Ballmer Pleads For Openness To Compete With Apple 532
mjasay writes "At the Mobile World Congress, Steve Ballmer took aim at Apple's closed iPhone ecosystem with an ironic plea for openness: 'Openness is central because it's the foundation of choice.' Ballmer has apparently forgotten his company's own efforts to vertically integrate hardware and software (Zune, XBox), its history of vertically integrating software (tying SharePoint into Office, IE, SQL Server, Active Directory, etc.), as well as years of illegally tying Windows to Internet Explorer that only the US Justice Department could undo. Indeed, Microsoft's effect on the browser market has pushed Mozilla to get involved in a recent European Commission action against the software giant, with Mozilla's Mitchell Baker recently declaring that 'A number of illegal activities were also involved in creating IE's market dominance,' now requiring government intervention to open up the browser market to fair competition. Putting aside Microsoft's own tainted reputation in the field of openness, is Ballmer right? Should Apple open up its iPhone platform to outside competition, both in terms of hardware and software?"
Not so much... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course Apply needs to encourage and allow 3rd party app developers as much as possible (and seems to be doing a decent job given the app store and the app-writing industry it has spawned)...
However, I thinkit would be a mistake for Apple to "open" the iPhone in other ways - e.g. allow other companies to build them and run the Apple iPhone software on them. Apple's brand is based on a tight vertical integration of hardware and software and tight quality control over the whole, and the iPhone itself benefits (as do all Apple products) from the expensive-but-worth-it exclusivity factor.... It's hard to see Apple being a big winner if Dell and every Asian handset maker were making officially sanctioned/enabled cheap shoddy iPhone clones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not so much... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right because Microsoft works SO hard to make sure developers can write for windows... Visual Studio runs on what OSes again? Windows Mobile tools run on what OSes? Xbox 360 programming is on what systems?
So Steve, when we getting our official MS Office and Outlook for Linux? We'd really like it if Microsoft was open with it's toys too!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're complaining that you've invested in the wrong hardware and software?
Maybe look at it this way - to build for WinMob, you're going to need to build a windows VM (windows vista home premium: $240) and then you're going to need to get visual studio (standard: $299). I make that $539 total, for some software.
If you want to build for iPhone, you need a mac mini ($599 for the basic model) and a $0 download of Xcode.
So you're moaning about the fact that you have to pay $60 to get a mac mini.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're complaining that you've invested in the wrong hardware and software?
No. If a Windows dev shop wants to branch into mobile phone development, it makes sense for them to look into the iPhone. They aren't abandoning or giving up on their primary platform, just branching out.
Maybe look at it this way - to build for WinMob, you're going to need to build a windows VM (windows vista home premium: $240) and then you're going to need to get visual studio (standard: $299). I make that $539 total, for some
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You just have to have a computer.. it's not Apple's fault you didn't buy a Mac if you wanted to develop for iPhone rather than wasting money on a PC.
With all the tiers of development lock-in Microsoft has, it's a bit hypocritical of them. About the ONLY lock-in Microsoft doesn't have is hardware lock-in so it's easy for them to point fingers. Frankly, what about Xbox 360 development, or Zune development.. that's closer to iPhone.. where are those dev kits.. and how much to they cost? I'd be certain they ar
Re: (Score:2)
That's what everyone said about the iPod.
That "doesn't seem to be lasting" either eh?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You would think that it would only be good business sense to not get locked in to a single vendor who doesn't give a shit about interoperability...
But look how many businesses have become locked in to MS products, and many other proprietary lockin products. Businesses do stupid things, and i wouldn't be surprised to see plenty get locked in to Apple too.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in my world, no. There exists no real alternative to MS Office (OOo unfortunately does NOT count yet), especially if you need file format compatibility (doc is nearly there, the others not so much). In fact, what I am certainly NOT locked into is PC hardware. I might be locked into the PC *platform* (which really is just a result of MS being lazy again), but migrating all our PC hardware from HP to Lenovo was, well, not even interesting.
Re:Not so much... (Score:5, Interesting)
especially if you need file format compatibility
Word has file format compatibility with itself only if you never upgrade it, and if all the people youneed to share documents with have the same version.
Re: (Score:2)
as opposed to the other single vendor lock-in that MS offers? still tied to one software vendor...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The IBM PC hardware was, in fact, very well engineered. It was IBM's backing that provided security to businesses to take the risk to b
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
OK, but you're saying the same thing that I am.
If Apple chose to make an OS that ran on IBM's hardware then they wouldn't have lost.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a pretty big "if", given that the operating system that Apple chose to make had hardware requirements not ubiquitous on IBM PCs of the same era, making their hypothetical victory a bunch of pipe smoke.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see how their a "small niche" as a company they rank 6th (AFIK) in computer sales with about 6% of the TOTAL yearly sales. The only companies that sell more are the guys like Dell, HP, and Acer... and the margin is shrinking.
Apple is the largest digital media store on the web on top of sales of hardware. The only real thing going against them is that the PC market is so vastly staggeringly big. All the big top ten companies represent only 30% of PCs sold! Like 11-50 is the next 30% and everybody el
Re:Not so much... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now they have entered the smartphone market. And, once again, they immediately grabbed a sizable piece of the market. Is it because the iPhone is so wonderful? No, again, it is because the competition sucks. Windows Mobile is a steaming pile, Symbian has more problems than it solves and Android, well, let's wait and see, but initial reports doesn't look all that great.
Remember, succes in the consumer market is never decided on technical merit. It is about usability, interface and perception. Apple really stands out in those areas.
Single battle? Perhaps. But the opposition doesn't seem to be able to conjure up some heavy artillery, so the war might be as well declared "won".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Remember, succes in the consumer market is never decided on technical merit.
Don't get too pessimistic, that is not always true...
Apache vs. NAS and IIS
Firefox vs. IE (market share climbing against MASSIVE monopoly abuse)
Toyota Tundra vs. Chevrolet full-size pickups
Ford F-150 vs. Chevrolet full-size pickups
Honda Accord vs. Ford Taurus
Bosch & Makita hand power tools vs. Nearly All Established Brands
DVD vs. DiVX (the old self-destructing rental DVDs, not the video format)
Just a few examples off the top of
Re:Not so much... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
With that kind of argument, you could prove that the Germans couldn't lose World War I, because they won the Franco-Prussian War and had Pickelhauben [wikipedia.org] both times. The Mac Clones of the 90's established that "openness" (i.e., licensing) is not an unqualified good because it can debase your platform, and a lack of openness is not an unqualified evil. After all, people still buy console games, right? And the iPod's still doing really well, right?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
With that kind of argument, you could prove that the Germans couldn't lose World War I...
Godwin's law [wikipedia.org]!
I didn't read your post beyond those words. If you have a point try and make it without invoking Godwins's law...
Godwin's law specifically refers to a mention of Nazis or Hitler, and the post you've responded to clearly did neither. If you call someone on it please get it right, as I now have to invoke it to correct you and the thread is over.
Re:Not so much... (Score:5, Insightful)
So now, corporate managers had a PC that was blessed by IBM. They started to buy them. And, as they did, those damn users kept demanding them. So the sheep^HIT managers bought more. By the time Apple introduced the Mac, the PC already had a huge lead because of this tremendous IBM lock in. And when the Mac was introduced, I was working for a company that was developing a PBX controller based on Mac technology. But when we took it to our first prospects, their overwhelming response was "You're not going to run it on that toy, are you?". Since we needed multi-tasking, which DOS didn't offer at the time, we had to build a complete user interface on top of SCO Unix. Then the question we got was "Does it run Lotus 1-2-3?".
Time passed, and the demand for personal computers exploded. (I remember Sir Terry Mathews, billionaire owner of, at various times, Mitel, Newbridge, and March Networks, sneering at it, saying "What executive would want one of those on his desk?" - probably one of the few errors he made in his career.) But again, as the majority of IT managers would only authorise IBM PC's, DOS kept growing. Even when the PC clones arrived, it was a hard sell to IT managers, who were still told by their IBM account reps that connecting clones could bring down their whole network.
Of course, in industries that didn't have massive networks (K-12, arts, advertising, etc.), the Mac did quite well. But when you compare that market to the much larger banking, finance, manufacturing, health care, and government markets - M$ built a huge lead. And that was because they piggybacked on the IBM connection, NOT BECAUSE they were superior.
Here endeth the lesson.
Re:Not so much... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent is correct on all counts, although he should have mentioned Microsoft was started with code purchased from others, not from code they created. Since then it's been mostly a law-based organization who happens to also create software, not the other way around.
So it's especially ironic that a company convicted of monopolism and illegally typing software components together to stifle innovation is now trying to claim that open standards are the way to go.
For goodness' sake, even SMB had to be reverse engineered!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Dr. John G. Kemeny and Thomas Kurtz developed the BASIC language at Dartmouth in 1964. BASIC stood for "Beginner's All-Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code". Their objective: to create a simplified computer language for teaching students how to program. Gates and Allen recognized that the compact design of BASIC made it ideal for the limitations of the first personal computers, which had extremely restricted memory and processing power.
They ported an existing language, written by ot
Poor Ballmer (Score:5, Funny)
They did... So? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, Microsoft have done all the things listed in the summary, but I fail to see how does that make Ballmer's statement incorrect? Getting something right is still getting something right, whether you do it seldomly or your motives lie inside your pocket. And iPhone is more locked up than anything Microsoft has ever done, so his statement is not even hypocritical.
Re:They did... So? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They did... So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://webkit.org/ [webkit.org]
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html [apple.com]
Apple's iPhone may not be as open as it should be but then the same thing could be said about Xbox 360 or even Windows.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about having to buy a Macintosh as an initial cost for iPhone development?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
PS: Can you please mail me whatever that you are smoking?
I don't think it's legal to send a penis through the mail system.
GNU/Balmer (Score:5, Funny)
Whats next, asking Linux kernel maintainers to drop all these closed source binary blob drivers.
Sensationalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, because this really sounds like pleading!
FTFA: "I agree that no single company can create all the hardware and software," he said. "Openness is central because it's the foundation of choice." - Ballmer
Re:Sensationalism (Score:4, Insightful)
He can talk about openness all he likes, he's in a position to actually do something about it and yet he doesn't...
Actions speak louder than words.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You might think that only communists define and use open standards, but the truth is far worse. Look at the member bodies of the ISO such as ANSI, the so-called American National Standards Institute. Rearrange the letters and what do we find? That's right, NASI! Who else but fascist dictators would want to apply a single doctrine to all facets of life for every man, woman and child on the planet! Let the truth be known, only NASIs want open standards, the free world should forever remain insular, secretive
microsoft and openness (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, open like a venus flytrap
Not so hippocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is not asking for source code here. They just want to be able to publish applications for that platform. In fact, they are not asking for anything more on that platform then they permit for Windows or the Xbox.
Microsoft might not let you have the raw source code for the Windows OS. But they will happily hand you and SDK and a compiler and let you develop on it. They also do not care if you make boatloads of cash on the platform, as long as your a licensed developer. The same applies to the Xbox, even though the platform is more expensive to get a license for.
All they are advocating is that Apple let more developers publish software for the iPhone platform.
END COMMUNICATION
Re: (Score:2)
All they are advocating is that Apple let more developers publish software for the iPhone platform.
WTF? How exactly are they not letting developers publish software for the platform?
Yes, there have been some hard-to-explain decisions re acceptance to the App store. Vs 15,000 apps, most of them trivial junk, in less than a year...
Re:Not so hippocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
By not allowing anything that competes with Apple's own software. That means: no better web browser, no better email program, no better calendar, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is what MS do too, in a less up front way.
Keep up, dear boy, do keep up... (Score:2)
Um, like this one [arstechnica.com] ?
Simon
Re:Not so hippocritical (Score:4, Interesting)
There are other web browsers.
Privately [apple.com]
Full Screen Web Browser [apple.com]
Anon Web Browser [apple.com]
There are other email programs too...
Re:Not so hippocritical (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not, it's the toy of whoever paid for the damn thing, and Apple, like the RIAA and the MPAA, seems far too keen on forgetting that one bit.
Yeah. It sucks that Apple gives away Xcode for free with their OS. It also sucks that Steve Jobs has been telling Hollywood to go pound sand on DRM and price. Just think of all the wonderful products we'd have out in the market. Why I bet you "Plays-for-sure" would be so awesome compared to the DRM Apple used. If only it had been given a fair chance. Apple had quite the nerve to go and insist that their vendors drop DRM altogether. I mean really. Consumers need choice in the DRM market and Apple is abusing their position to deny consumers choice.
Apple is doing something Microsoft fears. Gaining market share based on the merit of their products. Imagine that. Something becoming popular and successful because it gives people something they want. It may not be what you want, so don't buy it.
No one made people go out and buy iPods. No one made people go out and buy iPhones. No one made anyone go out and buy Macs.
So if no one is making people do this, why on earth are they?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting how despite having the lion's share of online music sales and having their CEO being the largest individual shareholder and member of the board of directors of Disney corp, Apple took so long in getting the DRM off their store. Took 'em even longer than Amazon, funny that.
And the rest of your post can be summed up as: "Apple makes really cool products, so STFU", which is kind of a non sequitur considering we're talking about their openness (or lack thereof) and not the alleged quality of their p
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
like say if you couldnt develop an online gaming system for the xbox or a method of delivering additional content?
Re: (Score:2)
And what about the iPhone development platform doesn't allow you to do that now?
MS can go and register for a free Apple Developer account and get busy making apps for the iPhone. They can even sell them on the app store.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not so hippocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not so hippocritical (Score:4, Insightful)
Why on earth must every criticism of some Apple policy or product be immediately countered by "but MS does it too"?
While in other situations I would surely agree with you thatthatmakes a poor argument, in the context of this discussion your complaint is simply meaningless: we are discussing the fact that Ballmer is asking others to stop doing something which they do and clearly plan to go on doing...
Re:Not so hippocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
Could you please direct me to the Windows Mobile official development platform for OS X?
Or, could you direct me to Visual Studio for Linux or OS X?
How about the XBL Arcade SDK for Linux? or OS X?
For that matter, have you ever tried to even sync a Windows Mobile device with a non-MS OS? It's a huge PITA.
Ballmer's in Glass Houses should not throw Stones.
Re:Not so hippocritical (Score:4, Funny)
Ballmer's in Glass Houses should not throw Stones.
How about chairs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They (Microsoft) will happily charge you for an SDK and a compiler. Last I checked, Visual Studio + an MSDN subscription will cost you in the neighborhood of $1000.
Apple could get away with the same thing, and that's probably all Microsoft expects.
cost of getting into dev (Score:2)
was gonna say... isn't devtools and the iphone SDK 100% free? (though the iphone sdk has some onerous agreement to sign off on - what ahout dev tools? I don't recall anything heavy in their license agreement?)
Re:Not so hippocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple was open the same way with Xcode and developer tools for Mac platform - free IDE, SDK and no restrictions on nature of applications you can create. May be due to commercial interests, they are being very closed in the iphone ecosystem. Initial reluctance to open up the sdk, arbitrary selections on the apps you can distribute ( Considering Appstore is the only "legal" and future proof way to get apps on to iphone, I consider this very monopolistic*)
To add to this, Microsoft has licensed active sync to Apple and Google for iphone and android respectively.
OT,but being a long term apple user, I am currently having an identity crisis. The special hardware, quality of software and openness no longer applies. Does RDF wear-off with age or is it due to Steve's departure?
* I know what monopolistic actually means, thank you!
Re: (Score:2)
Activesync is garbage tho, really drains the battery if you turn it on and isn't a true push solution, it just polls rapidly...
Apple/Google would be better off licensing from RIM, or developing their own system...
Re: (Score:2)
The benefit of ActiveSync is that it allows you to pull from Exchange & Outlook. This means the device can talk to whatever Microsoft's offering of the day is without any middleware. In essence ActiveSync is an embedded native Exchange Client.
If Apple wanted to develop their own, this would entail developing their own means to interface with Exchange and Microsoft Office. It's no doubt far easier to just pay the licensing to Microsoft than develop an inferior cludge over POP3/IMAP.
Jason.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apple did "develop this on their own," it's called MobileMe. There will also be Push Notifications in Snow Leopard. Apple only licensed Exchange ActiveSync to be able to develop its own implementation of Microsoft's proprietary push for Exchange compatibility, which is a feature that runs in addition to Apple's own push software.
Microsoft did not hand Apple magical software beans that turned the iPhone into a PC running its Win32 Outlook code.
EAS is not an "embedded Exchange Client," its just a way to send
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I read you right, Microsoft wants Apple to follow their model of software development where anyone and develop and publish their own applications. Right now anyone can develop for the iPhone but they have to go through Apple to publish it. Microsoft's model has been done before with Windows Mobile and other phones and hasn't been a success.
First it wasn't convenient for the consumer as no one had an easy to use App Store like Apple. Second, it wasn't easy to know who you could trust. You could probab
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So MS offers a free IDE that lets you develop programs on the MS platform. It offers developer memberships that the average developer can afford that includes hardware discounts and tickets to conferences. I suppose MS uses open standards like vcard and webdav, and come with svn installed.
I am not saying that what MS wants is unfair, just that what it wants may not be reasonable. MS likes to have
you know (Score:2, Insightful)
people moan about Microsoft here on /. alot (no im not new here)
but imho Apple take the pisstaking to a new level
they get away with it as the typical response is "they are not a convicted monopolist"
got help us if apple were in same position as microsoft
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think ever since MS ripped the interface from Apple they're a bit leery of being "open" to it again.
Besides $99 will get you to developer status on the iPhone, anyone can do it.
What are they whining about?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But Apple aren't in the same position...
You can completely ignore Apple and still have a perfectly functional phone and mp3 player... If you ignore MS completely you end up being at a disadvantage when people send you proprietary files, or when you want to play games etc.
Apple aren't even the biggest player in the cellphone market, and the market is quite heavily controlled by the carriers too.
I'd say no. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple shouldn't open up anything. Openness adds a good third party market in some ways, but it also adds a lot of junk. Apple's filtering benefits the consumer that doesn't want to have a lot of crap in their eco-system. If you want a more open platform, you could use Android, or a Windows Mobile powered phone. SO, there are choices in the marketplace.
Exactly... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is not funny, this is insightful. If Mac were more popular, you would start seeing more crapware and horrible UIs for it as well.
OS X echo system is healthy exactly because the culture and values of the platform are shared and well known by adherents. If you break past the critical mass, all bets are off.
This is why Mac needs to remain relatively marginal to be successful :D. It's a fine line and balancing act.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if you take a look a the app store, how many apps are completely useless that have made it past Apple's "crapware" screening system? Just about all. How many fart apps are there? Tons. How about worthless "background" apps? How about apps
Ok for X-Box (Score:3, Insightful)
"Only developers that are licensed by Microsoft may compile code and release binaries (.XBEs) of their software with the XDK, any software released using the XDK by developers that aren't licensed is illegal."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_Development_Kit [wikipedia.org]
Re:I'd say no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's filtering benefits the consumer that doesn't want to have a lot of crap in their eco-system.
And they're doing such a great job of it too. Fart applications in the double digits, and yet not a single third party music player or email client that supersedes the very limited functionality of the bundled applications.
Quality control without the quality is simply control.
How Long?... (Score:2)
OMG Ponies! (Score:2)
Each executive had his own idea of what openness means and how if Apple adopted its own vision of openness it could be more successful
Awwww!1!! They just want openness so that Apple can be more successful.
Does Apple have a near-monopoly on phones? (Score:3, Insightful)
So....No.
But but but Microsoft! (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple is the new Microsoft. Any criticism of Microsoft is at this point misdirection from the real threat.
Just think of what would happen if the fanboy dream became reality: one cellphone, one mobile platform, and Apple has complete control. The future of mobile computing, of communication, of the Internet everywhere not chained to a desk, would be theirs to direct and constrain.
And you know they will do it, too, are doing it, because it is in their nature. Software is a means to an end for them, it is just
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple really wanted what you are sug
Re: (Score:2)
Putting aside what I spent said... (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting aside Microsoft's own tainted reputation in the field of openness, is Ballmer right?
Two points.
Firstly, this is Slashdot. The chances of anyone putting aside Microsoft's past behaviour in a discussion of that same kind of behaviour, approaches zero. When that discussion was started by Microsoft, it is zero.
Secondly, even TFA spends more time slagging Microsoft for past behaviour than it does discussing what Ballmer has said. The disingenous suggestion that we're then going to discuss the statement from Ballmer on its own merits, isn't even a facade, it's a joke.
This isn't news, but it isn't even slashdot's usual one sided attack. This is a one sided attack pretending to be a serious discussion, and it's pretending so badly that it's frankly embarassing.
Re:Putting aside what I spent said... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even in today's context, what Microsoft is demanding Apple do, Microsoft won't do itself.
Let's keep it to current setups, to satisfy your demand that it all stay relevant to today:
When will Microsoft open SharePoint so that you can use Oracle, MySQL, or Postgres? When will Microsoft open up Exchange so that competitors can code their own fully-featured clients for it? Will Microsoft open up their Windows marketing so that OEMs can fearlessly sell --and Market!-- Linux equally, in all the models that a given OEM has?
You see - one doesn't have to look too far to realize that Ballmer is still, even by today's metrics, speaking from a deep, deep well of hypocrisy.
Open or closed doesn't matter... (Score:5, Funny)
... because my wallet has a court injunction against me setting foot anywhere near an iPhone with a for-sale sign on it!
Apple Reality Check (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Apple Reality Check (Score:5, Informative)
From the *summary* (for [insert deity]'s sake man, at least read the *summary*) of the 'most ungreen companies ever' link you gave above:
... they wouldn't be able to claim it, unless they had some justification for it. From what I read, Greenpeace don't really care about what you *do* these days, they care about what you *promise* to do in the future, and how much you pay them to be quiet. They're a form of eco-terrorists, and eventually they'll get theirs...
As for Darwin, it seems pretty open [apple.com] to me.
Darwin's still open (Score:5, Insightful)
They also do a fair amount of lock in like closing Darwin (What? No one screaming about this? Yeah that's what I thought
God damn it. Not this again.
We're not screaming about it because it never happened. I'm serious, the source is still distributed for every release [apple.com]. They delayed the release of the source once during the early part of the x86 transition. A couple of moron bloggers and anti-Apple zealots heard about it and extrapolated that Apple was "closing Darwin". They were full of shit, but that hasn't stopped this myth from living on.
He means something different then you think (Score:5, Insightful)
He says that with Windows Mobile you got a lot of choice. In a way, he is right, there are more phones with Windows Mobile so you can choose between more phones then with the iPhone which has just one model.
Of course in reality you can't choose at all. You get the OS that the phone maker slammed onto the phone with the restrictions your carrier applied. Freedom? Not in the eyes of the consumer BUT it is freedom in Ballmers very unique world view and since he makes more money he gotta be right, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As you point out, MS attack open markets and do everything they can to close them up.
The mobile phone and portable media player markets are far less screwed up than the PC market, Apple are just one of many and there are already far more open competitors doing perfectly well.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
As you point out, MS attack open markets and do everything they can to close them up.
The mobile phone and portable media player markets are far less screwed up than the PC market, Apple are just one of many and there are already far more open competitors doing perfectly well.
Microsoft attacks open markets since they allow competitors to Microsoft dominance. However, when Microsoft are NOT the dominant player then they have a habit of encouraging openness, so that they can have a chance to obtain that dominance.
Just look at Microsoft Office. The dominant player was Lotus, and Microsoft campaigned for openness (with RichText being the open format). Lotus went along with it, but then Microsoft made Word's RichText output unopenable in Lotus (whilst still supporting the open version of RichText which Lotus outputted). This made Word look like a better choice, and when it gained dominance in came the series of completely closed Word document formats.
This is the same thing, Microsoft want openness from the likes of Symbian, Apple, Google, etc., which they'll follow with their "extensions", then they'll lock the whole thing up just like Apple's done. As far as users are concerned, this would be the same as the current situation, the only difference would be which company has control.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's unchecked capitalism...
The benefits of capitalism are the competition, if you allow large players to eliminate all competition then you lose all the benefits of capitalism and may as well have a dictatorship where the government controls everything instead of some large companies.
With no competition, progress under capitalism completely stagnates, and companies just keep churning out the same old crap at ever increasing prices while the population suffer.
For capitalism to work it needs a level of reg
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your spewing of anti-MS stuff is a bit off target here. MS is indeed historically a closed company that has used that behavior to dominate and damage the PC market. Apple has the same behaviors they're just not as good at it. If you're against the MS activities you need to be against the Apple activities too or else you're just a ranting fanboy. The effectiveness of a bad behavior don't determine morality of that behavior just the amount of damage it does in any given instance...the behavior is destructive and should be resisted whether it is performed by those we hate or like.
All that moralizing aside, I love my iPhone and Mac, so I'm supporting the evilness that is Apple protectionism too despite my distaste for the behavior. Oh and I own several Windows boxes so what can I say, we're all hypocritical to some degree. =)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, with the iPhone, 1) Apple offered a pretty good suite of apps from day 1, and 2) I'm sure they wanted to get some experience and correct any bugs before opening it up to outside developers. It was a brand new product, and if I were developing such a thing, I'd want some control over how it worked initially, so that it didn't get a market reputation as being unreliable. As a telecom engineer, I've noticed how it's funny that people accept it when their computer crashes, but go completely ballistic when their phones don't work. Now that they've got more experience, they've begun to open it up to developers, haven't they? Again, I see it as a case that they want apps they know are going to work to protect its reputation for reliability.
I'm sure Firefox will be authorized at some time. Skype - I don't know, I bet AT&T has an agreement that doesn't let Apple put voip on the phone, but that's just speculation on my part. AT&T, however, does have a long history of stifling competition (cf Carterphone, MCI, etc.).
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, Firefox won't be authorized because it allows application behavior to be modified via downloads (makes it impossible to evaluate the program as a whole) and it runs bytecode through an interpret other than Apple's (which Apple considers, rightly or wrongly, a security problem).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
People can install whatever O/S they want on their PC, but they still need to pay the MS tax, don't they? I never use Windows at work, I put Linux on my PC there as soon as I got it. Yet my workplace payed for *two* licences : the Vista licence it came with when ordered, and the XP site licence.
Other example : we wanted to buy a MSI wind for travel. However the Linux version, while theoretically available, was offered but with no ETA. We got the XP version and promptly put Linux on it. If it sounds like the 20th century, it is. Pretty much the only real way not to pay the MS tax is to buy a Mac or components for a self-build PC.
That is not success, that is extortion, and that is the hallmark of a monopoly still not under control.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Netbooks and PCs without any OS or with Linux pre-installed are very easy to get.
It does, however, narrow the selection quite a bit. Even among manufacturers who sell Linux versions, they're usually differentiated somehow.
For example, this laptop, when it comes with Vista, has an 802.11n card (and even has an "n series" sticker on it) and the option of 3 or 4 gigs of RAM. With Linux, it has an 802.11g card (one that's well supported) and only 4 gigs of RAM (can't get it with 3).
And that's within a specific model. There are a number of other models which might've been much better for me
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're saying that the fact that you have to buy it, and go through this [equiliberate.org] to get your money back, represents evidence that this is a market where a monopoly is not of control? Really?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's strict control is what makes so user friendly. Forcing developers to work with in strict guide lines keeps the quality of the software up there, but limits the amount of software available. Apple's control extends to the hardware. Even their BIOS is proprietary. By controlling the hardware everything works. Microsoft can only dream of having this kind of control over their product. Opening Apple's products will only degrade them.
Yeah, we have already seen what kind of damage an open software ecosystem creates. Multiple applications doing the same thing, multiple libraries and (god fordib) programming languages are being used in haphazard fashion.