Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer Pleads For Openness To Compete With Apple
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?"
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.
Microsoft did all the things listed out of necessity. That was the innovation for PC industry to move further. Where as Apple is stiffling the innovation. They are the bad guys. They need to open their system. You cannot expect the same from MS because we are dealing with two different kinds of environment and goals. GO Ballmer be the champion for openness and also 3Es (Embarce, Extend and Extingush) PS: Can you please mail me whatever that you are smoking?
Whats next, asking Linux kernel maintainers to drop all these closed source binary blob drivers.
839*929
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
Developers, developers, developers, developers!
Yeah, open like a venus flytrap
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
I'm just wondering, are Microsoft so delusional that they don't see themselves doing exactly the same thing? Are they really that stupid?? Or is it just a case of 'do as I say, not as I do', and expect everyone else to blindly follow them? In any event, they really have gall suggesting something like this.
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
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.
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
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.
This is my sig.
How long did I sleep for? Is it April 1st already?
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.
He may be right that the iPhone store and Apple need to practice more openess, but it also doesn't change the fact that he is a hypocrite.
Suck a bag of dicks, Ballmer.
No.
So....No.
And so with your help, Mr. and Ms. Executives...
I'll cut off Apple's air supply, too!!!
*attendees dodge barrage of flying chairs*
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 the sugar that moves hardware. Choice in software is antithetical to their existence, much more than it is to Microsoft.
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?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
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?)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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.
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.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Never thought I would say this, but Go Apple!
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.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Just because Ballmer's a hypocrite doesn't mean that he's wrong by definition, or excuse the actions of other companies. However, he needs to clean up his own act first if he wants any credibility...
... because my wallet has a court injunction against me setting foot anywhere near an iPhone with a for-sale sign on it!
Apple is a publicly traded company and their only real obligation is making a profit for their shareholders. Yes that means facing some inconvenient truths about Apple like making iPods in the third world and being one of the most ungreen companies ever (to their credit they seem to be working on this). They also do a fair amount of lock in like closing Darwin (What? No one screaming about this? Yeah that's what I thought). In short, corporately speaking there isn't a difference between Microsoft and Apple.
Apple and Microsoft are both publicly traded companies and if Apple has a better product (which they do IMHO, I own a few MacBooks) then no problem. Apple shouldn't be afraid of competition.
It's important to not let the "Microsoft is Evil" and the Hipster-Doofus lovefest for Apple cloud the real issues.
Um, like this one ?
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Apple would probably just love to split the pie with Microsoft and enjoy a cozy duopoly. After all, both companies make their profits based on being as proprietary as they can get away with.
If Ballmer is really interested in openness, he can have that tomorrow: adopt Android, adopt SyncML, drop other proprietary protocols, open source .NET, etc.
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. =)
+1 Informative Acronym FTW!
Was that the phraseology Back In The Day, or your cleverness?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
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.
In what manifesto is it written that this is anyone's dream or desire?
Apple fanboys are fanboys because they think that the company does things well--for some definition of "well". MS fanboys are fanboys because they Microsoft is doing things well. Linux/BSD/Solaris fanboys are fanboys because....
I used to use OS/2 but switched over to Linux (RH 3), and then went over to (Free)BSD. I now prefer to use Macs at home, and like Solaris 10 on servers at work (though I miss the Ports).
As each system (and the entire eco-system) changed different things were 'better' than anything else out there. While I'm sure the UI of Mac OS 8.x and 9.x were nice, without decent multi-tasking it was useless to me. When Mac OS 10.2 finally came out things had improved enough that I made the jump (and I probably wouldn't have if there wasn't a POSIX layer available).
People are Apple fanboys because Apple products are generally the least crappy thing out there. And while there are some people that will stick with them no matter what (nostalgia?), if something better comes along most people will switch.
What PC monopoly? Last time I checked, there is nothing preventing PC owners from installing any OS they want on their PCs. The only monopoly that MS has is the one that consumers have freely given to them.
Sorry, just now noticing the icon that Slashdot uses for Microsoft for ten years doesn't qualify as earning geek points.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Very little of MS is replaceable. There are alternatives that offer *some* degree of similar functionality, but I can't think of one thing that's a drop-in replacement for MS functionality that would cut the mustard at most companies. UNLESS your company doesn't use Exchange or Outlook functionality and doesn't ever use any macros in MSOffice, you're going to be tied to mainstream MS software.
The lost productivity costs in migrating files, reformatting, relearning, working around bugs and new features, etc. will *far* outweigh whatever short term benefits there might be in software licensing costs.
Long term there may be more benefit (likely *is* more benefit) but most businesses don't/can't think long term. And even those that can may still choose MS software anyway because it gets the job done nicely.
creation science book
Damn you /. ;)
"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."
These are the same executives who are so terrified of the success of the iPhone and App Store that they can't copy them quickly enough ("Look at us! WE suddenly have touch-screen phones and online application stores now, too! Look! LOOK!!!!").
Frankly, they look pretty foolish offering ANY criticism of how Apple does things.
~Philly
(undoing moderation -- i've managed to click the wrong option.)
There is physically nothing stopping you but then you need to work with the vast majority of people using Windows and realise they're using formats you can't access.
Truer words have never been said, or in this case, posted.
Is this just typical MS hypocrisy or is Ballmer turning into a Communist?
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
I have been an IT manager for quite a while and I have come to expect certain kinds of vendor performance for business. For all systems from servers to workstations to laptops, I expect next day, on-site repair service. For laptops, I expect accidental damage warranty coverage. I expect to pay extra for this level of service and I generally get what I expect.
Recently, various people in my office have taken some interest in Apple computers and more specifically, MacBook pro. I ordered them with Apple care. I accept fault for not reading everything, but my expectations for business level service had been set by other players in the business hardware market. A couple of years pass before anything happens and then it does. A manufacturing defect in the system board of one of the MacBook pros had failed. Apparently, this is a well known problem in some circles and descriptions of the problem are found in various Apple forums.
I called Apple support and made an appointment for service at a local Apple store. Okay, BIG mistake... I found that they don't actually care but offered to put my repair job "at the head of the line" for about $100 and called it Pro Care. Pro Care is a lot of things I don't want or care about, but being "first in line" is hardly worth it when I still have to wait three days for them to get the replacement part in. I am not afraid of spending the money, but three days isn't fast enough. It was a big mistake because it was only after having waited more than three days that I discovered I could have gotten much faster service by going through a 3rd party service center. Lesson learned there... don't depend on Apple, depend on some independent 3rd party.
While all of this time is being wasted, my user is effectively prevented from doing her job and is constantly asking me when it will be done. I am exploring enhancing service options with Apple and am finding that Apple will not deliver to my business needs or expectations unless I was government or some trillion-dollar enterprise. It's not that I didn't choose or buy the right options, it's that Apple will not offer them.
And to be clear, I do get these options from other vendors. Dell is my current favorite in this regard. They have not failed me yet and everything has been resolved the next day. And why? Because they know business needs and expects this. Apple does not.
Everything about Apple says "consumer electronics" and that's fine for consumers. I will not buy Sony for business for the very same reasons. But isn't "consumer electronics" pretty much the same as "toy"? For most people it is and certainly for me.
I won't deny that Apple puts out some really nice stuff. If only they would offer support and service that business needs, I'd be fine with it. Without business needs being addressed, it is too risky to entrust mission critical responsibilities to Apple equipment. Apple equipment can't be considered as a reliable tool without some significant service and support options behind it. Without it, a tool becomes a toy.
Wait for Treacherous Computing... if that ever comes to light, that will do exactly that.
Join the Free Software Foundation
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.).
What was once true, is no longer so
If it were anyone else other than Monkeyboy or his mentor, I_crush_competition_and-throw_a_fit_when_I_do_it Gates, I'd say fine and that's fair. However, M$ is a little late in the game whining about opensource.
Bite me
When I have a problem with an Apple iphone, the buck stops with Apple (or, occasionally, with AT&T). But open the thing up so that there are hundreds of versions of hardware and imagine the fun it would be to resolve a problem with the product. This is precisely what happens with Windows Mobile or Windows in general. The finger pointing starts between hardware and software, and getting a problem resolved is a true pain in the ass. Wait until Microsoft opens their retail stores and the "Genius Bar" personnel get a taste of resolving problems with Microsoft software on thousands of different hardware variations! What fun that's gonna be! Oh, yeah!!!!!
Ballmer: "Can't we all just get along?!"
*BSD: "SURE! *hug*"
Ballmer stomps on *BSD.
Bored at work? Play Game!
Go download Blender (or XSI Mod Tool or any other free 3D editor of choice), GIMP (or Paint.NET or any other free 2D image editor of choice), XNA Game Studio 3.0, and Visual C# Express 2008. Total cost so far $0.00 (not counting your ISP bill). Now make a game. Now be amazed that you, yes you, can distribute that game on the 360 and/or the Zune and/or Windows, for free.
Of all of the consoles, both current and historical, The XBox 360 is the least vertically oriented. Microsoft wants people to make games, lots of games, and are doing an admirable job of making that happen. Compare Microsoft's stance to Sony's recent comment of "We want the PS3 to be hard to program for and understand so that the only really good games for the platform will come out years from now after people have struggled to learn how to make it work".
Is it perfect? Can I buy a 360 from any number of manufacturers? Will the code I write run on the 360, PS3, and Wii? No, no and no, of course. But, these are game consoles. People pay for the convenience of sticking a disc in and having it work. That Microsoft has opened their platform up to free hobbiest development should be applauded.
Microsoft has developed a product that enables the the vast majority of people to work together! How insidious! (until you realize that the most common file formats are very easily accessible on the other common OS's)
This is great news.
No more $99 20GB HDDs for Xbox 360 (now $79)!
I guess no more making their own standards to replace other companies' attempts, like Java vs C# and Flash versus Silverlight.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
So, you're basically saying that you don't have backup computers to work on, you didn't check what AppleCare actually does, and didn't bother to check if you could get the service you need until after the unit broke. If you plan your networks the same way, I don't ever want to come near your workplace.
I'm a windows user and can see the writing on the wall here. Ballmer and MS get shellacked over destroy this, closing that, etc. all they're doing is saying "hey, other people do it, why not go after them?"
I don't necessarily agree with the guy, but should companies really have rigid control of SDK's and what's allowed for their devices when people are writing free applications to enrich the community? iphone, xbox, whatever. sure, there's chances for a lot more junk, but who says that the devs that pay for SDK's for various devices aren't putting out junk already?
Well I'm glad he's finally said it, at least so that the next time Microsoft lock something down we can throw their own words back at them.
Sadly I don't think Microsoft are honestly aware of the benefits of openness though. In fact Windows 7 has losts of extra DRM that even Vista doens't have.
Actions speak stronger than words so I would invite Microsoft to change their strategy to Ballmer's openness, then he will have the credibility to ask anyone else (including Apple) to be kind.
He deserves this, right?
It doesn't matter if Apple opens the iPhone. No technology is so secure that somebody with enough resources can't "open" it. And if the market demands it and Apple ignores the market, another provider will step in an and prosper.
Being "open" is all about where the power is, and Apple won't give it up.
Yes, I agree it's hilariously ironic that Microsoft is advocating openness. However, as much as I dislike Microsoft, antitrust arguments are ridiculous to begin with - antitrust legislation is without a doubt one of the most counterproductive aspects of the US Legal Code: damaging to consumers, and only helpful to rent-seeking producers who would rather drag down their more efficient and productive rivals than innovate themselves. See the following work: http://mises.org/books/antitrust.pdf Or Chapter 10 of this masterpiece: http://mises.org/rothbard/mespm.PDF Or, hell, read Atlas Shrugged.
I heart anarcho-capitalism.
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.
Just because it is the pot calling the kettle black, does not been the kettle is not black. Apple has been fighting openness more then Microsoft.
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.
More proprietary software for iPhone, which is not good enough for computer users. What Ballmer wants is to use the iPhone to become an iPhone user's new master. To get this, he argues with a tactic that flies over the heads of a lot of /. readers, the problem of the "freedom of choice": merely choosing one over another attempts to place all choices as equals. So once the choices are narrowed to remove software freedom, which is what's really important, one can pick from a choice of masters. Freedom of choice is usually a way to convince people to discard the choices that would most benefit users, and with computer software that is always software freedom—the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify computer programs.
The FSF lays it out quite well in their essay "Freedom or Power?" which speaks to programmers about the social and ethical concerns of software:
Digital Citizen
Ballmer dissing the iPhone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5oGaZIKYvo
Ballmer want to take a peek under the apple hood to see if there's someting left to snatch and patent. After that he'll license it back to Apple. Redmond wants to start the photocopiers once more. http://www.flickr.com/photos/emeidi/43356340/ Maybe it's time for MS start innovating.
I think John Gruber had it right. He pointed out the absurdity of Balmer's argument on his blog on Wednesday.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Firefox won't be authorized because they don't want apps on the phone that duplicate functionality. Not that I think this is necessarily a bad thing, choice is good, but you can always choose a phone that will allow Firefox (fennec?) over the iPhone. If you get an iPhone, you know what you're in for: a closed platform with apps selected by Apple for their reliability. If you want to run unauthorized software you can jailbreak, of course, but the main point is this: Apple has chosen a business model that works for them and their target market. A closed platform with a carefully selected slew of applications to ensure that the device retains its simplicity and reliability. Anything that compromises either is bad for Apple's target market.
A platform on which Apple can decide which apps live or die. A platform that allow no competition with Apple own software (read: real GPS software with an included maps that don't need to talk to google maps) A platform on which Apple can revmove any application, anytime on any devices. If it's the future that Jobs has for us, I'm running...
If Microsoft wants any sort of "openness" it should act in good faith and open up Windows protocols and application formats first.
Until that time, it is just a ironic tantrum of a monopolist.
Elegy For *Ballmer
I am a *MSFT user
and I try hard to be brave
That is a tall order
*MSFT's foot is in the grave.
I tap at my toy keyboard
and whistle a happy tune
but keeping happy's so hard,
*MFST died so soon.
Each day I wake and softly sob
Nightfall finds me crying
Not only am I a zit faced slob
but *MSFT is dying.
Nope, that's what they were called. But thanks to the OP for reminding me; I'd forgotten it.
What was once true, is no longer so
But when it comes to x-box
"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
Life is full of junk. You see quality by comparing. The problem with Apple is, noone knows how good many of their products COULD be, because they like to make a really good point of making sure everybody understands what gets to have the Apple logo on it and what not. The iTunes, iWork, iPlay, iPhone, iSight, iThis and iThat. You can make apps for OSX, and iPhone, but the road to your end users is long and windy and Apple has placed some checkpoints along the way. Their own products however are like delicate newborns, kept in sterile environment so that it is both easier to take care of them, and so they won't die of sicknesses of the real world. They would not ever survive in a harsh Linux free roaming zoo ecosystem, for example. Even Microsoft is much better at it than Apple, granted they were FORCED to remove their delicate zoo fence. Apple IS AFRAID of junk, and they have taken the 'safe' bet to never deal with it, by closing their hardware and closing more of their software, so they can carefully create the environment that is clean enough for all their pets to live in. They call it quality and justify the higher price with the assurance that it is their engineers and designers who do a premium job. I call it the hospital and surgery is always expensive.
You, or your employer, can choose to purchase computers without Windows installed. There is no MS tax. Netbooks and PCs without any OS or with Linux pre-installed are very easy to get.
The chances of anyone putting aside Microsoft's past behaviour in a discussion of that same kind of behaviour, approaches zero....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.
So true!
We should not learn from the past.
We should not remember historical context.
Umm, or even current reality context (Zune, XBox). Like, don't even look around and look at the real world context at this very moment.
Why do people mod posts like the parent up? Nerds are **supposed** to learn from the world around them. Yeah, they don't get out much, but at least they are good at noticing patterns, and that's a **good** thing.
Netscape became a bloated, slow-performing beast. THAT is what allowed IE to become the dominant browser.
Notice what happens when a well-performing, open and configurable browser comes along (Firefox, in case you wondered)... it consistently gains share REGARDLESS of IE's tied status to the OS.
And now with IE8, MS is forced to catch up and add functionality.
The monopoly bullshite is just an excuse.
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).
Don't you remember - or perhaps you're too young - the constant crashes of MS-DOS machines, in part because of its ridiculous 64k RAM limit?
No, not really. For one thing, I remember it being a 640KB RAM limit. For another, I remember it being imposed by the 8086 architecture and having nothing to do with DOS. I also remember DOS on the 286 supporting expanded memory and DOS on the 386 supporting extended memory. The only requirement was that real-mode device drivers needed to be loaded below the 1MB line (which was, again, an artefact of the architecture, not the OS).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
If anyone would think back to when the iPhone was announced, the only development path was through Web 2.0, and is still available to this day. That sounds about as open as you can get to me.
I want a phone that's designed and built by a single company, with a reliable operating system and software distribution model. So, simply put, vertical integration is fine. I don't see any reason why Apple should open source the iPhone. Apple, and the iPhone, are doing just fine, and this results is great products.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
I can't comment on the site license, but the Vista install requires you to accept the license agreement when you first boot. If you reject it, you are entitled to a refund of the cost of an OEM Vista license.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Sorry, that is an ignorant statement. For starters, go to Dell, or Compaq and try to order a NO-OS computer. Then try to order a Linux computer. Then try to order a Solaris computer. Just try it. The reason for the lack of competing operating systems lies in the monopolistic, competition stifling conduct that Microsoft has employed over the past decades. Go on, order a Dell with Digital Research operating system installed. Then, come back and check my sig. To deny that Microsoft enjoys a monopoly is simple ignorance. Debating the reasons Microsoft enjoys that monopoly will surely help to cure that ignorance.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Microsoft's crime is not being successful, but in unfair business practices which led to the failure of competing companies. Ask Sun Java about Microsoft's JVM. Microsoft broke the law, violated contract agreements, and did everything within their power to outright steal Sun's intellectual property. When all that failed, Microsoft attempted to subvert Sun's market by creating their own Java Virtual Machine - again, with stolen ideas and code that belonged to Sun. Go ahead, cheer for a bunch of criminals. It tells us about you.....
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
We can choose between Windows Vista, or Windows X... nevermind. :)
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. 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.
The real litigious bastards...
Apple should hold it's course because it will keep them small.
Maybe the iPhone developers could use the same machines that the Microsoft Office for Mac developers do?
The monopoly MS has been abusing for the past 15 years. Yes, it is now going away as Dell and others are finally able to cater to other OSes as the market demands.
But OS/2 is gone now. And Be/OS.
A lot of the competition that would be here now was killed in that time, when MS was using its monopoly power to force Dell for instance, to not carry any competing products.
Personally I'm sort of amazed there's a market for buying Linux pre-installed. I use Debian and the install is just so seamless that I'd never bother getting it done at the factory, except maybe to guarantee compatibility and then wipe it.
What I'm trying to say is that I'm not blaming Linux's small "market" share on MS. It's a niche product. But MS has abused its powers to kill any and all competition, rather than simply to promote its own product.
Apple decided that by closing the system, they would avoid all these problems, and users would have a better experience.
That and be certain that they could gouge their userbase.
On the first point, if any version of firefox were to be ported to iPhone it would be Fennec, and I haven't seen if they plan to release extensions for it or not, even if they do, it shouldn't be difficult to disable extensions for that specific port of the browser.
You're right on the second point, I forgot about that, but in any case, apple has still said multiple times that applications which duplicate functionality included with the iPhone will not be allowed on the app store: that means any browser that doesn't just embed Safari's rendering engine, any media player replacement for iTunes, etc. Although if Apple changed its mind about that restriction, yours would still stand.
If you're living in a cave with no internet, sure. But it's taken two decades of reverse engineering to get us things like .doc support in OpenOffice, web pages that work in both IE6 and Firefox, read/write NTFS, DirectX games, and so on. All thanks to Microsoft's systematic and deliberate anti-openness measures.
They've always been open to have outside developers create the applications. Don't you rem....
What does that even mean? Open to outside developers? In comparison to what? Windows? Unix? Linux? Symbian? PalmOS? Dos? which were closed to outside developers? oh wait, they weren't. No OS is ever closed to teh outside developer.
Also a much bigger reason to keep the hardware closed is so that it can be sell at a much higher price. The so called reliability of Apple software isn't that great as you make it out to be and its definitely not the primary reason to keep a closed echo system.
For me the bottom line in owning devices is that I am *NOT* benefited from not even being able to change the battery in my cell phone.
My phone runs windows mobile and I can run whatever the hell I want on it - if I were to write an application it would be portable unmodified to other devices running the same operating system.
The tactics company x or company y has used is totally irrelevent to me. As a developer -- users of my application can choose a clam shell, bar style, waterproof, bulletproof, flip/keyboard, keyboard + bar phone and still run my application all the while being able to replace the batteries in their devices at will.
iphone is a great product with lots of good software but not so great that the single offering trumps my ability to choose the form factor, features and software that suites me.
I will never own an Apple system because I refuse to be locked in to specific hardware configurations sanctioned by Apple regardless of the merits of the OS. Operating systems are commodities - for general purpose applications there is very little significant difference in features offered by any modern general purpose OS.
I can't believe people are *still* listening!
People (especially those who were born after 1985 forget that Microsoft entire business model was founded on principles of openness. They were smart enough to get IBM to agree to a non-exclusive license for early versions of DOS so they could then license it to Compaq and, eventually, hundreds of other PC manufacturers. They build Windows in a way that made it incredibly easy to build hardware and software that worked on it. They provided tools...and encouarged other companies to develop their own tools, that helped developers take advantage of the platform. While the OP can point to XBOX and Zune as examples of vertical integration between HW and SW, those are edge cases. The bulk of Microsoft success has come from opening up their API's to anyone who wanted to use them. Even Office and SharePoint and all of there other client and server software are designed to be extensible. It was only in the 1990's that "open" came to mean something different...open sourcecode. Microsoft has generally not opened up their sourcecode but have done so in some cases. But by historical standards they've been incredibly open. Compared to Apple, Microsoft is the bastion of transparancy and openness. Apple controls everything as much as they can...and sue's those who try to build PC's that run MacOS.
First, Blackberry captured more market share away from the iPhone in the fourth quarter of 2008, so he should focus his initial boo-hooing on the Canadians. Second, it's not like Microsoft let anyone keep developing anything for the original Xbox. F***ers. Nope, have to buy our new, poorly manufactured, Sony-busting POS if you want to still buy new games. If someone wants to install software on their iPhone that's not available through the App Store, they can jailbreak it. Same thing people have done to add life to their original Xboxes. Thousands of engineers, and all the Microsoft can do is play catchup.
Here's what you do, Steve: Quit your f***ing job. Seriously, just cash out your shares and retire. Let someone better, smarter, and more creative figure out to do with all of Microsoft's R&D $$$. You're not an engineer, Steve; you're not a designer. You're a business guy, Steve. Sure, you're good with numbers and making money, but you're the Jerry Jones of the computer world. You are the embodiment of the Peter Principle, a great number two while the Bill the Puppetmaster was yanking the strings of the PC industry, but we all see you behind the curtain of the little wooden stage.
So, quit, cash out, enjoy your retirement, and grow some tomatoes. Your company and shareholders, not to mention the entire world, would be better off if the strategic direction of your company embodied something more meaningful than being a Johnny-Come-Lately With Lots of Money. Great ideas, new ideas, can create wealth, new industries. You're married to the old, Steve. Let someone new come up with something new.
Make love, not reality television.
Firefox would be authorized right now, assuming it didn't get stuck in Apple's little black box for some stupid reason. Apple has been allowing third-party browsers on the phone for some time now (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/23/0539240).
As far as Skype (and any other VoIP applications for that matter), it is allowed so long as it only works over the Wi-Fi connection and not the cellular network. http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/apple/voip-on-apple-iphone-a-no-go-unless-over-wifi.asp
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.
This is especially true if you look at the consumer market. Business tend to approach a product, asking whether it can do x,y,z, but don't care so much about the usability factor. Non-business buyers tend to approach things more from a a design and usability direction, asking whether it looks good and feels good at what it does, and "oh. it can do this too"?
Microsoft has won in business, because while some of its stuff is a usability nightmare they do check off all the boxes are doing x,y and z. Apple has entered from the "consumer" market where style and usability matters. As for the other companies, they tend to follow Microsoft's approach of checking off the functionality boxes, but failing on the one of style and design. For these companies I say: don't let you engineers design the packaging, get an industrial designer for that and be ready to take risks.
Openness is important, but it is also about being open in the right place. Microsoft says they want to be open, but they are quite willing to play the content industry's game. This has the net effect of screwing, in the wrong way, the people who would give you their money, and playing the tune on the ones who are simply playing the role of the bully. Companies screw their customers in numerous ways, but its all about screwing the customers in such a way that they don't mind - basically the customer ends up feeling that it was worth it.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
That Microsoft has opened their platform up to free hobbiest development should be applauded.
**golf clap**
Happy now?
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
deserve any sympathy when they each start whining about the other.
Let the chips fall where they may.
...or are the Microsoft shills out in full force today?
Earning the BMW payment today, are we boys?
In B.C., our fascism is green.
I was in the audience, and I think what you are missing here is the context.
Steve Ballmer was the last to speak, after AT&T and Nokia's CEOs.
The message, that the three of them were insiting on, was that it is key to the mobile industry that all players talk to each other, in a more open eco-system.
The way things are going, with more rather than fewer operating systems, with closed platforms, it will prevent innovation because applications are not interoperable.
So, Ballmer was not saying anything particularly new, it was exactly what the other panelists were saying.
And I think that is right. The mobile industry is in a crossroads now and a fragmented future with a number of OSs and closed platforms is not good for the consumer in the long term.
That's not what type of company Apple is, never has been. This reminds me of a blurb on C|net which said that Google's Android PLATFORM would outsell the iPhone because it's available on different carriers and phones. How do you compare apples and oranges? The iPhone isn't the OS X phone, it's the Apple phone. When you get into selling a software platform on any device - computers, phones, mp3 players, toasters, ect. - you run the risk of allowing the hardware manufactures who buy licenses to ruin your product. I'm not saying that Android and Windows Mobile don't have their place on the market, but they will always serve commodity phones whereas the iPhone will remain the Ferrari of wireless just as the Mac is the Ferrari of computers.
All in all, I've always had much more respect for Apple's high-margin, tight design over Microsoft's low-margin, ubiquitous, market-first designs. Companies like Apple make me love John Locke and Adam Smith (let them be!) while Microsoft makes me love Karl Marx (keep those fuckers in check!). I think they have very different perspectives of what market competition is. Apple competes for a profitable piece of the market while Microsoft competes to dominate the market. Ballmer's "plea" to Apple reminds me of when Jobs said that Microsoft needed to ditch "Playsforsure" and make their own iPod competitor. They intentionally give each other bad advice. Their market strategies are so different they cannot copy one another and succeed (just look at Zune).
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
People (especially those who were born after 1985 forget that Microsoft entire business model was founded on principles of openness. They were smart enough to get IBM to agree to a non-exclusive license for early versions of DOS so they could then license it to Compaq and, eventually, hundreds of other PC manufacturers
...
Other people remember it differently. IBM contracted Microsoft to write the OS for the IBM PC. Compaq and the other clone makers didn't arive on the market until Columbia Data Products figured out a way of cleanrooming the BIOS. After that the clone makers could sell units without paying IBM the expensive license. Microsoft was more than happy to supply DOS to these.
"It was only in the 1990's that "open" came to mean something different...open sourcecode"
Again, history occurred differently in this continuum
If Apple put its OS on all hardware, wouldn't that create an Apple monopoly .. er ecosystem ?
http://www.dell.ca/ubuntu http://www.dell.com/open
Back in the hills, we don't call that "ironic", we call it GALL.
"That there Steve Ballmer's sure got his gall to shoot mah pig to feed his famerly!"
If they hadn't killed their partner Sendo. A shame really, that Sendo made a partnership deal with Microsoft that included Microsoft getting their IP if their company went under. Tactical error, that.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The iPhone is closed hardware, the Pocket PC is open hardware. I compared the iPhone to my old T-Mobile Pocket PC, and the iPhone just wasn't interesting unless I was going to jailbreak it.
The problem is... I don't use my Pocket PC phone, either. It's not worth it. I've got a cheap Nokia that I just use as a phone. That way I'm more likely to HAVE a phone when I need it, instead of a lump of plastic with a dead battery. The whole "smart" phone market just isn't big enough to matter. And Microsoft and Palm killed the handheld computer between them: Palm, by trying to outdo Microsoft instead of playing to their strengths; and Microsoft, by crippling the Pocket PC lest it compete with the Tablet PC and their cash cow... "real" Windows.
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 -- might even include a fscking Gigabit card -- but all come with Windows, most with Vista.
That is, of course, ignoring the bad old days of Microsoft selling Windows licenses by number of PCs sold, not by number sold with Windows -- thus, if they did offer a Linux machine, you'd either be paying the same price as if you got it with Windows, or the manufacturer would be eating that Microsoft tax.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"In the late 70's, when PC's began to appear, corporate IT managers were deathly afraid of them"
.. By the time Apple introduced the Mac, the PC already had a huge lead because of this tremendous IBM lock in"
My understand is that IBM and the rest were indiferent to them. Which is why the Boca Raton project was specifically tasked with producing a low-spec machine using off-the-shelf components, a second attempt to enter the PC market after the failed very expensive IBM 5100 ($20,000).
"those damn users, tired of the glacial slowness of mainframe application development, slow response times, and especially the lack of a spreadsheet capability
Actually IBM PC didn't sell in too huge a number until Columbia Data Products discovered how to clean room it and Compaq and the rest started to sell cheap knock-offs manufactured in the far east. And users tired of the lack of a spreadsheet capability already had access to the Apple 11(1997), which came with VisiCalc the original killer spreadsheet application.
Microsoft should sign a patent covenant with Apple promising not to use any Apple end-users of the iPhone for any violations of MS patents. All the rest should start paying royalties to Redmond ...
Very good. That's ONE. You found a Linux system, at ONE of the major vendor's sites. Now, Compaq? Did you find a Solaris box? How about Digital Research? Surprise me, alright? Find me a few dozen distributions from various software vendors, with the same sort of support that those hardware vendors offer for Windows. (as an aside, I rather like Ubuntu, but prefer to run a more basic Debian - who offers that?)
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
"We want the PS3 to be hard to program for and understand so that the only really good games for the platform will come out years from now after people have struggled to learn how to make it work"
Do you have any citations for the above?
The biggest problem with Microsoft is not even really their openness any more. I mean, for a lot of developers, Windows is open "enough". What hurts Microsoft is the perception that if you do put together an application on Windows, sooner or later, Microsoft is going to take their giant Windows sack of cash and try and take that market from you.
For example, the unfairness of IE vs Navigator wasn't that IE was bundled with Windows at the consumer level - because consumers understand programs and installing them, but, it was because Microsoft held out a promise of developing on Windows, then sorta broke that friendly proposition with Netscape, and leveraged its Windows monopoly money to do it.
IE4 was better than Netscape Navigator, but it was reportedly funded with well over 500 million dollars in development costs and had the benefit of being essentially a scratch built application with the upfront knowledge that a fully scriptable object model was going to be the key to the modern browser. Microsoft engineers got to use Navigator as a functional requirement for what a browser should be.. and they made some important improvements to it at an architectural level. Consumers benefited, because IE was better, but Netscape was the one that did the more pioneering work of making a practical browser, bolting on a JavaScript parser, and adding SSL that really defined the browser as a workable platform for e-commerce.
This isn't the first time Microsoft has done this, and, unfortunately for Microsoft, this is now seemingly short sighted. Regardless of what you feel about Linux, there is no doubt that a lot of smart developers are deploying solutions on that platform, and are doing it largely because they are free of the worry of not having to be betrayed by the platform vendor. How many Windows applications are out there these days? It's not just that PC gaming is dead, its that how many applications and new genres of applications are being created and right now, I don't think its all that much. It's almost like, if Microsoft really wanted Windows to remain popular and grow, they should almost spin it off and lobby for federal legislation that bans the distributors of all operating systems from being in the desktop applications business. Windows could compete on its merits, and there are merits, and similarly, the rest of the Microsoft chain would not have to be tied to one operating system. Apple is at what, 10% of Windows right now? Linux is at 2%? That's -millions- of people. Why not have Visual Studio for Linux? Office for Mac is profitable, why pull the plug on it, just to save Windows? Why not have Microsoft games on Java cell phones, or even Sony Playstation for that matter? It's almost like there's more opportunities for two Microsoft's than one.
This is my sig.
So you're saying that the fact that you have to buy it, and go through this to get your money back, represents evidence that this is a market where a monopoly is not of control? Really?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
It looked so great, so fresh, it had celebrities using the device, Moby, that fat guy from Smashmouth, Seal.....incredible. If you compare any other 2001 mp3 player to that iPod, I mean theres just no way that you could say those devices were *better* than the iPod in any way! They were slower, bigger, smaller, def. uglier.....
Look at todays market, using the iPod, what is out thats genuinely better in every way than the iPod? Nothing? Anything thats better in one or two ways? Maybe somethings have the same storage size, and maybe even a buck or two cheaper, but would you take one over an iPod?
I think most phones still suck. I like how many Nokia etc phones now have very good cameras, can record video, but the interface etc is just shit. Theres no way I could throw my iPhone out for another phone.
You really think that the iPod and iPhone are nothing special? have a great day
---
The MSFT license said that he was entitled to a refund from HP - which makes sense, why should MSFT be refunding him money for something he bought from HP - but HP was more interested in doing everything possible to dissuade him from thinking that was correct, possible, feasible, or wise.
Again, what's this got to do with MSFT?
These developers have all the tools to make these applications, its all legit, Apple helps out and even tests them before they go out. Now imagine if Apple didnt test apps, any 12 year old with a computer could bang out "kickass phone.app", some shoddy phone application. "ooh, I dont need the Apple developed phone program, lets save space and delete the Apple stuff!"
I really dont trust third party things, especially free things. If something goes wrong, who do you blame? Some things like Phones, you just need them to work. I do hope that I can get Firefox on my iPhone, even just to have the pretty icon :P
---
Fart applications in the double digits
Hey, don't blame Apple for this, they tried to keep those apps off the app store. But you damn hippie liberal commie slashdotters all insisted that there should be this thing call "freedom" on the app store! Damned if you do... poor Apple!
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
"as well as years of illegally tying Windows to Internet Explorer that only the US Justice Department could undo."
Did something happen after I went to bed yesterday because I'm still waiting for that undo thingy?
More like being lucky and then using that luck to tie everyone to their software.
Yes and with no guarantee that, for instance, your Word doc will view properly on OOo.
Several, in both Ubuntu and Red Hat, at *the* major vendor's site. No Windows tax. No monopoly. Debian offers Debian. Since Ubuntu is free, you aren't paying anything for the OS when you purchase a machine with Ubuntu pre-installed. If you want Debian, uninstall Ubuntu and install Debian.
Ballmer is right but he had no business making such comments directed at Apple. Microsoft practically perfected the closed source, proprietary, and monopolistic marketing and sales practices. I do believe Apple should open up its iPhone and iPod but this may never happen. I think Ballmer complaints about Apple's closed source operating system for the iPod are really just sore loser gaffs. Microsoft invested large amounts of time and money in the failed Zune. Since Zune did not compete with Apple, I am sure Microsoft is licking sore wounds.
No, they're allowing browsers that embed WebKit. Firefox would still not be allowed.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
CNET should report about openmoko(http://www.openmoko.com/)
if any of the present parties in this article intend on having any integrity about openness in phones and phone service providers.
With openmoko:
You can develop and distribute everything for free.
There is no need for the developer to submit 100$.
There is no need to have each user pay for individual apps.
There is no need to have a negotiation about the developer get 70% of 0$.
All the users win since not only can they install free applications, they can also build and install their own apps.
You know how he said there were fanboys on both sides...
Faggot.
They should FUKN KILL PEPL who refer to CRPS by their STCK TCKR RTHR THAN THER NAME.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Adobe's CEO tried pulling this crap with Flash. He had to backpedal.
Ballmer is taking a different tack with 'why don't you open'?
What they both want is their interactive cancer[s] in the iPhone.
The fact of the matter is that XCode and the iPhone SDK are STILL FREE to most developers, and if you want to code in WebKit compliant code, C or ObjC you're welcome to make any application you want.
But HELL NO please do not pollute the iPhone with junky Javascript, Actionscript, Flash or Silverlight.
That's what the crux of this is all about.
No, what Apple does is not as important as what Microsoft does. Who really cares if we can't write our own version of iTunes, it is a very different matter to be able to connect to a Windows computer. These are not equal issues or companies. What Microsoft closeness has done for the IT industry is so much bigger than what Apple has done.
Maybe it isn't fair in your head, but it certainly is fair to bash Microsoft in the real world
Apple decided that by closing the system, they would avoid all these problems, and users would have a better experience.
That and be certain that they could gouge their userbase.
Because Microsoft has treated its userbase so-o-o-o fairly.
Which major vendor? I saw two links to Dell. Compaq? I know Gateway is out of business, but did they ever offer anything besides Windows? What about the rest of the vendors on the market? WalMart is a pretty good indicator of the market - how many alternatives are there available from WalMart dot com? The point is, long long ago, Microsoft told OEM's that they could install MS operating systems on their machines, but ONLY if they signed EXCLUSIVE contracts. That was, indeed, an ironclad monopoly, for years. Today, that monopoly is slowly being pried open - but the choices still suck. Other than Dell, which hardware vendors are offering alternatives? You have won ONE point with your posts - ONLY ONE. Show me that I am wrong, and I may very well make a purchase. ;)
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I care about points? I seriously doubt anyone has bothered to read that far down. Dell has the largest PC market share. I'd say it's pretty significant when Dell offer computers with Linux installed. http://media.arstechnica.com/news.media/1q08us-1.png As for Walmart, check out the gPC http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=7754614
Looks like Shuttle also offers Linux pre-installed http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/shuttle-launches-199-kpc-linux-box-99-barebones-kit/
If Microsoft wants any sort of "openness" it should act in good faith and open up Windows protocols and application formats first.
Until that time, it is just a ironic chair throwing tantrum of a monopolist.
There, fixed it for you..
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
You don't need to pay the MS Tax at all. You can either: 1) Build your own computer and choose your OS, or 2) decline the EULA when first using Windows and ask for a refund for it
I love how biased Slashdotters describe capitalism as an "attack" and an attempt to "close" something. Always using loaded words to sway the reader.
oh wait there isn't a difference at all.
Any company with a sufficiently advanced market control is indistinguishable from monopoly.
All public companies have the monopolistic mindset.
You can make excuses for Apple as much as you want, I have *never* seen any evidence to the contrary that they did not have the same monopolistic aims as Microsoft, it's only an accident of history that their positions are otherwise. Just because the Borg has a different face makes it no less Borg.
How stupid are you people? Wittering on about irrelevancies such as developer programs and application lockdown, those are just symptoms just like ecosystems make it look like there isn't a dominant species. We're now being told we don't even own what we bought, apparently you can't make enough money that way.
Hopefully, the picture has changed too much for Apple to get away with such practices, they aren't big enough to bend the market to their will, and people will not stand by and be dictated to over their own property. But it won't happen by ranting on a webpage, you actually have to do something about it.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
No, they aren't given Windows for free. They are forced to buy it, whether they want it or not.
Right. The whole point being, the market is still monopolized by Microsoft. There are a precious few OEM's who are basically exploring ways to make money off of NO-OS and alternative operating systems. I don't even ask for SUPPORT for the alternatives. Every single computer I own has been hand built at home, and I've done my own homework to install whichever alternative onto it. So, personally, I'm not hurting - but then, there are countless people who can't even turn a screwdriver, let alone figure out how to identify their exact make and model modem. While the monopoly has suffered a few setbacks - it still IS a monopoly.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
You've already gone from "no alternatives" to "precious few". As long as alternatives exist, monopolies do not.
And apparently, you are his prophet ....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The pleas for technically savy people to talk about MS dispassionately are completely ludicrous.
The only way that would happen is if they would do monumental gestures to clean their reputation.
That isn't going to happen.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
There are plenty of PC manufacturers who would be happy to sell you a PC without Windows and without the "MS tax".
You chose to pay the MS tax when you chose not to buy from one of those manufacturers.
Your poor decision making doesn't mean MS has a monopoly.
Maybe not
At least drop the market speak when astro turfing.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
i want the judge to rule that Apple has to open up their app store, and then also rule that MS has to open up all of their lock-ins.
The "precious few" are doing little more than experimenting. You just don't seem to get it. There IS a monopoly. Dell, for instance, spent millions during the holiday season, advertising Vista enabled computers. How much did they spend advertising NO-OS and alternative operating systems. It IS a monopoly, the alternatives are buried deep beneath a mountain of Microsoft FUD. And, you still haven't found more than one offering for a popular brand of computers. You should look at a non-monopoly - a market that is completely open to any and all. Walk into your grocery market. Uhh, lemme think - I need cooking oil. There are many brands on the shelf. Wesson, Mazola, yada yada yad. What's more, I can choose to purchase lard - an animal byproduct, or I can choose peanut oil, corn oil, olive oil, canola oil - the list goes on and on. No monopoly HERE!! How about automobiles? Ford, Chevy, Chrysler - before we even consider any imports. In a monopoly, there is only one serious choice, with any potential alternatives hidden deeply beneath the monopolist's advertising budget. Having a monopoly doesn't mean that there is NO alternative. I challenged you to show me alternatives to MS operating systems on new computers, and you found ONE OEM offering such. Thank you.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Who really cares what the guy says? This is the same bunch that is seriously challenged trying to come up with a coherent error message. They've got a 20+ year track record of deceitfulness, and at various points you have to be convinced that they would say absolutely anything just to get their way. Honesty, ethics, sincerity, human decency, you, me, be damned. How much weight can you give anything that comes out of their mouths?
Ballmer is pissed because Apple played MS's game better. I see no difference between them.
That's probably the most rational thing I've heard on the topic.
I've always 'waited' for the likes of HP or Dell to start offering Linux. Time to say fuck 'em. Time to pony up and buy from vendors offering Linux from the get go. Maybe they'll grow to become the new HP/Dell - but with choices.
Apple should open up to everyone EXCEPT Microsoft. Screw MS. They have sucky ass products anyway.
That's almost funny.
... apps selected by Apple for their reliability.
Why do you believe that Apple selects apps for their reliability? Because they told you so?
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 regulation to ensure a competitive market and prevent corruption. Closing down a market is bad for everyone except the party in control.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Who cares about facts? Here on slashdot, as long as the comment is pro-apple and anti-ms, it doesn't matter if all the facts are correct.
This response is a bit late seeing the post count and when the summmary was posted, but I was sleeping off my jetlag. I was there at the conference and at the speech Ballmer made (let me note, by the way, that the AT&T CEO made a really good speech in the same session though its content did seem completely contrary to how AT&T works, and the Nokia CEO should really be banned from opening his mouth at all).
Both TFA linked and a lot of the comments I see are so focused on the iPhone, yet it didn't actually get mentioned that much and wasn't the tone of the session at all. Furthermore the summary is just one big MS bash with fairly little relevance to what is actually going on right here.
What was being said however is that there is an abundance of OS's for the mobile market, and instead of getting less (like predicted at earlier MWC's) they are getting more in number. A call for more interoperability (sp?) was made, which would be good for everyone. Because of all the MS bashing going around here, let me just point out that MS did open up their ActiveSync and related infrastructure to other mobile OS's to accomplish exactly this.
Being "open" really does have a very different definition for everyone involved. Some people relate it to open source, which would be a bad call in this case. Take Android, for example, which is hyped up everywhere as being "open", while in reality, if you are using an Android phone you are severely limited in what you can and cannot do with the device (due to developers being limited in what they can/cannot access/do). In fact, Android may be the most "open source" OS (though it does have a bunch of binary blobs), but on the currently available devices it is reduced to be nothing more than a glorified Java-phone OS (and it isn't even that compatible with J2ME!). So it's open, but at the same time it's pretty closed (note that some of the limitations are carrier-implemented, but not all of them!).
I'd like to make a comment about the new "open" Symbian variant, but I'm afraid I haven't looked into it far enough to make decent comments about it, so I'll skip that one.
Now if we take the iPhone, it isn't "open" like Android, but the end result isn't that different. Both are severaly limited in what you can/cannot do. Apple excerts more control, but at the same time Google still has that kill switch (not to mention the Google integration with Android which is completely horrific). For both these platforms you will need to jailbreak to do the really interesting stuff. In fact what I find hilarious is that I see large numbers of iPhone adopters in my 'personal space' actually switching (back?) to the Windows Mobile platform because of all the limitations.
Now look at Windows Mobile. In it's nature, it is completely closed. However, in a completely unexpected and under-lighted move from Microsoft, you can actually do anything _you_ want with the OS and devices. It really is a playground for developers, you are not limited in any way in what you can do. If you are using the 'light' variant of the OS, the "Smartphone" (non-touchscreen) version, you may need to get your app signed, but most devices use the 'heavy' Professional variant you can actually just do this yourself without any MS interaction. No jailbreaking required. So in term of possibilities, WM is actually the most "open". Nor does MS excert much (if any) control over the OS itself. Of course we'll have to see where their appstore will go with this. MS is opening up some of their protocols (like ActiveSync and such) for other players, which is also an "open" move. (Just FYI, yes I am a mobile app developer and yes we have made some really funky things that wouldn't even be possible to do on the other OS's, and we literally get 100s of support requests PER DAY asking for these apps on iPhone and Android!). Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a WM fanboy though, some things are broken, others are behind the times, and 6.5 is little late for what it brings.
As a comment to another post I saw here,
Ladders are a good thing when you're at the bottom and wanting to rise.
When you've climbed them, that's when you pull them up, grease the rungs or kick them away.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What's this Steve guys bitching about?
Isn't he allowed to put his own app on Apple Store or what?
I guess Microsoft wants to run Silverlight on iPhones but Apple asked a very high price. Asking for openness may be an attempt to raise the attention of the regulatory authorities. But it's ridiculous. Most phones on the planet come with proprietary software and SIM-lock. Even the Openmoko has proprietary firmware for the GPS and the GSM-stack. The GPS because it's a weapon and the GSM-stack to implement security by obscurity.
Ballmer sounds like my ex-girlfriend justifying her ****ing around.
Oh look, they arbitrarily changed their arbitrary restriction. Good for them. Except, they didn't really:
So, are email programs allowed yet, or anything that can do copy and paste? Apple are still control freaks and your snarky subject line is offensive and childish.
Yes
Apple has said that applications that provide duplicate functionality without differentiation won't be allowed. People keep glossing over the second part of that and assuming it means nothing, but why not take them at their word considering their actions reflect it?
I assume Firefox would in some way act differently and that Mozilla would make it look different, too.
The only exception we seem to have to that is Apple refusing a product that duplicated a featuring coming in their next update, which is arguably protecting customers from buying something they'll regret... and, more importantly, ask for a refund for later.
The App Store is DEFINITELY not all sugar and space, but it's been maligned a lot for problems it doesn't have.
Personally I love the app store, I'm not maligning it, just apparently slightly misinformed. I've heard of apps that have differentiated that got blocked by apple due to claims that they "duplicate functionality" (a certain email program comes to mind that I can't seem to remember the name of), so I just assumed that all the parrot talk was true, that even if there was differentiation it could get blocked. For all the reasons you mentioned, firefox won't get approved, but I doubt we'll ever see them approve a browser that doesn't use safari on the backend, whether it differentiates in features or not.
I hope you don't expect to get modded up for that over-repeated drivel?
Apparently not repeated enough. People need a reminder now and again as to why Microsoft should never, ever, be let in the door.
MS-loving mods have no sense of humor :-/ Such is life.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
What he really means, why doesn't Apple do it the MS way and create an MS ecosystem.
But the current facts are that MS is losing market share in both the PC and mobile markets. Why? I'd say it's MS certified genuine lock down on SW, the Vista fumble and generally poor usability. I can't think of any truly open source coming out of Redmond. They just willing to license to anyone who will pay them money, because that's the core of their business model. And when the customers have a problem, the finger pointing starts - it's the HW or the vendor, who both say it's MS. A lot of other people have taken shots at Zune or Win Mobile.
What's Apple done. They've put the bulk of their products (Macs, Apple TV, iPod Touch and iPhone) on open source underpinnings (Mach, FreeBSD variant, Webkit, SQL, Apache, gcc and more). They also contribute back (c.f. Google and Nokia using Webkit - and yes they took Kommander but put a lot of effort back in and gave it away as Webkit). They already do a lot on open standards like mpeg4 upcoming is something like ajax and a standard for using GPU to help with CPU tasks. I imagine that's why there's such a jailbreak community - because the bottom OS layers are open source. And they're pushing standards in html, webDAV, vCard etc. So Ballmer's criticism sound pretty hollow.
My vote is for Apple to keep up exactly what they doing. They even make life easier for Linux users, since they push a lot of standards coming from the BSD/gcc/Linux heritage (instead of playing catch-up with SMB etc.) and have the financial weight to push the markets. I think Linux-using slashdoters ougth to be happy about Apple (yeah, I know you're not happy there's no iTunes etc. for Linux, but business is business and the market potential with Linux is still pretty small).
Apple should open up. Microsoft should open too... but neither of them will.
It seems that Apple it's closing more every time instead of the oposite.
Xbox360 it's a console and they're not THAT open as idealist would want, there's a reason why nearly every console needs to be hacked in order to homegrow.
I don't understan why everytime someone has to mention the bundled IE, i honestly don't know what's the big fuzz about it... i use firefox and opera but it's his OS for god sake they are allow to do everything with it, next you will complain that facebook has the "calendar" functionality by default and needs to give the chance to choose for third party calendars...
an interested user will quickly find out that there's other options... but the other 80% do not mind the IE. it's ridiculous! why would not can be a default web browser, it's like you don't want a default file explorer!
this it's outrage!
Sorry, I wasn't trying to accuse you of intentionally spreading bad information. But at the same time, there's so much of it that I think some must be. That's what the "malign" referred to.
The mail program you're thinking of was called MailWrangler. Everyone calls it "duplicate functionality," but it wasn't just those two words: "without providing sufficient differentiation or added functionality, which will lead to user confusion." That was just part of the rejection letter, there were other reasons: bugs, missing features.
The developer seems to have taken this as a cue to stop working on the product, but I doubt this was intended as a final rejection. Fixing the visual style to not be similar to Mail and fixing some of the more glaring bugs and missing features (such as the ability to edit an account) would probably have got it approved.
And I sort of wonder if Apple these days would just approve it.
I suspect we could see a browser based on Mozilla's HTML rendering engine, but it would have to use Apple's JavaScript engine. Not gonna happen.
Yeah, I don't think we'd ever see that either, for more reasons than one. I feel like any browser for the iPhone/iPod that attempted to include its own rendering engine would probably just be a beast of a download, the benefit of making other apps use safari on the backend is all browsers on the device can use a single shared library that is already preinstalled. Ultimately, I don't see much need for another browser on the iPhone. Safari is plenty good enough for most uses that aren't webapps and games, and webapp authors that want their users to have iPhone support can develop an app that hooks into their webservice, like Amazon and Evernote have done.
I've seen a lot of apps get approved that were originally denied after a name change and some basic tweaks, I think it's a shame that developers get rejected and just give up. We'd probably be seeing some pretty cool apps if the devs would just go through the process.
There's also a big question of "why?" for Firefox.
We're supposed to be in an era of standards. If Safari complies with the standards, what possible difference does it make if the web engine in use is WebKit or Gecko? Why bother with Firefox, especially given that it's core "must have" feature, plugins, wouldn't be available?
We all have limits imposed on us by management/users. It is not the first time I would have Apple desires thrust upon me and it likely won't be the last.
And as I said, I take responsibility for the mistake of presumption. But ALL other gear is planned with next business day service guarantees which is good enough for management. And no, I am not allowed to by "extra" or "backup" hardware. Not a choice I would make, but it's what I live with.
The 640K limit was imposed by IBM's design for the IBM PC (they placed the memory-mapped display screen at that point in memory). The limit for the 8086 was 1Mb and MSDOS was capable of using a full 1Mb of memory (though the resulting machine would not be a "clone" and thus consumers were uninterested in it).
Microsoft is not to blame for everything, in fact with the original PC and through MSDOS 2 they were generally trying to do things right, and it was IBM that was messing things up.
This is like arguing Rockefeller didn't have an oil monopoly because you were free to run a wood-burning steam engine, or drill for oil in your own back yard. The monopoly issue relates to control of the market, not to a null of alternatives.
-- I speak only for myself
Not everywhere on the planet. Not if your employer has negociated with a vendor that does not offer this service, and very few do. Like I said, monopoly effect.
Sorry, I had no choice. I have no say in the make, model, much less components or software packages of the PC I receive for work. If you have never worked for a 5000+ employee company or institution you wouldn't know that this is fairly standard. I have worked for several and this was always my experience.
Note that the option of putting Linux on the machine afterwards is approved by administration. They even make it very easy and give you a disk image. They still pay for the two Microsoft license that you are not going to use anyway.
This is in fact evidence that the market is still completely overwhelmed by Microsoft, since this sort of option is not yet a bargaining point. In fact now PCs for companies should come with no software installed whatsoever, but this is by and large not the case at all.
HP and Dell offer Linux, but do check, instead of costing less and offering more choice, they cost more and offer less choice of configuration. This is why it is not yet flying.
In that case, you're employer has made the choice. Just because you're employer made the choice doesn't mean that the choice doesn't exist.
What is it about working at a big, inefficient corporation makes people be so condescending about it? "Haha! My company's so big we just spend money like idiots!"
In any case, that doesn't change my point. Your company didn't have to pay the "MS tax". They could have asked for empty PCs or bought them with Linux pre-installed in the first place. It's their own fault for not doing so.
Has anybody tried explaining to the "administration" exactly what's happening? I'm skeptical that any tight ass business people would knowingly pay (twice) for something thats not being used if they don't have to. Either they're just flat out stupid, or somebody's keeping them in the dark.
No, it's evidence you work with a bunch of idiots. I'm pretty sure even Dell will sell you PCs without software if you ask them.
Maybe not