Comments on: Monkeys flinging their own poo

By: ScoPi

ScoPi — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:33:30 +0000

Anyone here seen Larry Buchanan’s Mistress of the Apes? Why? No reason.

http://www.stomptokyo.com/movies/m/mistress-ot-apes.html

By: Kim Helliwell

Kim Helliwell — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:01:11 +0000

I LOVE the headline for this entry! I chuckle every time I read it! All you need to know is that it’s about Enderle and others of his ilk, and the point becomes clear.

High-five to you, Macalope!

By: Ed

Ed — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:13:56 +0000

The record labels are unhappy with Apple for exactly one reason:
They agreed to contracts that they now regret.

In other words, they didn’t have the vision or the foresight to understand what they were signing, and now that Itunes is successful, they think they got screwed.

If this scenario sounds vaguely familiar, like say a bright young singer getting screwed by record companies because of a naive understanding, well, Fate likes her little ironies.

By: Blain

Blain — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:13:05 +0000

Have there been any deals where Apple has really screwed over a business partner
I don’t know if it counts, but there was that whole cloning thing back in the late 90s. What with licensing agreements all the way up to MacOS 8 (Copland), so Apple did a name change of MacOS 7.7 to 8. That and the ‘We won’t license you for G3 computers’ bit. It probably was for the best, mind you, but still.

By: Follower

Follower — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:49:03 +0000

I’m trying to think off-hand if there are any cases where Enderle may technically be correct. (And, as usual, failing to do so.) Have there been any deals where Apple has really screwed over a business partner, in a PlaysForSure kind of way? Sure, the record companies aren’t that happy with Apple, but that’s because they would have preferred a promise (that of all iTunes tracks staying 99¢) to be broken; they’re upset that it’s been kept. Not quite the same thing.

By: LKM

LKM — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:12:08 +0000

I too think it took at most 10 minutes of photoshoping, judging by the quality of Cisco’s work. And yes, I agree that this is the important question here. Ten minutes? An hour? We might never know!

By: M.e.

M.e. — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 06:46:56 +0000

EEEE-EEEEE-EEEE! OH-HA-HA-HA!

That’s the Transformers sound! Monkey’s don’t dig Decepticons.

By: MonkeyT

MonkeyT — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 02:14:09 +0000

I DID work as a Photoshop professional for many years, and if that hack job took more than 10 minutes, Cisco’s gotten screwed more than once this year.

By: Don

Don — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:42:28 +0000

I think the Macalope is wrong on one VERY IMPORTANT POINT that everyone, even the analysts, are missing:

I firmly believe that it took more than 1/2 hour of Photoshopping. And since I’m a Photoshop professional, I should know.

Then again, I use “Photoshop professional” in the same way that Enderle uses “analyst”, so uh, maybe not.

By: Rip Ragged

Rip Ragged — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:28:41 +0000

Apple and Cisco will both do just fine. Apple needed the trademark. Cisco really didn’t. If both companies really needed that trademark there would have been a real fight.

Cisco is the 800-pound gorilla of internet hardware. They wouldn’t have made peace that easily if they took anything like a real screwing.

Rob Enderle proves once again that being an assclown is no real detriment to being taken seriously by people who don’t really get it.