iPhone的多工是假多工?

elgarteo95 wrote:
iPhone OS ...(恕刪)

alanjain wrote:
回覆樓上nokia ...(恕刪)

danechang wrote:
這傢伙根本就不向他的信徒講的這麼有前瞻性啊!(恕刪)

treerod1 on cnet wrote:
As a former Xerox employee during that time, I can say that an agreement was formed between Xerox and Apple ... which included giving a couple of Alto and a Dolphin (2nd generation Alto - the predecessor to the Xerox Star) computers to Apple for "tinkering" with, as well as a blessing to Apple to go for it.

To understand why this happens, you need to know that at the time we used the GUI & mouse technology strictly for in-house purposes only, and at the time had no plans to go commercial with it. Xerox saw no commercial viability because the Alto/Dolphin was too big and expensive to market. They placed their "computer future" on the CPM operating system - with the 1981 introduction of the Xerox 820 CPM personal computer.

It wasn't until 1982-83, two years after Apple's agreement, the Xerox 820 CPM personal computer was deemed a commercial failure - everybody else went the PC-DOS or MS-DOS route. It was at that time Xerox made its final foray in selling computer, the Xerox Star. Thankfully, from Xerox's Corporate viewpoint, the Star ended up a commercial failure by 1985 and that pretty much ended Xerox's computer manufacturing business. Long story short, Xerox Corp (in New York) was not really interested in being a computer manufacturer. Xerox was in it to please the Feds after the 1969 Antitrust suit; which coincidentally was thrown out in 1982 as being “without merit.”

Because of this lack of interest in being a computer mfg, Xerox practically gave away computer technology right & left, ... we never made money on the Ethernet, Astranet (well, Xerox did sell it to two Xerox employees for $1,000 and they in turn opened their own company across the street from PARC), the Laser Printers (other than what we sold), the Mouse, all the software programs, etc.

When Apple went after Microsoft as if they owned the technology, those in Xerox were not very happy about that, however, Xerox's suit of Apple had more to do with the fact they got no royalties or financial earnings from Apple, and the stocks they got from Apple were almost worthless by the mid-1990. It was also during this time that Xerox started to realize they were in financial dire straits as a corporation.

Anyway, putting this all together, Xerox felt Apple had essentially "stole" their technology. If the judge had not ruled the way he did, the fact remains, royalties / fees/ profits sharing /etc. were not discussed in the original agreement - it was a simple "cash & carry" deal.

忍者鮭 wrote:
您指下的那傢伙可是當...(恕刪)