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
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.
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.
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.
... because my wallet has a court injunction against me setting foot anywhere near an iPhone with a for-sale sign on it!
From the *summary* (for [insert deity]'s sake man, at least read the *summary*) of the 'most ungreen companies ever' link you gave above:
... they wouldn't be able to claim it, unless they had some justification for it. From what I read, Greenpeace don't really care about what you *do* these days, they care about what you *promise* to do in the future, and how much you pay them to be quiet. They're a form of eco-terrorists, and eventually they'll get theirs...
As for Darwin, it seems pretty open to me.
Physicists get Hadrons!
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. =)
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
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.
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...