The next, is an old e-mail. I sent this, to a few, on Feb.17,2002
((copies also sent (or to be sent) to Intel, Sun, and Linux groups.))
In two magazines (CHIP and PCnet, both in turkey) I have read about your offer to provide 1.6 billion worth of software and hardware to 14 thousand educational institutions, as part of the resolution for the monopoly issue. Also that Apple suggested you to give the money to some third party people who would chose what to buy (and the court preferred that one) and also that Apple currently is holding 90% o fthe educational market.
So, the issue appears to be that (commentary through the magazine), you want to break into the Apple hegemony's territory while yours is being questioned. (For the purposes of this e-mail, I am simply ignoring the factoid that Microsft or Mr. Gates has a share of Apple, too.)
Now, I suggest this: O.K. accept Apple's suggestion to giving the money to some (rational) third party but with a few very free-minded rules (needed, esp. because when 90% of a market belongs to them, people may be as if blindfolded and thinking "Of course Apple, what else"). The strategy is to break that mindset buying Apple almost exclusively. (Hey, aren't we talking against monopolizing, here?)
Rule1: No single vendor or its subsidiaries (like Lexmark is to IBM) or chained-licensees (like Apple had licensed Macs than swallowed back, and Linux licenses are also chained) may receive more than one eighth the money (i.e. 200 million out of 1.6 billion) software plus hardware combined.
Rule2: No single operating system (platform/kernel) may receive more than a quarter. And all purchases must be to make complete, self-contained solutions (even though networkable with the existing ones). i.e. Buying software and gadgets just to attach to existing Macs is not acceptable.
Rule3: The selection committee should be unbiased, open-minded, declare their rationale, and while mixing & matching solutions and the budget, should consult the involved interest groups (e.g: Microsoft, Sun/Java, iintel, or Linux), before rushing conclusions; and let them improve their solutions and support, if reasonable.
These would mostly lead to, I think, categorically,
Microsoft (and maybe Apple, too) on the desktop,
AMD, Intel, & Motorola @ CPUs
Sun/Java (and maybe Microsoft .net+VB) @ thin clients (network computers + user programmability)
Linux, Windows, Solaris, etc. @ web servers, or generally as "thick servers" :-) for booting,etc.
Microsoft, Intel (e.g: their microscobes), & others @ gadgets
Sharp price cuts for the purposes of getting to more places during this movement, is conceivable. (i.e: to pack more for a $200million)
Speaking of thiin&programmable clients, what I mean is totally diskless, monitorless clients that have only CRT(or TV-out), ethernet, keyboard&mouse, and maybe USB ports which cost $100 or less, but very usable on a network, or when a CD/DVD is attached later.
Anyone remembers the days of Basic? Now, in networks, kids can write their own [game?] software with simple authorware for Java platform and/or .net+VB.
Linux people may help people set up their thick servers with Linux to supply the thin clients with applets and XML repositories, to make Linux an acceptable alternative.
Hey, Down with Darwin (even behind a pretty face)... Let's see who is more fit (to go on & expand).
Not that I never lose but I ALWAYS WIN!
Note1: "Darwin" is the name of the kernel of Mac OS X (the "face" is/was the "aqua"). The Apple explanation to adopt that "Darwin" name, was social-evolutionist. I do not like such. (e.g: also)
Note2: That e-mail address, zPhantom@Operamail.com, is not active, at this time. I forgot the password (after I changed that), and have not bothered a lot.