Slashdot Mirror
Cringley: Apple using Open Source to get Microsoft
alfredo writes " In the latest I Cringley, Robert Cringley demonstrates how Apple is using open source to undermine Microsoft. " Cringley, as always, makes an interested and impassioned argument, essentially arguing that Apple is doing the politically correct thing of Open Source-ing portions of their code, but doing it to become de facto standards (a la Quicktime), or else to push Microsoft down. Worth a read.
So? 6 years ago, Linux had virtually no mindshare, very few developers maintaining it, and virtually no momentum. That didn't stop people from using it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Now Java is a ``Streaming Media Solution.'' Excuse me? What the hell is that supposed to mean? The only ``streaming media'' I've ever seen Java do has been the equivalent of server-push, or GIF89 animations.
Strategies have a funny way of mutating in ways their originators never intended. Take, for example, frequent-flyer plans (to use an oft-cited example). Originally one airline started one to get more customers, and then others followed suit. Now frequent customers are getting a lot of free flights, which is costing the airlines a fortune. And the genie is out of the bottle; any airline which axes such a programme will be committing market suicide.
Even if Apple's open-source move may be merely a temporary strategy against Microsoft, it may end up rewriting the rules, leading to a state of affairs where standards have to be open-source to be accepted. (Which would be a Good Thing, of course.)
Eventually, hopefully every common protocol, file format and standard will be open source.
The $150mil MS invested in Apple a couple of years ago was in non-voting stock. MS has no board or stockholder rights @ Apple. Aside from the name recognition, all MS got was some rights for cross-licensing patents.
Apple now has a decent OS which will actually be an asset, but it's based on publicly available code and knowledge. I imagine Darwin is a major improvement on the state of the art, but I also imagine that any good team of OS programmers could approach its quality, since BSD and Mach are public (correct me?).
They should just release the whole damn MacOS X. Sure, some people would port it to cheaper Intel hardware, costing Apple revenue, but most people would run MOSX on G3/G4 hardware, and MOSX would kick butt even more if it were open-source. Its OSS development would be particularly fast since a) most OSS developers are already familiar with Mach & BSD, and b) this is so political.
The various forks of MOSX would certainly be less Euro and slick-looking than Jobs would prefer--hackers like to see the guts of a system; Jobs thinks the wave of the future has its guts sealed up tight--but Apple can take the improvements it likes and preinstall it (with source) on the servers and desktops it sells, maintaining the MacOS facade.
IBM (a hardware company with a few impressive forays into software) has begun to realize that it needs to become a hardware & services company, and use software as a tool, not a source of revenue. This realization led them to undercut their own costly, revenue-generating Unices by selling Linux pre-installed as an option on their servers. IBM has done extremely well recently with these strategies, and they've turned themselves around from the most hated monopoly of the early 80s into a hacker-friendly open-systems company. Apple could learn a lesson.
Sorry, but that is just silly. Why would multimedia playback ability suddenly make linux a competitor? A few months back apple had a story on its website about how some people used linux on apple hardware instead of the MacOS because they were worried about stability. (this was pre MacOS X server) This was on Apple's website! I have never seen any indecation that apple considers linux a competitor. If anything, quicktime support for linux would make linux a competitor for windows (less reason for a dual boot system.) I doubt that apple would shy away from making microsoft squirm.
finally, the first program that mpeg-4 was going to be supported by was quicktime as the mpeg standards group decided that quicktime is the best multimedia program available(if I remember correctly.)
also, does anyone have any independent information about the quality:size:speed ratios for mpeg1 compared to sorenson and other formats. I heard that sorenson had better quality:size than mpeg1, but I have no actual information to support or refute that claim. Idealy it would be cool if the sorenson codec were opened up, but apple does not look to be allowing that in the near future.
ajdavis writes
They should just release the whole damn MacOS X. Sure, some people would port it to cheaper Intel hardware, costing Apple revenue, but most people would run MOSX on G3/G4 hardware, and MOSX would kick butt even more if it were open-source. Its OSS development would be particularly fast since a) most OSS developers are already familiar with Mach & BSD, and b) this is so political.
I'd strongly disagree that Apple should release ALL of their MacOS. Their strength is in their user-oriented interface which is specifically engineered for (dare I say it?) non-nerds. The underlying kernel and OS functions are pretty much commodities with a bit of flash technology but their memeware (ie conceptual interface) is unique and should be leveraged for what it's worth (between zero and infinity depending on how they hype it). If their OS was completely freed, then it would be harder to set consistent standards and interaction modes. Quality or quantity? Your choice.
IBM (a hardware company with a few impressive forays into software)
A few? Minor point but IBM has one of the largest software development team around (someone has to keep their corporate mainframe customers happy).
LL
"There is a new Star Wars trailer that has been recently released and it uses the currently unsupported Sorenson Video codec. I have contacted Sorenson about licensing their codec. They responded that Apple won't allow them to license it to others."
Like I said, Apple won't let them.
~Kevin
:)
You seem to be having a problem understanding the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. Just because you say something sucks, doesn't mean that it does, in fact, suck. Usually when arguing -- at least, I mean, traditionally, back before they let kindergardeners have internet access -- people supply so-called "justifications", that is, reasoning and evidence to help show that their subjective opinion is indeed objectively correct (although if you get into epistemology, you'll find that objectivity is an elusive goal). Next thing you know, you'll be making an ad hominen attack against Steve Jobs.
In shorter words, you suck, dumbass.
Jon
Yes, but the Microsoft client is old. It doesn't have all the capabilities of the new clients, and isn't being kept up to date with the main development tree. It was developed (ported, whatever) by the company that Microsoft bought out to get the code. Microsoft dropped support for it as fast as they could. That's why you don't see download links to it prominently posted all over the place. It's old technology that isn't as useful anymore.
I don't think it will be too long before a Linux client pops up...