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
Yeah, open like a venus flytrap
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
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.
No.
So....No.
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.
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.
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!
... 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.
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. =)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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
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...
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.
You might think that only communists define and use open standards, but the truth is far worse. Look at the member bodies of the ISO such as ANSI, the so-called American National Standards Institute. Rearrange the letters and what do we find? That's right, NASI! Who else but fascist dictators would want to apply a single doctrine to all facets of life for every man, woman and child on the planet! Let the truth be known, only NASIs want open standards, the free world should forever remain insular, secretive and closed.
http://www.dell.ca/ubuntu http://www.dell.com/open
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!
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.
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!