Those who don't know their history are condemned to get it wrong. Simply making a statement like that doesn't make it true.

The most important question back then was "Is it IBM compatible?" because back then the people who approved computer expenditure were the biggest buyers by a mile and they never got fired for buying IBM (compatible). These days "Will it work with my iDevice" is much more likely, as even MS realises.

Back then Jobs was fired. He might die any time soon, but he is a lot less likely to get fired that Ballmer.

Back then Apple tried to set its own standards, now it actively pushes industry standards (CUPS, Webkit etc etc)

Back then the world was a place of geeks and nerds, now it is a place of consumers who can't even remember what an autoexec.bat or config.sys is and don't fucking care. They just want it to work, so a curated garden that keeps the weeds out looks pretty fucking cool as they try to clear conficker off their PC yet again..

Probably "Fuck me, they really have taken leave of their senses, cutting off such a valuable revenue stream", while watching Google's share price collapse.

When it stops them growing into the second largest company in the world?

the nerd mindset truly is a joy to behold.

How so?

The US patent system does, indeed, appear to be fucked up beyond belief. But the fact remains that the ultimate sanction is there and has been used (didn't RIM come close to having its US email system shut down?). To assume that it will all end in a cross-licensing deal is very dangerous.

Kodak by Polaroid over instant film.

Any appearance of civility is caused by the inherent wiki problem: arguments are won by those who just won't give up. Those with better things to do, give up, go and never look back.

So truth is a lie?

P.S. This BBC story is from 2004 - slow news day, Slashdot?

It is probably getting pulled up as a similar item to the "largest chocolate bar" story, which is current.

A company trying to get people to buy stuff? In a capitalist economy? Whatever will they think of next!

It must have been too subtle for me.

Yes, it is. First, the "amateurs" who wrote the Wikipedia article are almost certainly people trained in its field, in the same way that the physics and computer articles are generally edited by physicists and computer people. Second, the Wikipedia editors have not been paid to testify on behalf of either party and are completely unbiased authorities with respect to this particular case.

Got a citation for that "almost certainly"?

When did you start working as Wikipedia's PR?

I have a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of them

Whoooooooosh!

Hmmmm

Of course, Microsoft could do the same thing, but Apple is certainly more likely to make those decisions.

Trusted Computing...?