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."
This is not a work-related "convenient opinion" of his. He's been critical of Apple's walled-garden approach to development for years, and an Android advocate since he got an Android phone in 2008 (see http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/12/18/Android-Diary for his chronicles using and programming it).
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
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
Tim Bray bought his *first* smartphone in December 2008 and declared it the best he's ever owned:
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/12/...
Maybe if he had tried 3 or 4 other phones and then settled on Android, his opinion would have weight.
This guy had never owned a "fancy phone" until 15 months ago and now he's an expert? Seriously Google, is this the best you can do?
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.
Technically RIM still holds the biggest smart phone market share with the iPhone in 2nd place.
Exactly - it's just like that Richard Dawkins guy - he's always talking about religion, but he's an atheist! How can he possibly know anything about religion if he doesn't believe in god!??!?!
But at least it's the same version of the walled garden for all purchasers/users:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/android-version-confusion/
Sig this!
Another way to look at it is that iPhone provides a solid single platform that developers can concentrate on features rather than UI and input differences.
Yes, because if Apple allowed pictures of women in bikinis, uncensored dictionaries or mentioning the name of a competitor on the iPhone, the "solid single platform" would fragment into a dozen incompatible versions, right?
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
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you aren't using it enough.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
I'm pretty sure you mean Nokia, not RIM.
No, he said smartphones. A smartphone is defined as being a device with few enough sales that the iphone looks like a serious competitor in comparison. Nokia do not make smartphones.
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.
You're missing context. See here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/technology/14brawl.html
Apparently, Apple considered Google's Android a stab in the back. So now Google's CEO (Eric Schmidt) is off Apple's board of directors and Apple is suing HTC for patent infringement (Google is not named, but is the indirect target).
I'm surprised this whole fight hasn't gotten more coverage on Slashdot. In any case, I'm squarely in Google's corner on this issue. We need Android to succeed to preserve competition and openness in the smart phone and tablet/e-reader markets.
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
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.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<reply xmlns="http://slashdot.org/xmlns/reply">
<content xml:lang="enUS">True.</content>
<content xml:lang="frFR">Vrai.</content>
<content xml:lang="it">Vero.</content>
<content xml:lang="hr">Istinto.</content>
</reply>
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).
Quicktime uses 'normal' formats - H264, mp4, etc. Apple don't have any proprietary audio or video formats. You're confusing format with DRM, and there's none of that in their music either.
Palm decision to use someone else's software to manage their device is a bad move in every sense. They become reliant on the experience provided by someone else, and open themselves up to being locked out. When Apple also provide APIs for accessing the iTunes database (hell, it's just an XML file, any dev worth their salt can write a parser, and there are plenty of open-source XML parsers out there) then Palm's decision looks more like posturing and using their own customers as a weapon.
Still, many of the /. crowd fell for Palm on this, hook line and sinker. It became an issue of 'freedom' or something, and not just a shabby development decision that was almost certainly going to bite them later.
As for EEE, can you give an example? I can understand how Microsoft could do that with IE, as they had market dominance. I can't see how Apple can do that in any market but mp3 players, and clearly they've not done so in that market.
Unfortunately, chris.travers@GMAIL.COM, your Google boycott rings a tad hollow.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Quicktime today is h.264 video with AAC audio (Sorensen is gone).
h.264 is a licensed technology owned by MPEG LA. While it did go free for a few more years for usage, it was set to lose that until about a month ago and is still a licensed technology that can be used to lock.
iTMS files are AAC audio and fairplay is gone. Fairplay was easy to remove by yourself and Apple documented how to do so.
Again, AAC audio is not an open technology, it's a licensed one. The license is quite a easy one to stream and distribute (free), but to use the actual codec itself requires a company to obtain a license. This is why FOSS FAAC and FAAD software projects are only distributed in source code form only to avoid the patent issues. As for Fairplay, it was Apples way of keeping any songs bought from iTunes to only play on iPods. No other MP3 player was able to read the files helping Apple keep a monopoly, and is still being fought under the Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation Not to mention Fairplay is still being used by Apple. Also couldn't find anything on the Apple.com site on how to remove Fairplay from anything.
iTunes works with anything as long as anything actually knows how to interact with iTunes (the fact Palm doesn't understand how is Palm's failure). Some vendors even get sync functionality (many Motorola devices, following the ROKR partnership), not just the iPod as you say.
iTunes works as long as Apple says it's ok, not if anything actually knows how to interact with iTunes. Palm does know how and kept programming to make it work. It was Apple that kept altering iTunes to purposely break that connection to wall out Palm since they didn't want to jump through Apple's hoops.
What was your point again ? Oh right, outright lies.
No, that was your point to make outright lies.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
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.
lol you have a hotmail account
iTunes works as long as Apple says it's ok, not if anything actually knows how to interact with iTunes. Palm does know how and kept programming to make it work. It was Apple that kept altering iTunes to purposely [slashdot.org] break [slashdot.org] that connection [slashdot.org] to wall out Palm since they didn't want to jump through Apple's hoops.
No, that's utter rubbish. There's a well-documented method for interacting with iTunes via its database. There are many third-party apps that do so, including the Amazon mp3 downloader which competes directly with the iTunes store. Palm were trying to piggy-back onto iTunes by partially emulating an iPod, which isn't something that Apple support (and why should they, any more than HP will support your Epson scanner with their scanning software), and made a huge fuss about it. Palm should have written their own code for interacting with their media player and interacted with iTunes (and any other software) through the right APIs.
Microsoft was sued by 20 State Attorneys General for violating antitrust laws.
I don't think there's much of a comparison between Apple and Microsoft.
No! You don't get it! That's how deep the conspiracy goes! Either Apple has brainwashed state governments so they don't see that Apple's also violating the same antitrust laws, or fanbois have infiltrated those governments! There's no other possible explanation!
Wake up sheeple and see the truth before it's too late and we have iGovernment!
Tweet, tweet.
One reason Android beat out Openmoko was because Google was willing to make a platform that carriers could turn into a walled garden if they wanted to, while Openmoko was designed to NOT be locked down.
Sure, technically Google isn't doing evil here. They're just enabling AT&T to do it.