37 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-30 10:16 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-30 15:22 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-01-30 10:28 -0800
Re: Apple's in trouble again "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-01-31 19:44 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2015-01-29 18:36 -0800
Re: Apple's in trouble again Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-30 02:42 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2015-01-29 18:32 -0800
Re: Apple's in trouble again Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-30 10:14 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-01-30 08:59 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-30 16:23 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-31 10:37 +1300
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-30 15:19 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-31 12:59 +1300
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-31 00:15 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-01-31 07:51 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-31 14:26 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-01-31 10:51 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-31 16:07 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-31 12:29 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-31 20:22 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-01-31 18:53 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-02-01 16:31 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-01 16:36 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-02-01 19:14 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-01 19:26 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-02-01 12:31 -0800
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-01 21:48 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-02-01 13:56 -0800
Re: Apple's in trouble again Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-01 23:22 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-02-01 20:07 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-02-01 12:31 -0800
Re: Apple's in trouble again nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-01 17:11 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-02-01 22:55 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Savageduck <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> - 2015-02-01 23:58 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 09:37 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-02-02 11:35 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-02 16:53 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-02-02 13:11 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-02 18:21 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-02 14:27 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-02-02 17:12 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-02 23:14 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-03 09:14 +1300
Re: Apple's in trouble again Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-02 16:12 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-02-03 09:36 +1100
Re: Apple's in trouble again Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-02 23:12 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-02-02 18:28 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-03 13:24 +1300
Re: Apple's in trouble again JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-02-02 23:56 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-02-02 22:40 -0700
Re: Apple's in trouble again JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-02-03 17:28 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2015-02-04 08:32 -0600
Re: Apple's in trouble again Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-05 09:13 +1300
Re: Apple's in trouble again Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-02-01 22:28 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-02 14:15 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-02 14:13 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-01-31 18:51 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-01 01:05 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-01 09:43 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-01 15:49 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-01-31 09:39 +0100
Re: Apple's in trouble again Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-31 12:37 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-31 14:25 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-31 15:14 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-01 10:31 +1300
Re: Apple's in trouble again Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-30 09:03 +1300
Re: Apple's in trouble again Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-29 20:31 -0700
Re: Apple's in trouble again George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-29 10:47 -0600
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-29 15:16 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-29 10:36 -0600
Re: Apple's in trouble again Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-29 16:45 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-29 20:35 -0700
Re: Apple's in trouble again George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-30 09:09 -0600
Re: Apple's in trouble again Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-30 16:27 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-31 10:31 +1300
Re: Apple's in trouble again Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-30 16:37 -0700
Re: Apple's in trouble again George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-30 19:18 -0600
Re: Apple's in trouble again Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-31 10:01 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-01 10:08 +1300
Re: Apple's in trouble again Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-31 15:51 -0700
Re: Apple's in trouble again JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-31 12:20 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-31 12:18 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-31 20:20 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-01 10:26 +1300
Re: Apple's in trouble again JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-31 17:49 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-01-31 16:53 -0800
Re: Apple's in trouble again Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-01 13:56 +1300
Re: Apple's in trouble again Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-01 13:01 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-30 19:17 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Wilbur Eleven <wil@nowhere.at.all.ru.ca.fr.uk.us> - 2015-01-31 08:52 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-31 13:53 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-31 12:26 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Wilbur Eleven <wil@nowhere.at.all.ru.ca.fr.uk.us> - 2015-01-31 15:06 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-31 20:22 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-31 23:35 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Wilbur Eleven <wil@nowhere.at.all.ru.ca.fr.uk.us> - 2015-02-01 09:20 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-01-31 18:54 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-30 19:16 -0600
Re: Apple's in trouble again sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-01-29 18:17 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-29 22:21 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-01-30 00:34 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-30 23:01 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-30 22:00 -0700
Re: Apple's in trouble again JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-31 12:24 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-31 10:02 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-31 14:24 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-01 10:22 +1300
Re: Apple's in trouble again Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-01-29 19:34 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-01-30 10:01 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-30 15:28 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-01-30 11:02 -0500
Re: Apple's in trouble again Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2015-01-28 13:33 -0800
Re: Apple's in trouble again Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2015-01-28 22:41 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-28 23:05 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-28 23:13 +0000
Re: Apple's in trouble again Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-01-30 10:50 -0500
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-01 16:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <malkdc$19m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69426 |
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 18:53:19 -0500, Alan Browne wrote: > On 2015.01.31 12:29 , JF Mezei wrote: >> On 15-01-31 11:07, Jolly Roger wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure how you think that changes anything. Apple and IBM are >>> attempting to make corporate inroads by collaborating to bring >>> enterprise-level apps to iOS devices. >> >> I'll rephrase that: IBM wants to keep its corporate customers who are >> seeing a move to Apple products, so IBM integrates support and apps for >> idevices into its own ecosystem. > > Fair enough. > > >> Apple, lacking the genes to go into corporate business gets its foot in >> the door via IBM. But IBM is the bigger winner in this. > > At least in the short term. OTOH, Apple may just be content providing > the platform. I do not see Apple starting to make mainframes!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-01 16:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cj7314FuefsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69439 |
On 2015-02-01, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 18:53:19 -0500, Alan Browne wrote: > >> On 2015.01.31 12:29 , JF Mezei wrote: >>> On 15-01-31 11:07, Jolly Roger wrote: >>> >>>> I'm not sure how you think that changes anything. Apple and IBM are >>>> attempting to make corporate inroads by collaborating to bring >>>> enterprise-level apps to iOS devices. >>> >>> I'll rephrase that: IBM wants to keep its corporate customers who are >>> seeing a move to Apple products, so IBM integrates support and apps for >>> idevices into its own ecosystem. >> >> Fair enough. >> >> >>> Apple, lacking the genes to go into corporate business gets its foot in >>> the door via IBM. But IBM is the bigger winner in this. >> >> At least in the short term. OTOH, Apple may just be content providing >> the platform. > > I do not see Apple starting to make mainframes! I don't think anyone here has suggested Apple will make mainframes. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-01 19:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <maltu8$a55$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69440 |
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 16:36:52 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote: > On 2015-02-01, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 18:53:19 -0500, Alan Browne wrote: >> >>> On 2015.01.31 12:29 , JF Mezei wrote: >>>> On 15-01-31 11:07, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm not sure how you think that changes anything. Apple and IBM are >>>>> attempting to make corporate inroads by collaborating to bring >>>>> enterprise-level apps to iOS devices. >>>> >>>> I'll rephrase that: IBM wants to keep its corporate customers who are >>>> seeing a move to Apple products, so IBM integrates support and apps >>>> for idevices into its own ecosystem. >>> >>> Fair enough. >>> >>> >>>> Apple, lacking the genes to go into corporate business gets its foot >>>> in the door via IBM. But IBM is the bigger winner in this. >>> >>> At least in the short term. OTOH, Apple may just be content providing >>> the platform. >> >> I do not see Apple starting to make mainframes! > > I don't think anyone here has suggested Apple will make mainframes. JR, I was being facetious! Mainframes, if they still exist, were pure IBM. I remember my college running them, the tapes spinning, etc. I even had a copy of OS/390 at one time, I had no way to even use it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-01 19:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cj7cvjF319uU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69441 |
On 2015-02-01, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: > On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 16:36:52 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> On 2015-02-01, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: >>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 18:53:19 -0500, Alan Browne wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015.01.31 12:29 , JF Mezei wrote: >>>>> On 15-01-31 11:07, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure how you think that changes anything. Apple and IBM are >>>>>> attempting to make corporate inroads by collaborating to bring >>>>>> enterprise-level apps to iOS devices. >>>>> >>>>> I'll rephrase that: IBM wants to keep its corporate customers who are >>>>> seeing a move to Apple products, so IBM integrates support and apps >>>>> for idevices into its own ecosystem. >>>> >>>> Fair enough. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Apple, lacking the genes to go into corporate business gets its foot >>>>> in the door via IBM. But IBM is the bigger winner in this. >>>> >>>> At least in the short term. OTOH, Apple may just be content providing >>>> the platform. >>> >>> I do not see Apple starting to make mainframes! >> >> I don't think anyone here has suggested Apple will make mainframes. > > JR, > I was being facetious! Mainframes, if they still exist, were pure IBM. > I remember my college running them, the tapes spinning, etc. I even had > a copy of OS/390 at one time, I had no way to even use it! Dammit! My sarcasm meter is on the fritz again! My first mainframe exposure was working at a high-end prepress shop where we used high-speed drum scanners and digital workstations to produce process color separations. Fun days. : ) -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-01 12:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mam2f6$hh$2@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #69442 |
On 2015-02-01 19:26:43 +0000, Jolly Roger said: > On 2015-02-01, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 16:36:52 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote: >> >>> On 2015-02-01, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 18:53:19 -0500, Alan Browne wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2015.01.31 12:29 , JF Mezei wrote: >>>>>> On 15-01-31 11:07, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not sure how you think that changes anything. Apple and IBM are >>>>>>> attempting to make corporate inroads by collaborating to bring >>>>>>> enterprise-level apps to iOS devices. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll rephrase that: IBM wants to keep its corporate customers who are >>>>>> seeing a move to Apple products, so IBM integrates support and apps >>>>>> for idevices into its own ecosystem. >>>>> >>>>> Fair enough. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Apple, lacking the genes to go into corporate business gets its foot >>>>>> in the door via IBM. But IBM is the bigger winner in this. >>>>> >>>>> At least in the short term. OTOH, Apple may just be content providing >>>>> the platform. >>>> >>>> I do not see Apple starting to make mainframes! >>> >>> I don't think anyone here has suggested Apple will make mainframes. >> >> JR, >> I was being facetious! Mainframes, if they still exist, were pure IBM. >> I remember my college running them, the tapes spinning, etc. I even had >> a copy of OS/390 at one time, I had no way to even use it! > > Dammit! My sarcasm meter is on the fritz again! > > My first mainframe exposure was working at a high-end prepress shop > where we used high-speed drum scanners and digital workstations to > produce process color separations. Fun days. : ) And that used a mainframe??? Really?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-01 21:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cj7l90F58thU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69444 |
On 2015-02-01, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2015-02-01 19:26:43 +0000, Jolly Roger said: > >> My first mainframe exposure was working at a high-end prepress shop >> where we used high-speed drum scanners and digital workstations to >> produce process color separations. Fun days. : ) > > And that used a mainframe??? Really? Spinning tape drives and all. : ) This was back in the late 80s, early 90s. We moved *lots* of digital data for the time. We scanned very high resolution images on professional multi-million dollar high-speed drum scanners. The digital workstation was a SparcStation with a 3-button optical mouse that required a special metal mouse pad. First mouse I ever used. Lots of fun. : ) -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-01 13:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mam7f3$9oi$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #69447 |
On 2015-02-01 21:48:17 +0000, Jolly Roger said: > On 2015-02-01, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2015-02-01 19:26:43 +0000, Jolly Roger said: >> >>> My first mainframe exposure was working at a high-end prepress shop >>> where we used high-speed drum scanners and digital workstations to >>> produce process color separations. Fun days. : ) >> >> And that used a mainframe??? Really? > > Spinning tape drives and all. : ) This was back in the late 80s, early > 90s. We moved *lots* of digital data for the time. We scanned very high > resolution images on professional multi-million dollar high-speed drum > scanners. The digital workstation was a SparcStation with a 3-button optical > mouse that required a special metal mouse pad. First mouse I ever used. > Lots of fun. : ) Cool! I was involved with my father's business and he had specialised "Purup" workstations, but it was only for business forms work, so no high end drum scanners. But the workstations were pretty cool with built-in digitizing tablets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-01 23:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmctdb2.1j75.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #69447 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like: > On 2015-02-01, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2015-02-01 19:26:43 +0000, Jolly Roger said: >> >>> My first mainframe exposure was working at a high-end prepress shop >>> where we used high-speed drum scanners and digital workstations to >>> produce process color separations. Fun days. : ) >> >> And that used a mainframe??? Really? > Spinning tape drives and all. : ) This was back in the late 80s, early > 90s. We moved *lots* of digital data for the time. We scanned very high > resolution images on professional multi-million dollar high-speed drum > scanners. The digital workstation was a SparcStation with a 3-button optical > mouse that required a special metal mouse pad. First mouse I ever used. > Lots of fun. : ) My first real computer job involved, mostly, swapping 9-Track tape spools. We also had some Sun systems, pre SPARC I think, with that metal mousepad. That was an amazing mouse, but I think it cost several hundred dollars in late 1980s dollars. Or, put another way, more than I spent on the car I bought to get me to work. -- http://2blog.kreme.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-01 20:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <010220152007420110%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #69441 |
In article <maltu8$a55$1@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: >On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 16:36:52 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> On 2015-02-01, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: >>> I do not see Apple starting to make mainframes! >> >> I don't think anyone here has suggested Apple will make mainframes. > >I was being facetious! Mainframes, if they still exist, were pure IBM. Not entirely. Plenty of others made mainframes back in the day, some of which were IBM compatible but plenty weren't. -- "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-01 12:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mam2fh$hh$3@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #69443 |
On 2015-02-01 20:07:42 +0000, Tim Streater said: > In article <maltu8$a55$1@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1 > <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: > >> On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 16:36:52 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote: >> >>> On 2015-02-01, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: > >>>> I do not see Apple starting to make mainframes! >>> >>> I don't think anyone here has suggested Apple will make mainframes. >> >> I was being facetious! Mainframes, if they still exist, were pure IBM. > > Not entirely. Plenty of others made mainframes back in the day, some of > which were IBM compatible but plenty weren't. Amdahl...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-01 17:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <010220151711050258%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #69441 |
In article <maltu8$a55$1@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: > >>>> Apple, lacking the genes to go into corporate business gets its foot > >>>> in the door via IBM. But IBM is the bigger winner in this. > >>> > >>> At least in the short term. OTOH, Apple may just be content providing > >>> the platform. > >> > >> I do not see Apple starting to make mainframes! > > > > I don't think anyone here has suggested Apple will make mainframes. > > JR, > I was being facetious! Mainframes, if they still exist, were pure IBM. many companies made mainframes, not just ibm, including control data (cdc cyber), cray and others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-01 22:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <010220152255203563%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #69449 |
In article <010220151711050258%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <maltu8$a55$1@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1 ><sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: > >> >>>> Apple, lacking the genes to go into corporate business gets its foot >> >>>> in the door via IBM. But IBM is the bigger winner in this. >> >>> >> >>> At least in the short term. OTOH, Apple may just be content providing >> >>> the platform. >> >> >> >> I do not see Apple starting to make mainframes! >> > >> > I don't think anyone here has suggested Apple will make mainframes. >> >> I was being facetious! Mainframes, if they still exist, were pure IBM. > >many companies made mainframes, not just ibm, including control data >(cdc cyber), cray and others. NCR, Univac, Xerox, ICL, Fujitsu, English Electric, Ferranti, ... Then you have J. Lyons & Co, best known for their tea shops: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEO_(computer) -- "A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled." - Sir Barnett Cocks (1907-1989)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Savageduck <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-01 23:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2037325152444527568.397332savageduck1-{removespam}me.com@news.panic.com> |
| In reply to | #69451 |
Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: > In article <010220151711050258%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam > <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> In article <maltu8$a55$1@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1 >> <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: >> >>>>>>> Apple, lacking the genes to go into corporate business gets its foot >>>>>>> in the door via IBM. But IBM is the bigger winner in this. >>>>>>>>>>> At least in the short term. OTOH, Apple may just be content providing >>>>>> the platform. >>>>> >>>>> I do not see Apple starting to make mainframes! >>>>>>> I don't think anyone here has suggested Apple will make mainframes. >>>>> I was being facetious! Mainframes, if they still exist, were pure IBM. > >> many companies made mainframes, not just ibm, including control data >> (cdc cyber), cray and others. > > NCR, Univac, Xerox, ICL, Fujitsu, English Electric, Ferranti, ... > > Then you have J. Lyons & Co, best known for their tea shops: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEO_(computer) My first exposure to a computer and FORTRAN was an NCR mainframe with its companion card punch back in 1971. -- Savageduck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-02 09:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54cf8b8d$0$54534$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #69451 |
In article <010220152255203563%timstreater@greenbee.net>, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: > In article <010220151711050258%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam > <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > >In article <maltu8$a55$1@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1 > ><sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: > > > >> >>>> Apple, lacking the genes to go into corporate business gets its foot > >> >>>> in the door via IBM. But IBM is the bigger winner in this. > >> >>> > >> >>> At least in the short term. OTOH, Apple may just be content providing > >> >>> the platform. > >> >> > >> >> I do not see Apple starting to make mainframes! > >> > > >> > I don't think anyone here has suggested Apple will make mainframes. > >> > >> I was being facetious! Mainframes, if they still exist, were pure IBM. > > > >many companies made mainframes, not just ibm, including control data > >(cdc cyber), cray and others. > > NCR, Univac, Xerox, ICL, Fujitsu, English Electric, Ferranti, ... > > Then you have J. Lyons & Co, best known for their tea shops: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEO_(computer) This is still worth reading: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_a_New_Machine> -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-02 11:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54cfa737$0$24564$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #69468 |
This may spell real trouble for Apple: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31085912 Obama plans tax on US firms overseas to fix roads at home GE is the most touched, but Apple, Microsoft and US pharmaceuticals also touched. If Apple loses any advantage of keeping its piggy bank in Ireland, perhaps that money will come back to the USA and be distributed to investors. Would not be fair for USA to tax Apple on French profits for which it has already paid taxes in France. I could see the USA tax the difference though (if it owes $10 to USA govt , and already paid $7 to French govt, then Apple only sends $3 to USA govt).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-02 16:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cj9od2Fjda4U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69469 |
On 2015-02-02, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > This may spell real trouble for Apple: "Real trouble"? Hardly. As usual, you do your best to cast things in the worst possible light for Apple. Doom and gloom is your modus operandi. Apple's got, last I checked ~$180 billion in cash, part of which is overseas. All that would happen if this passed would be that Apple would pay a 14% tax on the overseas cash immediately, which Apple can quite easily afford. Even if Apple had *all* of that cash overseas, the total bill would be $25 billion. Apple made $18 billion just in Q4 2014. I see no "real trouble" here. But you sure do! Because it's what you do. You'll probably turn to your next trick and attempt to inject "if"s and "but"s into the mix, doing your best to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt from thin air, matching your aforementioned modus operandi - namely: spreading FUD. I can already hear you saying, "if Apple does x, doom & gloom, or if Apple does y, insert tragedy here". Keep on spouting bullshit if you feel you must, but know that your silly game will continue to have zero effect on Apple's long-term success. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-02 13:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54cfbdc9$0$22319$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #69470 |
On 15-02-02 11:53, Jolly Roger wrote: > easily afford. Even if Apple had *all* of that cash overseas, the total > bill would be $25 billion. Apple made $18 billion just in Q4 2014. I see > no "real trouble" here. AAPL share value is affect by the book value of the corporation. Book value includes how much cash Apple Corp has in its piggy banks. Remove 25 billion from a 130billion stash, and it makes a significant dent to its book value. And more importrantly, going forward, It means that cash will be added at a lesser rate to those piggy banks. Extra dividends and share buybacks happen when there is too much cash in the piggy banks. But when the govt now takes a huge share out, the number of times special dividends and sharee buybabcks happe will be elimitated or curtailed. Now, if the USA only incrememtally taxes (deducrtion of taxes already paid to other countries), the impact may be much smaller, and would allow Apple total freedom to patriate irish funds into USA and this could be beneficial to USA economy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-02 18:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cj9th8FlumgU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69472 |
On 2015-02-02, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 15-02-02 11:53, Jolly Roger wrote: >> easily afford. Even if Apple had *all* of that cash overseas, the total >> bill would be $25 billion. Apple made $18 billion just in Q4 2014. I see >> no "real trouble" here. > > AAPL share value is affect by the book value of the corporation. Book > value includes how much cash Apple Corp has in its piggy banks. Remove > 25 billion from a 130billion stash, and it makes a significant dent to > its book value. So what? I still see no real trouble, as you assert. > And more importrantly, going forward, It means that cash will be added > at a lesser rate to those piggy banks. The cash will accumulate elsewhere. Still not seeing this real trouble you claim to see. How will accumulating money someplace else cause Apple "real trouble"? > Extra dividends and share > buybacks happen when there is too much cash in the piggy banks. But when > the govt now takes a huge share out, the number of times special > dividends and sharee buybabcks happe will be elimitated or curtailed. A 14% tax is not a "huge share", so I fail to see how dividends will be eliminated or curtailed significantly. I see no "real problem" here either. (Your cute term "piggy banks" doesn't go unnoticed. Troll on though, if you really feel you must.) -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-02 14:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <LImdnRhuMPsVUlLJnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #69472 |
On 2015.02.02 13:11 , JF Mezei wrote:
> On 15-02-02 11:53, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> easily afford. Even if Apple had *all* of that cash overseas, the total
>> bill would be $25 billion. Apple made $18 billion just in Q4 2014. I see
>> no "real trouble" here.
>
> AAPL share value is affect by the book value of the corporation. Book
> value includes how much cash Apple Corp has in its piggy banks. Remove
> 25 billion from a 130billion stash, and it makes a significant dent to
> its book value.
Share value impact would be on the overall value of about $700B. Less
than 4% @ 25B. Probably closer to 2% once the real amount is agreed
upon - by which time Apple will have made that much profit again in any
case.
To be sure, Apple does have to pay off dividends and stock buybacks from
ongoing revenue (as it borrowed to do so in the first place rather than
hit the piggy bank). And if hit with this one-timer, I suspect they
will just pay it out of post tax earnings as well, leaving the offshore
cash intact.
--
"Your net worth to the world is usually
determined by what remains after your
bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
Benjamin Franklin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-02 17:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <020220151712233015%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #69469 |
In article <54cfa737$0$24564$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >This may spell real trouble for Apple: > > >http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31085912 >Obama plans tax on US firms overseas to fix roads at home Could be that this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31088908 turns out to be more of a problem for Apple in the long run. -- "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web