Slashdot Mirror
XML Co-Founder Joins Google, Blasts iPhone
XML co-founder Tim Bray has taken the job of 'Developer Advocate' at Google. Don't other companies call that position 'Evangelist?' Because he sure doesn't mince words against the iPhone in his first sermon: 'It's a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger.
XML vs. iPhone. I can't think of a better metaphor for "open but convoluted" vs. "closed but useable."
Just like the rest of us he can choose to buy, or not buy, an iPhone or any other Apple or non-Apple product.
... yet ;-)
We're all adults here and if he doesn't like Apple's rules about software of the iPod/iPhone/iPad then he can choose not to get one. It's as simple as that.
The government isn't requiring us all to get iProducts
With the iPhone and iPad, Apple has become the Big Brother it railed against in the Superbowl ad of 1984.
As an owner of many Apple computers from the Apple ][ all the way to today, it's thoroughly depressing to have watched this happen. But I guess Apple's always been schizophrenic about opennness. One one hand you have Woz distributing schematics, the developer's signatures burnt into the Mac's first motherboard, embracing of open-sourced software & development tools, lack of copy protection on their OS, replacing drm music with watermarking, etc. But then you've got them suing Franklin & Pystar, suing HTC, their absurdly paternalistic App market, a closed-down iPad, etc. I guess there's always been a bit of hypocrisy and self-contradiction with Apple.
But when push comes to shove, I'm growing more convinced with the iPhone/iPad they really do see the future as being closed & proprietary. Google is the athlete running in swinging the hammer. And maybe it's Jobs' face on the big screen?
I guess Apple II isn't forever.
Not only is it a walled garden, but everybody seems to forget that Apple is doing exactly what the slashdot community rallied against Microsoft for doing, i.e. the digital wallet, multiple music stores, music players (at least they opened it up to other vendors besides themselves), etc, all crying out that this would be bad for the consumer. Well, Apple has done exactly what Microsoft was doing 10 years ago, it's just that since it was Apple, it was ok (don't mod me down, I'm not trying to troll here). There's some traction in the tech media about Apple doing to developers what slashdotites claimed MS would do, but since Apple isn't the (or wasn't) 800 lb gorilla most people let it slide. Well now Apple owns the market segment (or at least a good portion of it) and ceding Poland to Apple is showing it's downside. Google's approach is definitely better, but right now the fact of the matter is that Apple's DRM system is just as bad as Mircosoft's has been in the past.
moox. for a new generation.
everybody seems to forget that Apple is doing exactly what the slashdot community rallied against Microsoft for doing
Yup, very few posts on /. critical of Apple lately. It's not at all the dominant meme when talking about smartphones.
Seriously - do you actually read /. ? Half the posts in a thread about Apple are criticising it for exactly the things you mention, and the other half are defending it.
My opinion changed when they stopped releasing text-only copies of public domain works through Google Books.
I am rather concerned about Google and Apple, and primarily support alternatives.
I won't buy Apple products though and only grudgingly do business with Google these days.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
You've always been able to play MP3s on all digital music players. That's a key bullet point in the PPT presentation on how you even get funding to design and a digital music player. I'm not even going to argue about that.
Apple has had absolute control of their standards (Quicktime, proprietary audio formats/encryption, device lockin (itunes only works with ipod, and will update itunes to break compatibility with any other device)... Apple has always been very aggressive about vendor lockin, and only uses "open" standards when it serves their purpose to break into a market, and quickly lose interest once they have a substancial market share (see also: embrace, extend, extinguish).
I'm not trying to say Apple is completely evil, but they act more like Microsoft than most people realize, and only use open technologies enough to ease the paranoia of the technical community, knowing that their acceptance of products/technology is crucial to widespread consumer uptake (see also: Vista Failure).
moox. for a new generation.
iTunes ain't done till the Palm won't run!
But then again, apple fanboi's will always try to herd a stray iSheep back to the iFlock. There's even an app for that!
Or maybe they just get tired of anti-fanboi idiots making statements that seem to equate:
"Um, you're not forced to buy it. You're perfectly free to buy, enjoy, and develop for something else."
with
"Apple fanboi's will always try to herd a stray iSheep back to the iFlock."
For some reason, for a lot of geeks, it's never enough to just like something else that's not Apple. They have to LOUDLY TELL EVERYBODY ELSE THAT THEY SHOULD NOT LIKE APPLE TOO and this despite the fact that nobody's ever been forced to buy Apple.
Tweet, tweet.
The iPad seems a nice device. It's not for everyone, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. It may not be for you, but again, there's nothing wrong with that.
I find the backlash you mention exactly as bad as the breathless fans you berate and to be honest I'm just as tired of either side of the pundits on this one. Extremes on both sides are misrepresenting the truth, either intentionally or not, and I see some of that in the little squad of straw-men lurking in your post.
The only people that matter in this are the people who will buy the device. If there aren't enough of them, it'll fail. If there are, it'll succeed. All this back-and-forth garbage is a waste of electrons.
Nothing you or I say will make a jot of difference on that, and judging by the posts on /. this is a good thing.
Interesting way to spin Apple's accomplishment... that it was somehow evil to unlock iTunes. Wow, how could anyone win with this kind of logic?
What actually happened was that Apple dominated the music business because of the popularity of their HARDWARE and the way it worked seamlessly with their SOFTWARE (iTunes). They made a music store that SELLS MUSIC, in an environment where it was almost as easy to anonymously steal the same stuff.
Steve Jobs wrote an open letter to the music industry where he essentially said, why don't we eliminate this DRM bullshit, because it doesn't work. One by one, they eventually relented, and now most music stores sell music without DRM. You can now buy music from iTunes that plays on any modern music device.
Yet you're convinced Apple only did this because they somehow are now "safe" with this iPod monopoly. Does this make any sense? They removed one factor that might lock someone into their iPod the most -- their music library's portability -- and decimated it. Yet, in your mind this was just a crock of shit or something?
Wow.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
It's funny, you know. I can't remember one single occasion where Microsoft actually used its control of Windows to specifically prevent a competitor's product from functioning on a PC. Yes, they pushed their own stuff. But I could always install Opera or Mozilla or Lotus or whatever I wanted, and nothing built into the OS could or would prevent that. Likewise MS never attempted to 'protect' me from 'objectionable' material or otherwise impose its value judgments on me.
My memory loss must be pretty bad, because I also can't remember this fabled golden age when ipods and itunes were "quite usable with non-Apple products". What I can remember, though, is Apple changing the way files are written to an ipod over and over again to deliberately break compatibility with non-Apple software. I can remember my frustration that my ipod wouldn't let me simply drag music files on and off in via a file browser. I can remember Apple selling DRMed music through itunes which wouldn't work with my Creative Zen MP3 player. Funnily enough, I also remember Apple forcing me to install the bloated monstrosity that is quicktime on my system, and both itunes and quicktime then breaking my perfectly functional GUI standards almost as though they never existed.
As for your underlying thesis, it is immensely naive. "ipod" and "mp3 player" are more or less synonymous for most non-tech people I know. Apple is moving aggressively into video and text. And to me, control over our society's collective cultural record is far more significant than which web browser I use when I install a pre-2000 version of Windows.
Read Pynchon.
You can't be ignorant of the fact that it's pretty much impossible to do client-side web development and not test with (3 versions of) IE.
You also have to do testing with several versions of Firefox. Damn that Mozilla! We should all hate them!!! (More seriously: what's your point? If you don't suck at your job, you have to test with all currently-supported somewhat-popular browsers.)
And in many corporate environments, you're still essentially forced to use Windows.
That's because your corporation chose Microsoft products, because Microsoft products generally are much better than the competition in corporate environments. Apple's always ignored corporations, and Linux solutions are disjointed and disorganized.
Did your company have a choice? Of course, they could have gone with some other solution. They chose not to... that's not Microsoft's fault.
But they don't ever really try to bend the whole industry that direction, and the only reason they have as much influence as they do is the same reason anybody who comes up with a good idea or a successful model does.
Sure they have. Look what they did with the record companies... remember when Amazon was fighting to price music at less than $0.99, they were fighting against Apple and the record companies Apple had brainwashed into selling all tracks for at least $0.99.
I suppose you could argue (using the loophole you helpfully included) that Amazon's music store wasn't "a good idea or successful model."
But let's back up a step... Windows (Windows Mobile if you like) ecosystem vs. iPhone ecosystem:
Has your Windows computer ever stopped you from downloading and installing a program because that program contained a feature the OS already had?
Has your Windows box ever prevented you from paying for software that contained pictures of titties?
Has Microsoft done anything, ever, on purpose to break compatibility with older or competitive software? (Apple does this about every week, BTW.)
No, no, and no.
Oh, and here's something else to think about: why do I have to install a gigantic application that sells music and movies so I can update the *firmward* of a cellphone? Why does that gigantic application also install a media library I don't want or need? Why does it try to stealthily install a web browser I didn't fucking ask for? Why do I now have some strange zero-config service running beyond my firewall? Apple's software situation sucks-- it's the worst "software taking over your computer" experience since RealPlayer circa 2004.
Comment of the year
I think this is one of my favorite comments on this topic. iPhone detractors describe what they see as a problem. iPhone users say it's not a problem because they don't care. The detractors describe the situation accurately, but their judgement of it as a problem is contextual. If you don't care, it's not a problem.
This isn't like global warming, where a relatively small group can fuck it up for everyone; if people didn't like the iPhone, they just wouldn't buy it. And it's great that there are other options out there.
The CB App. What's your 20?
It's funny, you know. I can't remember one single occasion where Microsoft actually used its control of Windows to specifically prevent a competitor's product from functioning on a PC.
You apparently weren't involved in the industry in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Lotus 1-2-3 and DR-DOS are among the (then) highly discussed cases. Proving intention is a difficult thing, but with all the fuss over time that Microsoft's come to make over backward compatibility, it's a pretty big stretch to claim that they didn't test against what was at the time fairly popular software.
I also can't remember this fabled golden age when ipods and itunes were "quite usable with non-Apple products".
I've never had a problem putting music I didn't buy from Apple on an iPod. I've never had a problem getting music I bought from Apple out of their ecosystem, as they included a "burn to CD option." That's before you consider some of the various hacks out there that will let you move whatever you like on and off an iPod w/o having to use iTMS (or even replace the iPod software entirely) and/or crack their DRM.
But again, that's beside the point. Apple's never used whatever market power they've had to ensure that you didn't have an alternative to their music player, or their music format, or their music store.
As for your underlying thesis, it is immensely naive. "ipod" and "mp3 player" are more or less synonymous for most non-tech people I know.
But not because they threatened anyone or made deals to eliminate competitors. Largely because they're good at marketing campaigns and producing products most non-tech people like to use.
Tweet, tweet.
Yes, there is something inherently wrong with it. Are you intentionally ignoring everything that's being said? Here's a brief refresher: Lock-in, crippleware, no multitasking, iTunes.