Slashdot Mirror
Is Apple The New Microsoft?
Varg Vikernes writes "Even if you don't count Apple's actions this week as a potential threat to first amendment rights (Apple's crackdown on Web sites that love the company), they do nothing to bolster Apple's public image. In fact the company's success of late has yielded accusations of bullying and potentially unlawful business tactics, along with complaints about the fact that songs purchased from its iTunes music service don't work with music players other than its own. According to Forbes, to some these tactics sound like something Apple's neighbor to the North might employ. They wonder aloud Is Apple the New Microsoft?
iTunes Music Store purchases can of course be burnt to CD, at which point they can play on just about anything.
There's a difference between not supporting rival products any more than you have to and actively looking for ways to smash the opposition. Has Apple got a track history of screwing over competitors as Microsoft has done with Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect, DR-DOS, OS/2, etc, etc, etc?
Pullying the clones was a sensible move. Rather than expanding the marketshare of Apple's OS by attracting Windows-based users to the MacOS fold, all the clones succeeded in doing was stealing hardware sales from Apple itself, which was harming Apple's income. The clones experiment was too little too late to make any dent in the Windows juggernaut and was hurting Apple more than it was helping it, so it had to end.
Apple not making a deal with BeOS was a decision that was based on several factors. One of which was the price - neither side really wanted to budge from their view of what the OS was worth - and another was the reappearance of Steve Jobs, who clearly favoured an OS based upon NeXT's OS, whether for technical reasons or personal vanity and vindication. Be could have easily cut a deal before Jobs was back on the scene, but they played hardball a little too hard and ended up with nothing.
As for Apple's stores in the UK undercutting UK resellers, well, I've talked to a manager at one of Apple's biggest UK retail resellers (Micro Anvika) and he said business was booming, even with the Apple London Store only a mile or so away from his company's flagship stores in Tottenham Court Road, so it's hardly as if Apple's UK resellers are crying about it. If anything, Apple's new retail presence and elevated brand awareness has reinvigorated the market, and encouraged resellers to improve on their value-add, which is no bad thing from a consumer point of view.
Even so, some of the biggest competition the UK resellers face is the disparity between Apple's UK and US pricing: it's long-established fact that it's considerably cheaper to buy a round-trip ticket to New York and pick up a PowerBook there than it is to buy the same PowerBook in the UK.
Is Apple a wannabe monopolist? Probably, yes. Which company isn't? But nothing it's done so far or anything that you've mentioned in your post is evidence of any monopolistic policy on Apple's part.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
The only reason the PC became the defacto standard was because they didnt kill off their clones.
:)
Apple even without windows would not dominated because Apple in the 80s and early 90s was DUMB!
It is likely another company would have created a GUI system for the PC even if microsoft didnt. An example being GEOS which came out BEFORE windows for the Commdore 64. Geos was ported to the PC about the same time as Windows came out...had there been no windows it is likely GEOS would have become the defacto GUI for DOS based systems. In such an event...GEOS and either Microsoft or DRDOS would have merged.
and Voila... GEOS 95.
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/standalone /
Quicktime Standalone, still available.
OK, so hinting and anti-aliasing are different things. You can use both, or none, or one of either, it doesn't matter.
Hinting is about correctly grid fitting the pixels. It can (and should) be used at any size, but is most noticable at small sizes (which is most text on a computer screen). If you want to see text that isn't hinted, look at this.
So to say "hinting is ugly" is not correct: hinting by itself modifies glyph shapes, for the better (that's why people want it). As you can see from the picture, unhinted text is very ugly indeed - unpleasant to read in fact. What you probably mean is that some people don't like anti-aliasing. On Windows it's off by default,on Linux it's on but you can disable it globally very easily, and on MacOS X you cannot disable it without special purpose hacks that often break when you upgrade.
FreeType is capable of anti-aliasing and also using TrueType hinting, which it can do in one of two modes: automatic and by using the data embedded in the fonts. In automatic mode it tries to guess based on the shapes of the glyphs. The algorithms used are fascinating and developed specifically for FreeType, to work around the patent. However the autohinter doesn't always get it right so FreeType can also use the real hinting engine it is supposed to use, if you have a license.
"Font smoothing" is just another way of saying anti-aliasing, except in that thread you linked to where they appear to be using it to refer to what is normally known as sub-pixel anti-aliasing which exploits properties of how pixels are laid out on LCDs to make it look better. Microsoft calls this "ClearType". FreeType can do this too.
In short: hinting and anti-aliasing/smoothing are different things, which have different purposes. It's possible to have one without the other.
I'm tired of people saying there are no compatible mp3 players. Here's the list, straight from Apple
iPod - Apple
Nomad II - Creative Labs
Nomad II MG - Creative Labs
Nomad II c - Creative Labs
Nomad Jukebox - Creative Labs
Nomad Jukebox 20GB - Creative Labs
Nomad Jukebox C - Creative Labs
Novad MuVo - Creative Labs
Rio One - SONICBlue/S3
Rio 500 - SONICBlue/S3
Rio 600 - SONICBlue/S3
Rio 800 - SONICBlue/S3
Rio 900 - SONICBlue/S3
Rio S10 - SONICBlue/S3
Rio S11 - SONICBlue/S3
Rio S30S - SONICBlue/S3
Rio S35S - SONICBlue/S3
Rio S50 - SONICBlue/S3
Rio Chiba - SONICBlue/S3
Rio Fuse - SONICBlue/S3
Rio Cali - SONICBlue/S3
psa]play 60 - Nike
psa]play 120 - Nike
SoundSpace 2 - Nakamichi
CD MP3 Players
RioVolt SP250 - SONICBlue/S3
RioVolt SP100 - SONICBlue/S3
RioVolt SP90 - SONICBlue/S3
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Hard drive mp3 players existed for a year before the iPod and they consisted of two models:
The Creative Nomad, 14oz, 5"x5"x1.5"
The PJB100, 10oz, 6"x4"x1"
Apple released the iPod and made it a consumer object, rather than a geek object. Apple changed the entire market! Before Apple they were:
Large (bigger than a paperback. Now all of them, LIKE the iPod, are smaller than a deck of cards)
Heavy (at 10oz or more. Now all of them weigh less than 6oz)
Slow (using USB 1. Now all of them, just like the iPod, use USB2 or FireWire)
They were good for cars, good for work, good for train trips, and good for airplanes, before Apple got a hold of them. After Apple they became good for walking, roller blading (yes I have rollerbladed with iPods), working out at the gym, anywhere.
It was like the difference between a desktop and a laptop, in mobility.
The same with music stores. Before the iTMS, there were NONE that let you burn to CD. NONE that let you upload to an mp3 player. NONE that let you listen on multiple computers. NONE that let you back the music up. You say, "In the works", and I say, "Quickly saw what Apple did and tried to match them."
The only other player besides Apple who has made any money off Open Source would be... IBM. Red Hat hardly makes money, GNU and Apache aren't profit centers.
Here's the initial announcement and response about Safari's use of KHTML, with positive response from developers.
This suggests developers haven't been able to keep up with Apple's changes, which makes sense; a handful of developers working full time on anything can outstrip hundreds of developers working part time over weekends and evenings.
As for gcc, the idea is to search gcc-patches and look for apple.com addresses. Searching Google shows over 6k hits, though I'm sure some of them are duplicates. Some Apple devs maintain special branches (for example, in implementing ObjC specific features) while others contribute fixes, or add Altivec/VMX specific patches.
Where do you get your info that Apple ISN'T contributing?
GPL Deconstructed
I'm still waiting for them to submit Objective C++. As a matter of fact, one of the first successful FSF legal actions was forcing NeXT to release the source code to their GCC derivative.
This statement is misleading in several important respects.
First, NeXT's original plan to develop a variant preprocessor for the gcc toolchain and maintain it independently was indeed incompatible with the copyleft. However, it did not result in legal action. NeXT was informed about how and why it was incompatible and subsequently released the code. There was no law suit or formal legal action taken at all.
Also note that this was over 15 years ago, before even the BSD 4.4 source code was publicly freed in the law suit between the Regents of the University of California and AT&T. NeXT could not even share their changes to the BSD 4.3 kernel to anyone without a valid Unix Source License.
Regarding the subsequent divergence of the FSF and NeXT/Apple objective-c, it appears that the problem rests squarely with the FSF. The gcc maintainers have repeatedly rejected '#import' and other architectural features which are pretty major. They also deliberately allowed several aspect of the underlying runtime to diverge from the NeXT base because they either rejected or even backed out changes proposed by NeXT/Apple developers.
The code is there for all to see in the Apple branches published in Darwin. Apple developers propose changes to the primary gcc source tree, and argue for their adoption, but are often rebuffed.
I think that support for Frameworks, even for plain C, would benefit both Linux and BSD tremendously. However, unless gcc developers accept those changes they will remain unavailable.
Search the gcc developer mailing list over the past 5 years for discussion of Apple submitted changes, if you don't believe me.
Denial, "not just a river in Egypt". What a load of horse hockey.
You provide links to evidence which appears to justify the opposite conclusion.
Your first link, http://dot.kde.org/1097096753/1097113373/ is an email asking about what's going on with merging Apple changes back into KDE. The immediate reply states:
To me this suggests that apple added so much code to KHTML/KJS that it made more sense architecturally to split them into two frameworks "WebCore" and "JavaScriptCore", These are still released in their entirety under the GPL. There are so few developers on the KHTML side that they have been unable to keep up with the changes. Seriously, how is that Apple's fault?
Forking happens all the time. It would take far more effort and money for apple to continue to backport changes piecemeal to the KHTML/KJS trees than to fork the distribution. The sensible approach would be for the KHTML/KJS team to accept the architectural changes and simply start using the WebCore and JavaScriptCore, which is cleaner, better maintained, and of higher quality due to all the work Apple has done. Rather than grouse about how much effort it takes to backport changes piecemeal, why not adopt the superior libraries which Apple has produced and continue to improve them?
NIH syndrome works both ways.
The final link you give is entirely out of context. You state that Apple recommended doing a diff to see what has changed. Actually, the wording was "The best way to see every change line by line is to diff against the originals.". Immediately following, was about 14 pages (in my browser) of itemized descriptions of the changes performed, organized by functional description, subdirectory or even by function call.
Thus, your assertion is at least deliberately disingenuous, if not an outright lie.