Slashdot Mirror


Apple Platform Lock-Ins, A 3rd Party Dev's Opinion

Iftekhar writes "Wil Shipley, of Delicious Monster fame, has written a very candid essay on what he perceives as Apple's growing trend toward platform lock-ins. He writes: 'Why is the iPhone locked to a single carrier, so I can't travel internationally with it? There's really only one viable reason: Apple wanted a share of the carrier's profits, which meant giving AT&T an exclusive deal. Which meant, we get screwed so Apple can make more money. It's that simple. [...] As Apple gets more and more of its revenue from non-Mac devices, they are also getting more and more of their revenue from devices that simply exclude third parties. Consumers suffer from this. We suffer from increased prices and decreased competition and innovation. We suffer so Apple can make a few more bucks, when Apple is clearly not hurting for money.'"

34 of 411 comments (clear)

  1. So let me get this straight... by ZipR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple is a company that's trying to maximize its profits? Wha????

    1. Re:So let me get this straight... by weirdcrashingnoises · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It could be argued that alternatives (some being less "harmful" to consumer) would actually be better at maximizing profits, than using lock-ins.

      --
      sigs... don't talk to me about sigs....
    2. Re:So let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I mean, seriously, who but Steve Jobs, peace and blessings be upon him, is even remotely qualified to talk about Apple? The rest of us should just wait silently for His Word.

    3. Re:So let me get this straight... by Divebus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Customers are suffering? I've been suffering under Apple for many years and intend to continue, if you call that suffering.

      iPod: Show me another company that develops an enormously popular product then continuously replaces it with major functional extensions and increasingly sexy devices in the face of almost no competition.


      Show me another company with this kind of popular product that doesn't try to leverage the RIAA against its customers. If it was up to any other company, we'd be paying between $2.50 and $4.50 for legal music downloads and be able to listen to them three times - just like the RIAA wants. Oh... wait... no, we'd be getting music from all the torrent sites instead. All of it.


      If anything, Apple is holding the prices down for mainstream music and allowing fair use of music like no other company - and at the same time showing the music industry how to keep EVERYONE from stealing from them. Apple is helping the artists in spite of the RIAA "cut open the golden goose" business model. They even host buckets of indie labels on ITMS.


      However, the original model of encrypted music downloads is now harming the ability to move directly to other music playing devices. That's changing too - if only the record labels would lift the contractual requirement of encryption. Meanwhile, exercise your ability to move the music around with the pathways supplied by Apple in spite of the RIAA protests.


      Even sticking to their guns in the computer industry, Apple is slowly getting noticed as a better choice than Windows. They could have sold out to the mainstream Lemmings but OS X users are almost universally much happier with their machines than Windows users. It's all about principal.

      Customers suffering indeed.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    4. Re:So let me get this straight... by drcagn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Note: I am a huge Apple user; my music player is an iPod, my laptop is a MacBook, and I've stopped building custom PCs so I could buy Apple hardware.

      The iPod is a great mp3 player, but the reason Apple continues to innovate (which it hardly has, except in the case of the iPhone) is not from the kindness of The Steve's heart. Apple does have competition: itself, and if Apple wants to keep selling iPods, it has to innovate against its last generation of players. Oh, and trust me, if we were still stuck in iPod generations of the past, such as before the photo/video support and color screen, there would have been a real "iPod Killer" already.

      Apple has kept prices down and the MAFIAA at bay because its in their advantage if they do. They would prefer to sell a lot of cheap music and make less money per song than they would to sell expensive music, make a little money, pay off the MAFIAA, and then have their music store bomb because of the prices.

      Apple in my opinion is a much better choice than Windows or Linux. I've been on Windows since 3.11, I switched to Mandrake Linux and Gentoo Linux for months, and I had used OS X for months. I eventually switched to OS X and I think OS X makes it worthwhile to stick around with Apple's little annoyances. Yes, Apple is expensive, but if you pay, it Just Works, and that's something I haven't seen anywhere else. But I'm not going to defend some of the shifty shit that they do to make us pay more or lock us in.

      --
      Scorta futuere amo!
    5. Re:So let me get this straight... by DECS · · Score: 4, Informative

      "If you think that people would pay $2.50 for a track, you would be wrong."

      Ever hear about the multibillion dollar ringtone business? Sprint charges $2.50 for a song CLIP that expires after a few months. Verizon charges $3 for the same thing, but they last for a whole year. Verizon uses Microsoft's DRM to accomplish this.

      Had the music industry not been blindsided by Apple's iPod, your Creative Zen and the rest of the Microsoft PlaysForSure players would have weened the world off MP3s years ago and made certain that all commercial popular music was only available in WMA format, which expired at the content providers whim, and was offered for sale at whatever price the high end of the market might bear.

      As for comparing the Mac to the Zune, go back to math class and learn about how percentages are not comparable between numbers. The Zune claims ~3% of the US retail MP3 player market. Apple has 3% of the worldwide market for all servers/desktop computers, a market that is 70 times larger. That's why Apple still makes more money from its 3% share in PCs than its 70% share in players with the iPod.

      Also notice that Apple just grabbed 1.5% of the smartphone market in its debut month, outselling every other model, eclipsing Palm entirely, nearly matching RIM, and biting out a chunk roughly half of Microsoft's entire Windows Mobile licensee pool.

      You might like your Creative Zen, but the company is only a follower behind Microsoft, and supported the plan to homogenize the world being one absolute DRM dictator. It's in your own interests that Apple kicked Microsoft's ass, because otherwise your CDs would have WMA files on them and the only download stores would be Urge and Walmart and other MediaNet supplied DRM subscriptions.

      Forbes Prints Insanely Self Serving Attack on iTunes by MediaNet CEO Alan McGlade
      Forbes, best known to many readers as the soapbox Daniel Lyons used to promote--perhaps unwittingly--a pro-Microsoft agenda backing SCO and vilifying Linux and open source, has taken another opportunity to present outrageously false information serving the interests of Microsoft: an impassioned outcry of rage over the success of iTunes.

    6. Re:So let me get this straight... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I suffered through your (possibly anti-Apple) ramblings which had a premise that Apple makes inferior products and therefore must lock-in their current market share while trying to attract new converts. I digested your made up statistics and your conspiracy theories, but quite frankly you keep contradicting yourself. Either Apple has a lock with iTunes OR there are alternatives that are available. You even mention Zune which is another alternative to use.

      So just when I thought that you are a person that thinks Apple products are junk, you blow me away with the following:

      While I do agree that Apple computers are of great quality, the fact that I went with something else rather than a Mac should speak volumes about the way this competition is shaping up.

      So basically you like the "great quality" of an Apple computer, but you are too cheap to spend money on one and you disregard Apple's growing market share and assume everybody is as cheap as you are.

      So let me try to decode your comments above:

      1. You are happy with your current MP3 player, and see no need for any of the bells and whistles that an iPod may have.

      2. Since you have no need for those additional features, you assume no one else desires them either.

      3. You have the personal opinion that Apple makes an inferior product or at least imply that Apple products are inferior.

      4. People other than you buy an iPod and are happy with them, but since you question the quality of an iPod, you assume some lock-in or at least mind control exists.

      5. Price per song is important to you, and you feel comfortable with the fact that price is important to everyone else.

      6. You acknowledge that Apple knows that price is important to everyone, since this is why they try to keep prices at $0.99 per song.

      7. You acknowledge that Apple is not alone with its iTunes services. There are alternatives for independent musicians and you even mention Microsoft Zune.

      8. You discovered that, just like iTunes, Microsoft Media Player allows you to burn CD tracks.

      9. That Apple has a market share inverse proportional to Microsoft. Being that Apple has great market share of music players and a small but growing market share for desktops, and Microsoft has a great market share of desktop machines and a small market share for music players.

      10. Despite your feelings expressed in #3, you really think Apple computers are great but you are too cheap to buy one.

      11. You have the opinion that others are as cheap as you are.

      Did I interpret everything correctly?

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    7. Re:So let me get this straight... by MacDork · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It could be argued that alternatives (some being less "harmful" to consumer) would actually be better at maximizing profits, than using lock-ins.

      it could be argued that you are not the ceo of apple and nor do you have to answer to shareholders.

      It could be that the CEO of Apple was quoted in Businessweek magazine saying almost exactly the same thing GP just said:

      Q: How did Apple recapture its innovative spark?
      A: I used to be the youngest guy in every meeting I was in, and now I'm usually the oldest. And the older I get, the more I'm convinced that motives make so much difference. HP's primary goal was to make great products. And our primary goal here is to make the world's best PCs -- not to be the biggest or the richest.

      We have a second goal, which is to always make a profit -- both to make some money but also so we can keep making those great products. For a time, those goals got flipped at Apple, and that subtle change made all the difference. When I got back, we had to make it a product company again.
  2. Duh by DogDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What an astute essay! Of course, it's about 20 years late, but hey, better late than never, huh?

    Apple has been actively engaging in hardware/software lock-in for 20+ years. Nothing has changed other than this one particular person has started to remove his head from his ass. Yippee.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Duh by Leftist+Troll · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I feel that my OS X coexists with Linux quite happily. [snip] The world would be a better place if there was 6+ apple like companies that all supported the open formats.

      If only Apple would start supporting open formats like ogg and odf, and stop wasting their time trying to sabotage their devices to break Linux compatibility, I would agree with you.

  3. Still... by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...it's Apple's choice. No matter how dumb or greedy it seems. As consumers, we get to vote with our wallets and optionally grumble. Where I live, there's no AT&T, so Apple makes no iPhone sales here. I'd love to buy for my family — that'd be 5 units — but without a carrier, it's just a glorified iPod and there's no point.

    It does sting a little... we've got a lot of Macs between us and consider ourselves loyal Apple customers... oh well.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Still... by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's true and Apple has always sold itself on the premise "buy this thing with the Apple logo and you will be a happier person! And you will have friends too!"

      For many people, the attraction to Apple ends when they find out that they can't easily do something that's important to them. For some, like those people who wear "Abercrombie and Fitch" t-shirts and never realize that it's just an ordinary t-shirt, are happy because someone told them they would. [Think placebo effect] (Yes, there is a tiny minority that actually use Apple because they are actually more productive in what they do with it...)

      But by and large, too much of the digital world out there depends on being inter-operable with the larger world which is basically Windows and software written for Windows.

      (FWIW, I don't fit into any of those general categories... I'm a Linux-primarily user... I work with Mac and can hack on it pretty good... I work with Windows because I have to. But when it comes to doing the things I want to do, Linux simply works better and safer for me.)

  4. Same reason as hardware lock in by Oz0ne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple when dealing with third parties loses some control over the experience of using their devices.

    They want to minimize this. It's bad enough they have people perceiving the iphone to have problems because of cell service outages, ridiculous billing from at&t, awful customer support at AT&T, etc. Imagine if they were having to fight that battle on more than one front?

    It's silly, because it's not apples fault, but everyone (average consumer) will relate the bad experience to apple even if they are one of the more clear thinking ones.

    Since their inception, they've kept control of their hardware, ensuring a consistent and good experience on their computer. This is their strength over microsoft. This is their strength over Dell. They can give you a good experience and manage it. They don't have anyone else to blame!

    1. Re:Same reason as hardware lock in by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's *definitedly* Apple's fault because they locked the iPhone with AT&T!

      Apple did not want to go into the phone business, but Apple wanted to make the iPhone experience as good as it could get with easy activation with iTunes and some neat features. If Apple wanted to make a phone that was unlocked and maintain a good user experience, they would have to put out a phone with a reduced feature set.

      While I personally would think an iTouch with a generic GSM phone would be a killer product, Apple wanted more. I can't blame them since there was already a failed attempt for an iTune compatible phone from Motorola and nay-sayers would be complaining that Apple didn't innovate enough.

      So Apple was damned if they did and damned if they didn't... If I was going to be damned anyway, I would do what Apple did. Which was to make a product that everyone wants with features that only going with a single carrier can provide.

      Personally, I think that Apple believes that after 2 years, they would have sufficiently proven demand for services to the point that other carriers would have no choice but to make their networks iPhone and iTunes friendly.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  5. So don't buy it. by forsetti · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'Nuff said.

    --
    10b||~10b -- aah, what a question!
  6. Oh, for the love of Jebus by noewun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's really only one viable reason: Apple wanted a share of the carrier's profits, which meant giving AT&T an exclusive deal.

    Oh, Lord. Please point out to me the place in the U.S. where it's easy to buy an unlocked phone and take it from carrier to carrier, cause I'd like to live there. Then maybe I could cancel my contract without an early termination fee and sign up to another carrier without signing a contract. Look, Apple does some stupid shit, but blaming them for the terrible and non-competitive state of the U.S. cel phone industry is just plain stupid. We have, IMO, a de facto telecommunications monopoly in this country, and the reasons for that are a whole lot more complicate than 'Apple is teh sux0r!' The whole essay reads like someone who lives a fair distance from logic. And then there's this:

    But recently, well... the generous view would be that Apple's screwing up. . .

    No, the view among a small percentage of Slashdot posters and some people with blogs is that Apple's screwing up. The view of most rational people is they're doing just fine. Why didn't he just call the essay "I Hate Apple"?

    --
    I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    1. Re:Oh, for the love of Jebus by kamapuaa · · Score: 5, Informative
      In the US, you can easily buy an unlocked phone (Amazon or EBay are good places to look), and any carrier will sell their services without a subscription plan, although they won't advertise it - it's mandated by law. It's also mandated by law that you can hold phone numbers when switching between carriers.

      When I'm in the US, I use an unlocked cell phone bought in a foreign country, and a local GSM card, it's easy. The only thing to watch out for is that the US uses 850&1900 Mhz GSM, most countries use 900&1800. So make sure the phone is at least tri-band, or better yet quad-band.

      Really there's nothing difficult about getting an unlocked phone in the US, it just isn't well advertised. And really it's not a bad deal to get the phone bundled with a long-term contract, if you're going to have to have a cell phone anyway.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  7. keep it in perspective.... by User+956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As Apple gets more and more of its revenue from non-Mac devices, they are also getting more and more of their revenue from devices that simply exclude third parties. Consumers suffer from this.

    I wouldn't refer to anyone that can afford a $600 phone as "suffering".

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  8. Translation by Yurka · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple maliciously wants to keep all the money from their products to themselves, instead of giving some of it to me, the struggling developer. Those filthy rich bastards.

    Look, every purchase, be it a loaf of bread or an iPhone, is an exercise in weighing potential benefits of the thing acquired against the sum of money needed to acquire it. If for you the lock-in is a deal-breaker, don't buy. When enough people do that, Apple will listen. Before that - I wouldn't bet on it.

    --
    I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
  9. Well this is just untrue: by IANAAC · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why is the iPhone locked to a single carrier, so I can't travel internationally with it?

    It's called roaming, and you certainly can with the iphone.

  10. No shit sherlock by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Funny

    You mean the company's first priority is to make money? Say its not so! All this time I thought Apple was around to make people feel all warm and happy inside.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  11. Essay doesn't mention the worst part by mfender9 · · Score: 5, Funny
    I'm surprised the essay doesn't even mention the worst part, which is how Apple is forcing people at gun point to buy their products, so even though there are all of those other options on the market, you have no choice but to be locked into Apple's platform decisions against your will.

    Wait...

  12. Re:Sounds like Microsoft by aristotle-dude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Didn't some judge say that kind of behavior was illegal? Apple has a monopoly on a key business device? Really? Is Apple trying to keep out other cell phone makers out of the market? Are they trying to control a hardware platform/device they did not create? No. Just as with consoles, the maker of the device makes the rules and if you don't like those rules then don't buy the device.
    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  13. And you're still using Apple by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because.... ???

    Look. Go whine somewhere else. You've made your bed, go lie in it.

    --
    Deleted
  14. If you don't like it by LehiNephi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you're a 3rd party developer, then don't develop applications for it. Vote with your wallet. Nobody is forcing you to buy the iPhone. Go buy a different smartphone that allows 3rd-party apps.

    "Consumers suffer from this. We suffer from increased prices and decreased competition and innovation."

    This might actually make sense if this were a necessity of life, but this is a luxury item we're talking about. I give this a big fat "SO WHAT?" What Apple decided to do with the iPhone was a business decision. Business decisions are made based on the potential to make the company money, either in the short- or long-term. Making customers happy is only important to a company when doing so will help the company make money. If a company makes its customers happy but doesn't make a profit, its competitors will drive it into the ground. This is the whole basis for capitalism: if you don't like one company's product, take your money elsewhere. Besides, everyone was warned well in advance that the iPhone would be closed to third-party apps. There was no surprise. Now, if the iPhone had originally allowed 3rd party apps, and then through an update removed that ability, then you would have a cause to complain.

    But the whining I hear day after day about "oh no, the iPhone doesn't do [insert pet feature]! Woe is me!" has long passed the point of "annoying". Face it, even if all the current complaints about the iPhone were resolved, we'd find something else to complain about.

    The instant I heard "We suffer so Apple can make a few more bucks, when Apple is clearly not hurting for money," the article lost all credibility. Nobody is making you suffer. And so what if they have money? Do you know where that money goes? Let's see...it goes to paying all the people who work for the company. It pays the CEO a big fat paycheck, which he then spends on yacht, which creates jobs. Or he invests it, which means that the money goes to fund some other project or initiative which gives other people jobs. Money sitting in a pile does a company no good.

    --
    Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
  15. Re:You know what? by astrashe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That was pretty much my reaction to it as well.

    If you want freedom, go with open source. Write code for linux phones, support that ecosystem, make them better. But don't whine about Apple being what it is.

  16. Not the first intl screwup by also-rr · · Score: 4, Informative

    On powerbooks and macbook pros the wireless card is locked to channel 1-11. This is fine for the US but, unlike other cards, there is no way to unlock it when you go to Europe (where channels up to 13 are used). This can be a major PITA on a customer site... but at least a spare wireless card is cheap, unlike...

    Apple are about the only company that ship the very restricted form of DVD drives. Most will let you read the _data_ from an out-of-region disk, meaning that you can use VLC or another libdvdcss2 solution to play the DVD. The drives that ship with Apple laptops (since late revision powerbooks) totally block reads for out-of-region disks so VLC won't work.

    This sucks as it means that my legally purchased region 2 DVDs won't work. There is now a RPC1 de-region crack for macbook pro drives but it requires a copy of Windows to install.

    So much for it just works. You would have thought their testing would have involved taking one over the pond for a week of business travel.

  17. AT&T is the customer here. by CharAznable · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As an iPhone owner, you are not Apple's customer. You are the product. The iPhone is a device that uses a shiny interface to deliver subscribers to AT&T, who is Apple's true customer in this deal. I've been an Apple user since 1986, but this time I think I'll pass.

    --
    The perfect sig is a lot like silence, only louder
  18. Re:You know what? by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Funny


    You know what? I'm sick of this sort of thing. Guess what guys, Apple is in it for the money!

    The problem is there's a lot of Apple fanboys who are slowly coming to that conclusion, though fighting it tooth and nail. These people believe Apple exists to make them happy, not to make money.

    --
    AccountKiller
  19. Re:You know what? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not about Apple making money. We all know Apple is a company, and companies like money, and I don't think many here would claim that's a bad thing. The point is how Apple is going about it. I use a Mac, and a large part of the reason for that is code written by Wil Shipley and his former employees. Without OmniGraffle and OmniOutliner, I would have a lot less reason to use a Mac. OS X is nice, but it's third party software that makes it really superb. Take that away, and you have a much less useful platform. The more Apple locks down their devices, the less useful they are. My Nokia phone lacks a few features, but I've been able to get third party software that makes up for that. If I replaced it with an iPhone and found it lacked features I need (actually, the iPhone lacks pretty much all of the features I actually use on a phone beyond making phone calls, but that's not the point), then I have no way of adding them. This means that I will not be buying an iPhone, irrespective of how shiny it is. This means that Apple has lost a potential sale due to their lock-in policy.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  20. You could always, you know, NOT get an iPhone... by argent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean, just because Apple makes a product, that doesn't mean you need to get one. If the iPhone provides what you need better than the alternatives, and you don't need what it doesn't provide... go for it. If it doesn't... get something else.

    There's no "platform lock-in" to the iPhone. If there was an iPhone SDK, there would be, but as it is if you don't have an iPhone you can get another phone that can still use all the same third-party content you could if you had one, and if you do you aren't locked into it. This is a different kind of lockin-in, and it's got nothing to do with developers.

    On the iPod...

    Now we see that iPod owners who upgrade to a newer iPod must re-buy the games they've already bought, because the new iPods are incompatible with the old. No credit given for having already bought an identical game.

    Is he talking about games produced by Apple, or games produced by third parties? I don't know, I never bought games for my iPod. I never even considered buying games for my iPod. Why? Because it was obviously a closed system from the start.

    But I did buy some software for my Palm, and had to re-buy some of it when I got a newer PalmOS device, because the older games didn't handle the new screen size. That's not Palm's fault, and I don't blame them for that (and not just because there's enough well-earned blame landing on them as it is).

    And I'm certainly not going to *create* a platform lock-in for them by buying an iPhone and crack into it.

    What should Steve do? Well, for starters, give up on trying to control everything.

    Oh, I can only agree, but Steve isn't going to do that, so my recommendation is to stick to the Mac, ignore the 'appliance' products, and have an exit strategy so you can jump ship if Apple decides they're going to get serious about making the Mac an appliance again. That way we'll never have to put up with 1984 being just like 1984.

    In the meantime, be picky.

    Apple needs to be able to say, "Look, NBC, you want to be dumb-asses and try to sell people crap they don't want, fine -- we're still going to sell iPods that'll play your programs, we just won't sell your programs on the nicest internet store in the world. Your loss, suckers, call us when you change your mind."

    I don't think Apple can say that. Because you will only be able to download those videos to your iPod on Windows: We're Sorry the requested download is unavailable. Downloads are only available to users located in the United States that have a Microsoft operating system and Internet Explorer web browser. Please check back soon for other offers.

    Now *there* is your *platform* lock in.

    I don't write programs for Apple because I worship Apple. I write programs for them because they have the best development environment

    Don't write programs for Apple. Write programs for Macintosh. You can't write programs for Apple's appliances.

    I agree with you, they should make it possible, it wouldn't even be that hard... it'd just be another target option for XCode.

    But Apple's decided they're not interested in selling iAppliances to me, so I'm not going to get one.

  21. Re:Apple == MicROsoft? by Bemopolis · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apple's just Microsoft in cooler clothes. Where does the personification of Linux fit in those clever commercials? Oh, right -- it doesn't fit in a 'commercial' at all.
    Sure, if by 'cooler clothes', you mean a shirt with the proper number of sleeves, and on opposite sides of the shirt; pants that don't have a hole in the crotch, so you aren't a virus magnet whenever you use a chair; and shoes of the correct size that, when you try to put them on, don't ask 'You are trying to don footwear. Cancel or Allow?'

    And, as for where the personification of Linux is, sadly those commercials were not shot in someone's parents' basement.
    --
    "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
  22. Re:You know what? by p0tat03 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll support Linux phones as soon as FOSS figures out how to design a good UI. I'm serious, instead of getting some halfway-decent Photoshoppers to make your icons, why don't you involve some real usability specialists? I really despise the attitude that some FOSS supporters have - the whole "well, the button's right there, n00b" mentality is what keeps Linux an arcade black box that no mainstream user will voluntarily touch.

    Linux needs to stop being feature upgrades and start becoming more cohesive. Why is it called "Synaptic" when it can be called "Package Installer"? In every distro I've used the OS has always felt like components glued together. This doesn't help Linux marketing, especially when a mainstream new user is supposed to magically supposed to figure out that "GIMP" = "Image Editor", and every freaking app has a "K" attached to its name. While I appreciate the need to allow developer freedom for each component, Linux will not be usable until there is a unifying body that can dictate UI design guidelines, icon design guidelines, etc, etc, for all parts of the OS.

  23. So why do we stick with Macs? by theolein · · Score: 4, Informative

    Given how this thread has become an anti-Apple bitch fest, as opposed to an anti-iphone bitch fest:

    I have three Macs, one PPC Powerbook laptop with Adobe CS2 on it for compatibility with work, where they still use CS2 and two Intel Macs with all my development tools and my Adobe CS3 suite. My Macbook dual boots into Windows where I have Office 2003 pro for compatibility with our customers. I also have a Windows machhine at work with XP, Adobe CS2 and a host of other stuff that is very modern, but which I am using less and less.

    Why? I personally am happy with and use Windows, Linux and OSX, so why do I go with the most expensive option?

    Mainly, because OSX is, in our design business, the easiest to use, has the least downtime and is technically optimal for certain things. In terms of ease of use, Mac OSX is very simple compared to XP (or Linux). The configurational options are much easier for the majority of our workers, most of whom are designers, compared to Windows. There are many things in OSX that make a designers life easy, such as the Expose feature, the Zeroconf networking, drag and drop in almost every application, built-in spell checking in all text apps, decent built-in font managment and color sync. Added to that is that fact that modern Intel macs run Windows just fine for those of us who need it for office use or 3D work, and Apple's workgroup servers are many more times easier to use and configure than Windows or Linux machines.

    Another thing is OSX' memory managment and multi tasking. Linux is excellent in this respect as well but Windows really suffers when RAM is almost full, and page swapping begins, and multitasking in Windows is much less smooth than it is in OSX.

    Another thing is that almost all of our fonts are still in the old resource fork format, and although we have some very good font conversion utilities, those fonts often don't work properly on Windows.

    I really prefer Windows XP for smaller tasks as the application startup time and general responsiveness of that OS is generally better than OSX in that case.

    Winodws Vista, however, is a non starter at the moment, even though it improves many issues, including color synchronisation. Its terrible responsiveness on brand new hardware reminds me of OSX back in 2001. It has a whole load of a way to go.

    Linux is still, sadly, a non option in a design agency. Inkscape, the GIMP, Scribus, Blender et al are improving, but until CMYK and color handling are integrated and synchronised, there is no way that they will be of much use there.

    If I were doing anythng else, however, I would probably be using Linux and Windows, although even in major development houses, OSX is starting to become mainstream. Apple's Cocoa/ObjC tools are just as propietry as Microsoft's .Net. There are OSS versions of both (Mono and GnuStep), but neither are of production qualiyt which means that in realiyt, if you want to do cross platform stuff you either go with C++, Java or one of the scipting languages like Python.