Yes, I remember Kai and the Kai Power Tool filter packs for Photoshop. I used quite a few of them back in the day. Doesn't really have anything to do with this discussion, though.
The reference was a commentary on how Adobe does not get the web. The story was a response to your doubt.
Firewire was never very widely adopted in anything other than video cameras as it was never really adopted as a PC standard the way USB was , and it was the universality of the USB connection that led Apple to include that connectivity in it's products years after it had become standard in PCs. It was also USB, a PC standard. that drove the proliferation of cheap USB expansion drives as well as other USB connected components. It had nothing to do with Apple. Next thing you know, when Apple finally get around to offering Blu-ray drives in their computers you'll be pointing to that as the key point in Blu-ray evolution.
Um, no, factually incorrect and misleading. My comments on the subject was about storage. USB was not by any means a standard on any PC years before, especially as an external storage conduit. USB 1.1 which was released the same year as the iMac (the topic of discussion). As for Firewire (an Apple initiative), you do know of course that it's faster technology was the reason for USB 1.1 and 2 standards don't you? And it was at that time, that the faster standards were being considered for storage devices. And that it pre-dates and is vastly superior to USB? Although the topology was different, it was Firewire that threw down that gauntlet. And FW it is used in much more than cameras. Higher end workstations and most pro and semi-pro audio peripherals and video editors, as well as almost every cable set top box in North America use FW. If it survives it will be a boon, USB (like Flash) is a process hog, and the next version of FW is said to use fiber optics which would see spectacular gains in speed and accuracy.
As far as the influence of Apple products in popular culture, I would say that it's more the success of the Apple marketing machine than it is the success of their products. Their products rarely prove to be anything new, they are generally old ideas in a new package with a great marketing machine behind them. The iPod didn't create the popularity of MP3, Napster did. Music piracy also did more to drive the sales of rewritable CDs than any computer manufacturer ever did. The iPod wasn't the first MP3 player and in fact they stole some of their technology from Creative Labs and were sued over it and lost. What Apple did was see an opportunity and took advantage of it after other companies had fought, and won, the legal battles over MP3.
TM, we've never met, and I have nothing against you, but that is the most retarded analysis I've ever heard. Really. I could spend hours disassembling the talking point drivel, but again I really do not have anything against you, you are entitled to think like a republican!<grin> We are not talking about mp3's, we were talking about players. And again, please don't go there with the lawsuit thing, it is irrelevant, especially coming from an MS fanboy<biggrin>.
Everyone knows that nothing is totally original. Do you also hate the Elvis, the Beatles the Stones? Was that just over-hyped marketing? Or Hasselblad, McIntosh, Nikkon, Sony or <insert almost any company here>? Arguing their validity and/or success based upon their originality is nonsensical. Each entity is in business to make money and will sing from the rooftops of their superiority and originality. The point is TM, what's your point?
This is my final post on this subject. The Apple fans can go ahead and turn this into yet another Steve Jobs love in and misinformation festival.
There is a big difference between misinformation and opinion. Most here have an opinion, only some veil their opinions in truthiness. That is the cause of the spread of misinformation, and unfortunately your are as guilty as a hater, than any fanboy as a lover.
