Comments on: Being a playa hatah http://terrychay.com/blog/article/being-a-playa-hatah.shtml You tell that other boy, not to touch the woodwork... Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:31:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8-bleeding-edge hourly 1 By: The Woodwork » Blog Archive » The Starship Zend-erprise http://terrychay.com/blog/article/being-a-playa-hatah.shtml/comment-page-1#comment-6728 The Woodwork » Blog Archive » The Starship Zend-erprise Tue, 12 Sep 2006 02:23:00 +0000 http://terrychay.com/blog/article/being-a-playa-hatah.shtml#comment-6728 [...] (I’m not saying I’m a playa hatah. I’m saying if Zend wants to be a player, at least do it right. Never putting up a submission website and then begging people to submit talks through back channels is simply not —it smacks too much of junior high school and high school.) [...] [...] (I’m not saying I’m a playa hatah. I’m saying if Zend wants to be a player, at least do it right. Never putting up a submission website and then begging people to submit talks through back channels is simply not —it smacks too much of junior high school and high school.) [...]

]]> By: The Woodwork » Blog Archive » Applying common sense to what you read http://terrychay.com/blog/article/being-a-playa-hatah.shtml/comment-page-1#comment-2072 The Woodwork » Blog Archive » Applying common sense to what you read Mon, 08 May 2006 22:55:12 +0000 http://terrychay.com/blog/article/being-a-playa-hatah.shtml#comment-2072 [...] Look, if Apple Computer actually expected to lose this lawsuit do you think they would have merged their countersuit in California (home turf) into the one in Great Britain (enemy turf)? Did you miss the part where Apple didn’t “lose” the last two lawsuits, but settled? That because they were settled, people could only deduce the implications of the settlement and nobody besides the two Apples and the judge actually could actually be qualified to make a ruling? Go reread my original take on this. Notice the deduction by Business Week on the public court filings: “…strongly implies that Apple Corps agreed to allow Apple to pursue digital music initiatives, but not package, sell, or distribute any physical music materials such as CDs.” and compare it to this selection from the full decision: Accordingly, none of those factors, taken separately, is in my view a breach of the [The 1991 Settlement Agreement and the Trade Mark Agreement]…The overall impression is, in my view, no different from the impression created by each of the separate parts. The overall impression is one of a store which is selling (transmitting) recordings (data), puffing its services and wares and offering some enticing products. [...] [...] Look, if Apple Computer actually expected to lose this lawsuit do you think they would have merged their countersuit in California (home turf) into the one in Great Britain (enemy turf)? Did you miss the part where Apple didn’t “lose” the last two lawsuits, but settled? That because they were settled, people could only deduce the implications of the settlement and nobody besides the two Apples and the judge actually could actually be qualified to make a ruling? Go reread my original take on this. Notice the deduction by Business Week on the public court filings: “…strongly implies that Apple Corps agreed to allow Apple to pursue digital music initiatives, but not package, sell, or distribute any physical music materials such as CDs.” and compare it to this selection from the full decision: Accordingly, none of those factors, taken separately, is in my view a breach of the [The 1991 Settlement Agreement and the Trade Mark Agreement]…The overall impression is, in my view, no different from the impression created by each of the separate parts. The overall impression is one of a store which is selling (transmitting) recordings (data), puffing its services and wares and offering some enticing products. [...]

]]> By: tychay http://terrychay.com/blog/article/being-a-playa-hatah.shtml/comment-page-1#comment-1430 tychay Wed, 29 Mar 2006 01:50:48 +0000 http://terrychay.com/blog/article/being-a-playa-hatah.shtml#comment-1430 Note: I made a major edit. It appears some people may not believe that Apple changed their tabs so I edited the post with a visual history of them. In the course of doing so, I mistakenly called the intermediate tab "iPod" instead of "iTunes" and corrected that. There are two errors I didn't correct in the article. The first is that my timeline of events is not correct. Here is the corrected timeline. <b>2003-04</b> First rumors of Apple v. Apple <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114300,00.html" rel="nofollow">surface</a>. <b>2003-06</b>Apple replaces the "Switch" tab with the "Music" tab. <b>2003-08</b> Apple <a href="http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/08/20030822231519.shtml" rel="nofollow">changes "Music" tab to read "iPod"</a> (they also changed <a href="http://www.apple.com/music" rel="nofollow">www.apple.com/music</a> to <a href="http://www.apple.com/itunes" rel="nofollow">www.apple.com/itunes</a>). <b>2003-09</b> Apple v. Apple <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3931329" rel="nofollow">goes public</a>. <b>2003-10</b> Apple iTunes for Windows <a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1041-5092414.html" rel="nofollow">launches</a>. <b>2003-11</b> Apple changes tab from "iTunes" to "iPod + iTunes" (they did have it briefly as "Switch" again. ... <b>2006-03</b> Apple v. Apple lawsuit goes to trial and idiot pundits with an axe to grind act as if this is a new thing. The other error can be construed from the timeline. It is equally possible that Apple changed their urls and branding from "Music" to "iTunes" in order to brand iTunes for the iTunes for Windows release. (Of course, why they continue to use generic names for "Pages" and "Keynote" and their recent switch of branding to pushing heavily the "iPod" and "Mac" brands has me thinking such a marketing brain fart still has the cart leading the horse.) I apologize for the errors. Note: I made a major edit. It appears some people may not believe that Apple changed their tabs so I edited the post with a visual history of them. In the course of doing so, I mistakenly called the intermediate tab “iPod” instead of “iTunes” and corrected that.

There are two errors I didn’t correct in the article. The first is that my timeline of events is not correct. Here is the corrected timeline.

2003-04 First rumors of Apple v. Apple surface.
2003-06Apple replaces the “Switch” tab with the “Music” tab.
2003-08 Apple changes “Music” tab to read “iPod” (they also changed http://www.apple.com/music to http://www.apple.com/itunes).
2003-09 Apple v. Apple goes public.
2003-10 Apple iTunes for Windows launches.
2003-11 Apple changes tab from “iTunes” to “iPod + iTunes” (they did have it briefly as “Switch” again.
…
2006-03 Apple v. Apple lawsuit goes to trial and idiot pundits with an axe to grind act as if this is a new thing.

The other error can be construed from the timeline. It is equally possible that Apple changed their urls and branding from “Music” to “iTunes” in order to brand iTunes for the iTunes for Windows release. (Of course, why they continue to use generic names for “Pages” and “Keynote” and their recent switch of branding to pushing heavily the “iPod” and “Mac” brands has me thinking such a marketing brain fart still has the cart leading the horse.)

I apologize for the errors.

]]>