6 ms·

Had to stop reading at this: "Apple is undeniably the most proprietary and closed technology company in the software industry. In fact, Apple makes companies l

Had to stop reading at this: "Apple is undeniably the most proprietary and closed technology company in the software industry. In fact, Apple makes companies like Microsoft and Adobe look like nonprofit open source organizations in comparison" http://opensource.apple.com/ http://opensource.apple.com/

jeremychone 17y ago
Are you really falling for this marketing scam? Every company does open source or have something prefixed with "open" nowadays. Apple is the only software company that lock the service, software, and hardware together. Microsoft would have never been able to pull the iStore market scam. But somehow, Apple can do it. Apple can create an ecosystem where they are the only gate keeper of what people can create and distribute. I really like Software, and for what I am concern, Apple's iPhone/iStore system is a disease for the software and Internet industry. If Microsoft, Palm, and Android, would start doing the same, then we would be in a world where innovation will be gated by the incumbents. No more Firefox, no more Skype.
- tjogin 17y ago
  They're really not that different if you look at a wider perspective than just mobile phones. Microsoft's Xbox is as closed a system, if not even more so. Not so coincidentally, their Xbox is also far more robust and less bug prone than their PC counterpart. That's the nature of closed systems. Apple are not interested in doing anything lackluster — from their perspective and according to their priorities, that is. It's just not in their nature to compromise with quality, hence you get a bunch of other compromises instead, all of which are well-known.
  - snprbob86 17y ago
    "It's just not in their nature to compromise with quality" points to the key distinction here. Apple is more open than most with output, but as closed as they reasonably can be with input. They are the gatekeepers for their ecosystem.
  - jeremychone 17y ago
    Not exactly. The console market was already closed. The mobile market was opening up. Windows Mobile, Palm, J2ME devices lead the way of openness by allowing users to install new application on their devices as they did on PC. This was quite step forward given the fact that service providers wanted to charge for everything. And here we go, Apple with their cute bouncing pixels comes and tells us that we need to live in a world where only one organization can decide what application we can use. And while everybody argue about applications should have been approved or not, nobody is asking the right question "do we want a gate keeper or not?". This is a huge step backward in the software industry. But somehow, people think that innovation is about flying pixels and forget that the ecosystem around a product is as important as the product in itself.
    - tjogin 17y ago
      Do you seriously think that "cute bouncing pixels" is what made the iPhone the fastest selling piece of consumer electronic of all time? No, of course not! That's just silly. Clearly, the iPhone has a number of very attractive attributes, as is evident not only from the fact that it's selling unprecedentedly well, but also from the fact that it's changed the direction of the entire industry. Apple made a number of choices with the iPhone, and certainly they can't be all that bad, given the phenomenal success they've had. Even if you just limit the argument to the AppStore, the fact that they've also had unprecedented success in bringing developers on board should give you a hint or two that it's not as one-sided as you make it out to be. Before you can bring anything constructive to a discussion on this subject, you really need to stop lying to yourself. Take a sober look at the choices Apple has made, and realize that each of them has both advantages and disadvantages.
      - jeremychone 17y ago
        Ok, not only "cute bouncing pixels." I think that 3 things made Apple the kind of the smart phone market: 1) Great product ahead of any other existing product at the time (not anymore though). 2) Understand that the mobile market value chain was vastly different than the PC one and architected a platform that would be attracting existing market players while creating a exclusive new market for themselves (this was so bold and smart). 3) Steve Jobs genius. Now, the only thing that scares me is that they did it in the most proprietary way that any software companies have ever dare doing. Apple is the living proof that openness is not a required ingredient to create new technology based markets. So, again, kudos to Apple to revolutionize a market that have been frozen for years. However, they are doing it in such as way that it could set a very bad precedence to the software industry. I do not want to have to go through a iMicrosoftStore to publish my Windows application, a iGoogleStore to publish a Web Site, a iAndroidStore to publish a mobile application. I have nothing against software stores, but they should be optional not required.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- silvestrov 17y ago
  What matters is that the items Apple hangs the "open source" sign on are the fundaments. MS not so. e.g. Apple has open sourced the core OS and WebKit (Safari's html engine). MS has open sourced neither. Nokia uses WebKit. Android does. etc. Nobody uses IEmobile unless forced to. Oh, and didn't MS actually pull the iStore scam with Zune, and only lost due to low markedshare of the Zune and being unable to come to proper terms with the RIAA because MS was too focused on DRM?
  - jeremychone 17y ago
    Well, iPhone is the only platform where the OS Vendor solely choose what application can be distributed or not. This is what I am against.
    - rpledge 17y ago
      That isn't true: Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo control what software can be run as well. They always point to the crappy titles that the Atari 2600 ended up with and claim quality control. Not that I necessarily disagree with you though
      - jeremychone 17y ago
        Again, those have always been closed system. Mobile was opening up, and Apple is closing it back.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    Apple has open sourced the core OS and WebKit I thought WebKit was Open Source before Apple used it to build Safari?

jeremychone 17y ago

Are you really falling for this marketing scam? Every company does open source or have something prefixed with "open" nowadays. Apple is the only software company that lock the service, software, and hardware together. Microsoft would have never been able to pull the iStore market scam. But somehow, Apple can do it. Apple can create an ecosystem where they are the only gate keeper of what people can create and distribute. I really like Software, and for what I am concern, Apple's iPhone/iStore system is a disease for the software and Internet industry. If Microsoft, Palm, and Android, would start doing the same, then we would be in a world where innovation will be gated by the incumbents. No more Firefox, no more Skype.

tjogin 17y ago
They're really not that different if you look at a wider perspective than just mobile phones. Microsoft's Xbox is as closed a system, if not even more so. Not so coincidentally, their Xbox is also far more robust and less bug prone than their PC counterpart. That's the nature of closed systems. Apple are not interested in doing anything lackluster — from their perspective and according to their priorities, that is. It's just not in their nature to compromise with quality, hence you get a bunch of other compromises instead, all of which are well-known.
- snprbob86 17y ago
  "It's just not in their nature to compromise with quality" points to the key distinction here. Apple is more open than most with output, but as closed as they reasonably can be with input. They are the gatekeepers for their ecosystem.
- jeremychone 17y ago
  Not exactly. The console market was already closed. The mobile market was opening up. Windows Mobile, Palm, J2ME devices lead the way of openness by allowing users to install new application on their devices as they did on PC. This was quite step forward given the fact that service providers wanted to charge for everything. And here we go, Apple with their cute bouncing pixels comes and tells us that we need to live in a world where only one organization can decide what application we can use. And while everybody argue about applications should have been approved or not, nobody is asking the right question "do we want a gate keeper or not?". This is a huge step backward in the software industry. But somehow, people think that innovation is about flying pixels and forget that the ecosystem around a product is as important as the product in itself.
  - tjogin 17y ago
    Do you seriously think that "cute bouncing pixels" is what made the iPhone the fastest selling piece of consumer electronic of all time? No, of course not! That's just silly. Clearly, the iPhone has a number of very attractive attributes, as is evident not only from the fact that it's selling unprecedentedly well, but also from the fact that it's changed the direction of the entire industry. Apple made a number of choices with the iPhone, and certainly they can't be all that bad, given the phenomenal success they've had. Even if you just limit the argument to the AppStore, the fact that they've also had unprecedented success in bringing developers on board should give you a hint or two that it's not as one-sided as you make it out to be. Before you can bring anything constructive to a discussion on this subject, you really need to stop lying to yourself. Take a sober look at the choices Apple has made, and realize that each of them has both advantages and disadvantages.
    - jeremychone 17y ago
      Ok, not only "cute bouncing pixels." I think that 3 things made Apple the kind of the smart phone market: 1) Great product ahead of any other existing product at the time (not anymore though). 2) Understand that the mobile market value chain was vastly different than the PC one and architected a platform that would be attracting existing market players while creating a exclusive new market for themselves (this was so bold and smart). 3) Steve Jobs genius. Now, the only thing that scares me is that they did it in the most proprietary way that any software companies have ever dare doing. Apple is the living proof that openness is not a required ingredient to create new technology based markets. So, again, kudos to Apple to revolutionize a market that have been frozen for years. However, they are doing it in such as way that it could set a very bad precedence to the software industry. I do not want to have to go through a iMicrosoftStore to publish my Windows application, a iGoogleStore to publish a Web Site, a iAndroidStore to publish a mobile application. I have nothing against software stores, but they should be optional not required.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
silvestrov 17y ago
What matters is that the items Apple hangs the "open source" sign on are the fundaments. MS not so. e.g. Apple has open sourced the core OS and WebKit (Safari's html engine). MS has open sourced neither. Nokia uses WebKit. Android does. etc. Nobody uses IEmobile unless forced to. Oh, and didn't MS actually pull the iStore scam with Zune, and only lost due to low markedshare of the Zune and being unable to come to proper terms with the RIAA because MS was too focused on DRM?
- jeremychone 17y ago
  Well, iPhone is the only platform where the OS Vendor solely choose what application can be distributed or not. This is what I am against.
  - rpledge 17y ago
    That isn't true: Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo control what software can be run as well. They always point to the crappy titles that the Atari 2600 ended up with and claim quality control. Not that I necessarily disagree with you though
    - jeremychone 17y ago
      Again, those have always been closed system. Mobile was opening up, and Apple is closing it back.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  Apple has open sourced the core OS and WebKit I thought WebKit was Open Source before Apple used it to build Safari?