Slashdot Mirror
Apple Losing Touch With the OS Community?
InfoWorldMike writes to tell us that InfoWorld's Tom Yager recently had the chance to sit down and chat with Apple about their closing the OS X Kernel. From the article: "The Mac platform is an overflowing basket of raw materials for innovators and creators of all stripes. It's what Steve Jobs would fantasize about if he still worked out of his garage, and you can bet that he'd be livid to find that the vendor locked some portion of his chosen platform behind a gate without a word of notice or explanation."
Oh, and nice headline. I'd even go so far as to call it a sensational headline. You get a slow clap.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Personally I find Apple very much like Microsoft. They are trying to take over as "King of the Lock-in Mountain". Go European countries that are bitchslapping them.
I will stick with OSS thanks.
Well we will always have Linux/BSD. I mean that is why they became so popular in the first place, because people wanted to kernel hack. You want to be all practical and have pretty graphics get a Mac. You want to have fun rewriting the driver stack install something open source, it's that simple.
Philosophy.
I doubt Steve Jobs would have been the one to get upset about thing being closed off, since very little of the actual innovation, creative, and design work ever was his. I can see Steve Wozniak getting ticked off about it, but I imagine he'd hack away anyway.
Jobs may be great at pushing the designers to do more, but he was NOT the one who did most of the hacking. He even exploded when Woz asked if he could help with the Apple's analog port.
This is not different than how Apple has always approached things. They have always been about form and function. Developing the next killer app or killer hardware. And making everything as proprietary or closed as possible.
Doesnt matter how stubborn it may seem at the time and goes against potential profits or their customer base, its just classic Apple thinking.
While people may remark that Jobs should be thrilled at their level of success and want things opened up or looking towards Mac's as a game machine, or whatever else it may be. This was more Woz's thinking not so much Job's. Job's has always been the suit side of it all, that happens to be in jeans and loafers.
Yeah, since Apple used parts of BSD people think it's as free and open, but anyone who knows what's up knows this is not the case. Sure, Darwin is available, but how is that comparable with OS X? It's not. The base, sure, but anything above 'ls' and you're not in an enviroment that even tries to be similar; it feels like lip service only. The 'closing' of the kernel (many things have been written to prove/disprove this actually happened) is just going to end up being Apple protecting its marketing edge; if the src was available all of a sudden 'free' versions of OS X would appear everywhere, and since they run on Intel now they could/would be running on any x86 box. No, they wouldn't run as smooth, which would again damage Apple's cred as having a 'rock solid' OS. Let's not forget the 'hook' (aka hardware) would be cut out of the loop too, so I think this discussion goes more along to the 'apple should release OS X for general x86 boxen' that failed to solve anything last year.
fak3r.com
IMHO, OS-X is pretty much a closed operating system at this point. All of the innovation is dictated by Apple. BTW, I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but I do believe that Apple can not claim that OS-X has the benefits (and downsides) of open source development.
but when exactly was Apple ever 'in touch' with the OS Community?
At one point it was cool to have a PowerBook to do unix dev on, but the quality of Mac hardware has plummeted now that they have been forced to turn to Intel for chips and I don't see many people rushing to trade in their existing non-Mac hardware.
With how fast Ubuntu with the new accelerated desktop is coming up to speed, I don't think I even care about OS X anymore outside of the more ascetically pleasing UI elements.
FTFA, It's not about code. It's about character.
It's also about money. Yager states that he believes Apple will open the OS back up again (eventually), and I'd have to agree. A running theme in economics is that investment (in technology) leads to increased capital. I believe the main reason that the Linux community enjoys so much capital right now is because of the years of investment. That investment was at the cost of human labor and hard work by the OSS community!
When Apple realizes that free (as in beer) investment into their business (by the OSS community) actually has a bottom dollar impact on capital, the lock on the kernel will fly open pretty quickly.
It's a non-story being touted by yet another tech columnist who's realized that pushing mac users' buttons generates site traffic. Indeed his fraction of a fraction geeks don't outweigh the larger fraction of geeks who want to use Darwin to port/pirate OS X to generic X86 hardware. Like is or not, Apple is still a business, and their goal is to make money.
My understanding was that they cannot guarantee an OSX compatible open source darwin kernel. Wouldnt this be more along the lines of a fork as opposed to being evil?
He sat down with Apple, yet he has no quotes. 95% of the "article" is his own speculation. I'm betting the 5% paraphrased from the alleged talks comes from his own mind, too.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple happens to have an incredibly great OS and great consumer and pro apps, but when it comes to what butters Apple's bread it's all about the hardware. Apple is not, nor will it ever likely be, a software company.
Does opening the source for OS X sell more Apple hardware? Obviously not, since it allows people to use OS X on non-Apple machines. That's not in Apple's interest, and that's why they're making that more difficult to do. Apple is first and foremost a business, and no smart business would cannibalize itself to pick up a market that they don't need.
People who are dogmatic about OSS have plenty of choices in the market. Apple just isn't one of them. Somehow, I doubt Steve Jobs really loses sleep over such a small part of the market.
Personally, I don't quite get it, but this move of Apples clearly should NOT offend BSD license advocates since that is exactly what they stand for.
I think this is a perfect example of some of the tensions within the open source community too, and a key differtiator between the positions of the FSF (Stallman's group who advocates GPL-like philosophies) and the OSI (who has people like ESR who often advocate BSD over GPL tend to like it when companies like Apple do this).
To summarize, I'd say that Free Software advocates will criticize Apple's move, but Open Software Initiative advocates will hold it up as a prime example of business and open source playing nicel togehter.
I'm sorry to say this, but this is BSD's 'fault'. They put the kernel under the BSD license - a license that allows for this to happen.
In my opinion, this is why the BSD license is bad. However in many other people's opinion this is why the BSD license is good - because it gives you the freedom to fork and close source it.
Whether it's better to have the 'freedom for the code' (GPL, LGPL somewhat, etc) or the 'freedom for the person' (BSD) is of course a personal opinion.
Steve Jobs despites all of his personality flaws, understands that much of Apple's value comes from software , not the expensive dongles they passed off as products. Locking down the OS and services to prevent... compatibility with "unauthorized platforms" is absolutely essential in maintaining that value.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Apple has finally mounted a head-to-head challenge with Microsoft (see the new commercials). Microsoft is struggling to get features into Vista that Mac OS X has had from the beginning. Does anyone really think that Microsoft would resist taking advantage of an open source Intel-based kernel if it could help them solve the mountain of problems under which Windows is buried?
Microsoft has taken advantage of Apple's innovation before and thrived in doing so. I think it's prudent for Apple to keep its guard up and its kernel safely locked away until it has enough momentum and market share to make it a smart move.
I imagine that Microsoft's first look at a MacBook made them feel like Apple felt when it got its first look at Windows 98; "Holy shit!"
What "gives" is that they make their profit on their hardware. If they went into the generic OS business they'd go out of business quite quickly, because all the people currently in-the-know enough to want OS X on their computers are probably largely the same segment that don't want to PAY for it. What does Apple gain by releasing a generic x86 version of OS X? Maybe a few people buying it, a much LARGER number pirating it, and dramatically reduced hardware sales. AKA Bankruptcy. You have a choice--you can support Apple's business and continued development of their "better OS" by buying the hardware that finances it, or you can keep using Windows/Linux/what-have-you on your generic box. But don't act like Apple OWES you something just because you want it and are unwilling to front the cash to get the option that actually supports.
"Damn you Apple! I want to use your OS! STOP MAKING IT HARD TO SWITCH!!!!!"
One question: Are you going to PAY (as in money) for Apple's O.S. or are you just going to copy it from a friend?
The bottom line, it's about profit. Apple has no incentive to open up their O.S. for free. If Apple can't make a profit off it, what's the point? Nothing stops you from purchasing a new Mac. That's Apple's bread and butter, computer sales. You want to switch, buy a Mac. You could probably buy a new Mac cheaper than switching to Windows Vista.
It's not hard to switch. Apple is a hardware company first and foremost. Buy a MacBook or a Mac Mini and get the best of both worlds.
If you want to stay with your Dell or Gateway box, load SuSe or Ubuntu. Much of the advantages to OS X is the tight integration between hardware and software. You just won't get the same benefit by loading it on to some crappy WallMart box. Contrary to some people's beliefs, you don't have a right to load OS X on any computer you like. It is a proprietary piece of software and buying Apple's hardware is part of the deal. If you don't like it, use OSS on your beige-box.
BTW, this was written on a Dell running SuSe 10.1 -- sitting next to my MacBook Pro dual-booting WinXP and Tiger.
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
Apple hasn't released the kernel for x86...YET. See this forum post from a Apple Employee:
/ msg00105.html
http://lists.apple.com/archives/Fed-talk/2006/May
In my opinion if I had to put companies on a list, Apple would stil be high on my openess with developer list. At least Apple has all of the developer tools (Xcode and others) free for the taking. You still have to pay Microsoft to write programs for windows unless it's a batch file.
Gorkman
Proprietary OSX should be expected now that Apple has gotten all it can out of the BSD code base. Let it be a lesson to the Free Software Community about the dangers of BSD style licenses. It encourages opportunism. Theo's rant earlier today is a further example.
an ill wind that blows no good
The platform sells well to people who want a Unix, not people who want to hack the OS.
What about people who want to hack up an OS using a Mac? (raises hand) Believe it or not, cross compiling to the x86 platform using a PPC Mac and QEMU actually works. It's actually a better development environment than Windows, because you don't have to work around Windows' lack of Unix tools.
If you're weird like me, check out the OS FAQ for information on creating your own operating system, including the building of a cross-compiler. Bonefide also has some great tutorials on getting going with your operating system construction project.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Wow. This post seems so on-topic, yet strangley makes no specific statement about Apple's actions. Almost as if Mr kronnek had this in a clipboard buffer and pastes it into every "Apple did something bad" story.
Look, I've been a window user for years... I just don't understand AppleThe second, hence the first. Many people do not understand Apple, particularly her fans.
They have vision, ideas and a damn good OS. Why do they keep shooting themselves in the foot? Mac users must be frusterated because of the one step forward and then five steps back Apple keeps taking.s/Apple/Microsoft .. Or even s/Apple/Linux sometimes.
Why not keep it open, what are they afraid of, people actually using their desktop?Yes, the WAVES OF USERS just waiting for Apple to open their source code so they can use their OS would surely end any financial or marketing problem Apple has never had.
I just wish Apple would realize that there is a secondary OS niche that needs to be filled and if they just jump into it they might come up as winners...They're right there, in the secondary OS niche you speak of. They make a bit of money with it, its users are very happy and loyal. No one switches back.
When there's an opportunity to be taken they back off. They avoid conflict.... WHY?!?!?This opportunity you speak of is a chimera.
Damn you Apple! I want to use your OS! STOP MAKING IT HARD TO SWITCH!!!!!When you have to upgrade your laptop next year, buy a MacBook. They'll have all there technical issues worked out by then and should be pretty slick, as well as competitive with any laptop you might want to buy from Dell or Sony (excluding those bizzare coupon deals). Oh and it'll run the Windows you seem to be invested in, despite your exaspiration with the closed-source OS X.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
To sum up Apple's objections, they felt I had given a year-old story a fresh coat of paint and sensationalized it for an audience that wasn't affected by it.
:-)
Yep, that pretty much sums it up.
To date, the only official response has been:
Just to be clear, Tom Yager was *speculating* about why we have -- so far -- not released the source code of the kernel for Intel-based Macintoshes. We continue to release *all* the Darwin sources for our PowerPC systems, and so far has released all the non-kernel Darwin sources for Intel.
Nothing has been announced, so he (and everyone else) certainly has the right to speculate. But please don't confuse "speculation" with "fact."
Thanks,
-- Ernie P.
Ernest N. Prabhakar, Ph.D. (408) 974-3075
Product Manager, Open Source & Open Standards; Mac OS X Product Marketing
Apple Computer; 303-4SW 3 Infinite Loop; Cupertino, CA 95014
and a response to a private message I sent:
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 12:08:45 -0700
From: Ernest Prabhakar
To: Dave Schroeder
Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] Apple [may not open] OS X Kernel for Intel
Hi Dave,
On May 21, 2006, at 11:41 AM, Dave Schroeder wrote:
When *will* something regarding a xnu source release on x86 be announced?
I know you probably can't answer this, so it's somewhat of a rhetorical question, but seriously: the lack of release of source for xnu on x86 represents a significant change in strategy to some customers with no corresponding announcement or roadmap. When will concerned customers be informed as to what is happening?
Generally speaking, when a final, irreversible decision has been made, we will find
_some_ way to let affected customers know about it.
If nothing else, the very fact I am telling you to *not* assume that something is true,
means *I* don't believe it is true.
-- Ernie P.
Seriously, might there be kind of a, you know, huge developer conference coming up in a month and a half or so here where some of these questions might be answered? Especially since Tom Yager's speculation is just that - speculation - and extremely old news at that? Is it any wonder that both of Yager's articles are under "Opinion" headlines?
It's not like the concept of take over and control is limited to software. This is fundamental human behavior. Anyone ever hear of the Roman Empire?
I don't understand why everyone bitches so much when a corporation makes a strategic decision that takes them one step closer to market dominance.. If it's really that bad. If it is that bad, you should go make your own OS/mega-corporation that will be better than the one you are bitching about. You aren't elite because you compile and you aren't elite because you're an arm-chair business strategy professor... If you really knew better, you wouldn't be here complaining about it know would you?
/rant
Apple will release the kernel code when Vista comes around. They are just so sick of Microsoft copying them they'll wait till vista is out and done...
I know, it may take some time...
---
Donde Ser Geek No Duele
Donde Ser Geek No Duele
These seem like questions marketing would ask. People that are actually in charge of OS X's development wouldn't need to ask these questions because they would understand the reasons why people would want the kernel's source code.
At any rate, we still don't know why Apple hasn't released the source yet (or if they will at some point). There are some hints that there might be Intellectual Property issues involved. This post on one of Apple's Darwin mailing lists indicates that there are IP issues that precluded the release of one of their Intel ethernet drivers. If the Intel Kernel contains licensed code from Intel (for TPM or EFI or something else) or licensed code for Rosetta then they might have problems releasing the code.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
The Simple Part
Darwin is still open source, except for the x86 kernel (XNU).
This is meant to slow down / stop wholesale use of OSX on generic x86 hardware.
Everything else, including the PPC source for XNU is right there, open and available to developers. I browsed it mere minutes ago.
Apple still hasn't said that this is the final disposition of the x86 kernel, but it's what they have for now.
The Part Tom's Making Complicated
Tom's invoking everything short of motherhood and apple pie (sorry) over this.
He imagines and carries the standard for legions of people who want to compile custom x86 Darwin kernels.
(Isn't this the very definition of astroturfing - "a few people discreetly posing as mass numbers of activists advocating a specific cause"?)
He seems to claim customizing the kernel is Very Important, Real Soon, for those who simply want to, and for those who want to optimize some custom servers and thin clients / workstations that he imagines Apple will be releasing in the future.
Maybe they will. If so, they'll figure it out.
But so far, no pitchforks or torches have been spotted on Mariani Ave.
Take his argument to the logical extreme and Apple lets everyone run OSX on anything they want.
That would be Bad for the future of Apple.
He does seem to say there's some magical way for Apple to have it both ways, but doesn't say how.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
"...without a word of notice or explanation."
Try: too many people hacking OS X to run on PCs.
This is the issue, right here. Apple used the open source community for attention and went ahead and dumped on them with nary a word from any of the people that covered how innovative Darwin was when it was released as open source in the first place.
A fair number of people choose to work for Apple rather than some other Silly Valley company because they're a "cool company" who did things like open source the guts of their OS. What should someone in their position think after this kind of stunt?
More alarming to me than the kernel being closed is that they didn't release any of the core source until people started complaining. Even the parts of the OS that are most useful for tinkering were an afterthought for Apple.
Wrong. Just wrong.
PowerPC wasn't cutting the mustard, otherwise Apple would still be using them. We were still stuck with bloody G4s in the laptops. Thanks to heat, they were one generation behind. With x86 Apple doesn't have to focus on hardware development and they don't have to play magic numbers to try and convince people a crappy G4 is somehow more powerful than what Intel is offering. With Intel, there is no concern as to whether they'll be around tomorrow and with the hard competition from AMD, it's a no brainer that they have to improve. On top of that, if Intel starts to go sour, there's nothing stopping them from going with AMD since there are multiple contenders in the x86 world.
Moving to Intel has allowed dual booting Windows and much improved VMs to work with Windows since the hardware no longer has to be emulated. This gets rid of a major road block for a lot of people and why I was able to sell a major client of mine on the idea of using a Mac instead of a new PC.
A Mac can run pretty much everything under the sun now, plus OS X is awesome. Seriously, PowerPC was a dead zone, just like Motorola before it. Apple no longer has to concern itself with a company that's too busy working on "other things" to update their processor line. Intel gives Macs more power, less power consumption, more versatility and more value than IBM ever could.
Who is Apple's target market? I think the only reason they even try to appeal to geeks is because they can use the word "UNIX" like some kind of geek mating call. Aside from that they've really got nothing geeky in their linup. It's all posh bling. Look at the PC vs Mac adverts - it's all about easy to use and does the things a basic user wants to do.
Apple and Jobs don't care that they're losing touch with 'the OS community'. I doubt they ever cared much in the first place. Just enough to get Slashdot to make an Apple section.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Really, am I the only one to perceive Apple as just a facade?
Probably not, there are lots of people without a clue.
I feel it's just a brand name for a target market, absolutely nothing more.
And all of the innovative technology they have created and or popularized was an illusion of some sort?
I still remember the KHTML fiasco (and the lengthy posts about it in Slashdot) when the white knight turned black.
Why don't you bother to go read some informed post about said, issue, you know like what the KHTML people had to say about it? Apple followed their license, used the code, made it better and gave it back. They diverged in purpose quite a bit from what Konquerer wanted, so many of the changes were hard to pull back in or were not wanted. Further, some of the developers did not like the way the code was posted (as a lump) and asked for more granularity and documentation, which the Safari team worked hard to give them. If you had any sort of a clue, you would not pick this example to complain about Apple's behavior.
In every action, every decision I see Jobs as a Gates-wanna-be. It's the same kind of company. I'm not trolling, I'm just trying to understand why Apple is loved so much. Can anyone give reasons, real reasons, for this...
I can give a lot of reasons. They listen to their customers and make products many of us geeks want and make a profit at the same time. They save a lot of us from having to use the abysmal Windows or functionality lacking Linux. They make our lives easier. The most devout Apple fanatic is usually someone who bought their first Apple machine a month ago and is still amazed by how much easier everything is. They can't understand why everyone isn't using it and just want to let everyone know. I've seen it many times.
The enthusiasm of a newbie aside, Apple consistently delivers innovations. I would be very sad to use a primary workstation without system services after Apple supplied them to me. I use them every day and when I use a Linux or Windows machine I feel like I took a step back to a more primitive era. They supply a top notch GUI with real innovations, like expose. They supply a fully functional command line environment that integrates with the graphical UI. They integrate application with one another and they run mainstream software. I can actually invoke photoshop from a usable command line. I can use one program's functionality in another. For example, I can highlight a URL in Safari and use a third party program's ability to automatically generate a bibliography citation from that HTML page and insert it into a book I'm laying out in InDesign. No other OS lets me do that without a bunch of copying and pasting. I have one dictionary. When I teach it that "SNMP" is not misspelled, all my applications know from then on. I could continue, but there is no real point.
If you use OS X for a few months as your primary workstation you will understand why so few people switch back. Naturally, a lot of people like Apple, because Apple gives them this. Now they don't do everything better than others. They are behind MS and Linux in certain areas. They do a lot of things I'm not to fond of and they do a lot of things to try to get a little more money out of people. What they don't do except in one or two very necessary areas is lock customers in and they do a good job of interoperating using standards. For this, a lot of us are appreciative.
I can cite two examples of a "network effect," where FOSS has improved commercial products. One example involves Apple.
1. Embedded Linux has a huge growth rate in mobile handsets and other embedded applications, most of which are big commercial product development projects. These projects benefit from widely available experience with Linux kernel building. Anyone with a spare old PC and the time to read an O'Reilly book (http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/belinuxsys/)can get into configuring and building embedded Linux kernels and persuse and modify source code as much as they like. Contrast this with what it would take for you to get into porting Symbian, or even VxWorks.
2. The Web browser in the Nokia E61 (and probably many upcoming Nokia handsets) is based on WebKit: http://opensource.nokia.com/projects/S60browser/ This means Nokia customers will benefit from having the same HTML engine and Javascript engine as in Konquerer and Safari.
So Linux users may or may not "care" about FOSS, but the elements of the value chain bringing Linux-based and other products that include FOSS certainly do care, and so should Apple. In fact I think the customers will begin to care quite a bit.
If Apple doesn't do all they can to cultivate a FOSS community around MacOS, they are missing a trick. Even if they triple their market share based on iPod users switching, that's still an 8:1 ratio (or worse) of Windows to MacOS in market share. Apple can't afford to stumble the way Sun did in their relations to the FOSS community.
I wrote parts of this stuff
So all you xnu hackers, please stand up and be counted. As I recall, only three people even came close to understanding the kernel bug in the The Mac OS X Expert Challenge. As previously reported on slashdot, "Also looks like other than these guys, nobody got anywhere with the problem.". So much for the myth of the legions of ubergeeks working with Macs.
You lost me on that. The part of the OS that is "most useful for tinkering" is xnu, the kernel. For those who care, the only missing piece right now is xnu; it has not been updated - there is no "afterthought for Apple" (yet).FWIW, xnu from Darwin released before the Intel switch six months ago is still available for Infoworld blogers to recompile to their heart's content.
cheers- raga
The kernel was more open to OSS tweakers when it was not so common knowledge that Macs would eventually run on Intel. It became closed, apparently, after the switchover. How does this make business sense? During the development of OS X, Darwin helped portage of code written to various *nix flavors, to one compatible to be run within OS X. Including truly cross platform stuff that worked on different CPUs. And Old Next wares, etcetera. It increased the possible market for the open source geek, and development flourished. Do you think there would have been nearly as many Cocoa apps if not for the encouragement of this community? The old school PPC developers would have stuck with their legacy C and Carbon code, because, why bother? Now that the kernel is apparently closed (and may have even forked a bit, perhaps dropping some Mach here or there), it may be, now that it is public that intel had to be used as a platform because of supply and other issues, it is more important to keep the kernel stable and closed during the transition, or less prevalent to sabotage from competition. Once the entire mac line is refreshed and another cat is let out of the OS bag, and Boot Camp may become virtualized, the kernel might reopen as a playground. But all I know about kernels deals with fried chicken anyway.
As a number-cruncher, may I politely say that most days, I really don't care. I do care that they provide good math libs (they do), or documentation that helps me optimize my code for their hardware (they do), and hardware that for some combination of price/reliability/speed, performs to my specs (they do). They also provide a good development environmnent that plays well with other compilers, and a good desktop environment that supports both native and legacy (X11) apps, which I can seamlessly link to the HPC side. For the previous generation of processors, there was IBM fortran (which made it easy to go from AIX -> OSX), and now there is Intel Fortran ( Linux -> OSX), both of which are extremely strong performers on their respective processors, and both of which make more difference to my actual runs than would the ability to recompile my kernel from scratch. Neither of those compilers are open-source either, yet we purchase them because their performance is high enough that it outweighs whatever political misgivings we may have.
As you say, the real HPC guys on the nitty-gritty end (people optimizing TCP stacks for high-performance network interfaces, for instance), will sign the NDAs, then those of us in the field will decide whether or not we can use their solution. Whether or not we can get the kernel source code is not going to matter to 98% of us. We ran Irix (closed), UNICOS (closed), AIX (closed), VMS (closed), and Linux (open), and will run OSX whether it's open or closed, as long as we get reliable simulations done in an acceptable amount of time on equipment we can stand to work with.
the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
The fact that the Power PC version is still open and not the Intel makes me wonder if Apple is hoping to keep non-intel OSX freaks at bay a little while longer.
And by "at-bay" I mean several hundred feet below the Golden Gate Bridge...
OS X wouldn't exist without open source software, and huge chunks other than the GUI in OS X are derived from open source software; yet, both Apple and NeXT have given back very little in return--even when the license forced them to open something, what they put up has often been completely useless to the original open source project.
Prior to OS X, Apple for years was shipping a clunky, single-tasking OS when other systems were already robust and multitasking, and at some point, Apple tried (and fortunately failed) at their attempts to shut out all other GUIs from the market.
I don't think Apple has ever been "in touch" with the tech community.