An all things Apple thread

[JTK]

Originally Posted by jsb_hburg

I practice antitrust law. I will not provide an opinion.

I wish you would.

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by Zvi

Which effectively kills 3rd party software for Apple. If you look at the amount of open source and third party software for PC, it clearly impossible for one company to either validate or review even 10% of it. So, one way or another Apple is shooting themselves in the foot. I'd think they'd learn by now after all those years, but no. They're just as arrogant and greedy as before.

It absolutely in no way kills 3rd party software for Apple.

Want open source software for the Mac. It’s there. Running under Mac OS or BSD/Xll or Linux. What more do you want? Want shareware and freeware? It’s there.

You must somehow believe that Apple requires any software vendor out there who want to write software for the Mac to submit their software for review and blessing by Apple. This could not be further from the truth.

I’ve never had ONE piece of software written for the Mac “validated” by Apple. Never happened, and I wrote my first application on the Mac using a Microsoft development environment for the Mac way back in 1985. Apple had absolutely no say in what my code did. I work with teams today that program on many different platforms and never once has the applications written to the Mac (in any variant) had to be reviewed and OK’d by Apple.

Originally Posted by Zvi

Don't tell me you view that as a good thing though. Although the results speak for themselves.

The APIs in Cocoa and Carbon are closed in that for Mac OS X Apple has final rights to decide what are in the Mac OS X versions of Cocoa and Carbon. But... don’t forget that Darwin exists and is actively supported on both PowerPC and Intel platforms. You can, if you want to, write your own APIs for Darwin. (I don’t know any reason why you’d want to, but you could.) The same cannot be said for Windows APIs. While Microsoft has absolute controls over the APIs in such things as DirectX, there is no “Darwin equivalent” of Windows. So if you’re going to claim Apple’s smaller ISV base is because of “closed APIs” you clearly don’t know whereof you speak.

Additionally, the Cocoa and Carbon APIs are rather well documented. The same cannot be said for Windows. There are a few class action suits out right now about Windows APIs being either intentionally poorly documented or, in some cases, completely undocumented. No less than the EU itself has gone after Microsoft for poorly documenting its APIs.

Also doing proper software testing within the development environment does NOT mean that Apple itself is validating or OKing you software. Hell, if you are stupid enough to do it, you could develop your application without significant testing and ship it as a commercial Mac application. You’d probably crash and burn very rapidly, but you could do it, and Apple would not stop you.

To even imply otherwise tells the world just how little you know about both Microsoft and Apple having virtually no control over what software is shipped for their platforms.

Originally Posted by Zvi

What Apple ensures doing that is the absence of lots of software for Macs. Is apple software 100% bug free? Of course not. This is about control. And that's real stupid for software market.

I fail to see how making both the hardware and software (OS) has anything to do with the installed software base. Apple’s OS does work more reliably because it controls the hardware. Apple makes the hardware, the OS and some applications. Because of this the combination of Apple hardware, Apple OS and Apple applications is typically more stable than on other systems.

Apple does not have to contend with 10s of millions of variations in hardware. This makes Apple’s life much simpler than Microsoft’s is. Sometimes it amazes me that Microsoft ships anything that works at all because it has to contend with so many possible variations in hardware.

Anyone asking if any software with more than a few hundred thousand lines of code is “100% bug free” either does not know software or is trying to start a flame war. NO OS is 100% bug free. I’ve been doing computer related stuff since the mid 60s and I’ve yet to find ANY OS that I would consider even close to bug free – and I’ve worked on more OSes than I can count on fingers and toes – and programmed on about half of them.

Yes, to some extent it is about “control”. To Apple it’s about the user experience. Use MS Office on the Mac and all the modules operate consistently (and fairly consistently with the rest of the Mac based software whether from Apple or ISVs). The same cannot be said of Windows based Office. Files & application launching and window & application closing are NOT consistent across Word, Excel and PowerPoint. Why is this? They are both MS application suites! The difference is because Apple strongly pushes its developers to be consistent in the user experience. Some of this is done through the frameworks and APIs. Some of it is done through constant pushing and cajoling at conferences and other meetings. None of it is done through Apple personnel reviewing your code and sanctioning it. I can live with this kind of control.

There is other control too. If you want to use Apple’s XCode environment and have easy access, and use of, Apple’s frameworks, APIs and such you need to sign up to be an Apple Developer. There are tradeoffs with freedom when you agree to do this (e.g., you use their frameworks and APIs), but for 99.9% of programmers the trade is more than worth it. You still get to write your own code and have it do pretty much whatever you want it to.

However, it is quite possible, though much more difficult to write software for the Mac without using any Apple developer help at all. Just use X11 and BSD based environments, for example.

In actuality, I believe the reference was to Apple’s planned control over software for the “iPhone” (or whatever it will eventually be called). Cingular (and the other phone companies) are worried that phones with complete (or nearly complete) PC operating systems will be huge targets for viruses, worms, Trojans, and the like. Their worry is that such malware, once unleashed onto their phone networks, will cripple them. (Personally I believe this is an unfounded worry, but I don’t run their companies.) Apple wanted to do things with the iPhone that could not be done with a severely crippled OS X. The compromise was/is that Apple will have absolute control over what software can and cannot be put onto an iPhone.

If you are in ISV and you want to develop and app for the iPhone you will need to get the final version OK’d by Apple before it goes onto any iPhone. This way the phone carriers think they are less likely to be hosts and transmitters of huge volumes of nefarious stuff.

Personally, I don’t think this will stand up for very long. The iPhone will eventually get hacked. People will eventually be uploading things to their iPhones without either Cingular’s or Apple’s permission. Will the average iPhone be hacked? Probably not, but someone will hack their iPhone before too long and put their pet piece of software on it. My guess is before 2007 is over. I would suppose that not too long after that happens, if not before, Apple will drop this absolute sanctioning nonsense.

Originally Posted by Zvi

Nah, they do not. Except when it's done outside of business acumen it's perfectly punishable.

First, having a monopoly and maintaining that monopoly are perfectly legal in the U.S. Period.

What is illegal is using methodologies that are inherent in having that monopoly to hurt other companies in order to maintain that monopoly or expand that monopoly. It is also illegal to use capabilities inherent in that monopoly to take predatory actions in an area where the company does not have a significant place in that market.

.... broken for length ...

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by Zvi

How about this: "In fact, other than Apple's iTunes, no other online music vendor has such a restriction in place; yet these other online vendors still manage to provide copyright protection mechanisms to artists and record labels -- often the same artists and labels whose same songs are sold online through iTunes." That is about their DRM and Apple preventing anyone else to play iTunes files on other portable players and other software playing music on iPod, Apple refusing to license Fairplay DRM and so on.
You can look at that as business acumen, but IMHO that's monopolist, anticompetitive and all that.

You state, “In fact, other than Apple's iTunes, no other online music vendor has such a restriction in place...” which is, in fact, untrue. Microsoft has a similar restriction. The DRM laden music put forth under the “Plays for Sure” banner plays on any OS as long as it is a Microsoft OS. How is that different from Apple’s DRM laden music from iTunes playing on any MP3 player as long as it’s an iPod? As I understand it, the Zune is even more restrictive. Buy music from Microsoft’s store that is targeted for the Zune and it only plays on the Zune. So it is restricted to both Microsoft’s OS and Microsoft’s Zune.

What Apple is doing with DRM is not to be praised in any shape or form, but it is not unusual in the industry, and it most certainly is no more illegally monopolistic than what Microsoft is doing with it’s Zune ecosystem.

Apple came late to the MP3 player market and worked a deal with the music industry over DRM and such. Apple’s market share has grown tremendously since that late start. Apple has done nothing with it’s software and hardware to make it less interoperable with the overall community than it was on day one. In fact, it has made it even more usable by the community as it is the only major hardware/software pair that works with both Windows and Macs after it ADDED Windows support several months after its initial efforts (which were Mac only). Adding usability to almost 90% of the installed personal computer base is not what anyone I know would call anti competitive.

You continue with, “That is about their DRM and Apple preventing anyone else to play iTunes files on other portable players and other software playing music on iPod...”. I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here, but you can play iTunes obtained music on other players – sure it’s not a lossless conversion (but then the AAC bit rate Apple uses is not lossless to start with), but it can easily be done. And you can play any music on the iPod as long as it does not have a competitor’s DRM on it. Is Apple to be faulted because Microsoft has not licensed it’s DRM to Apple? Is Apple to be faulted because Real has not licensed its DRM to Apple?

In fact, Real has created software that lets iTunes purchased songs on players supported by Real and on Real players under Windows. Has Apple sued Real for creating this software? No. (One Apple exec did call them “pirates” though.) What Apple officially has said is that it won’t actively support Real’s “transcoding” software. Thus when Apple upgrades iTunes and the iPod firmware sometimes it breaks Real’s software and sometimes it does not. But the bottom line here is that Apple has never attempted to stop Real from creating the software.

Additionally, IIRC, “DVD Jon” (I don’t’ recall his real name at the moment) has written software that breaks Apple’s DRM. Has Apple gone after him about this? No. Do they like it? No. But between Real and “DVD Jon” you have options other than the iPod.

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by JTK

I wish you would.

I don't know if this is jsb's reason or not, but there are a couple states (LA and TX, IIRC) that have actively cracked down on lawyers giving out what might be construed a legal opinion or legal advice over the 'net. If that's not it, jsp might have even more valid reason for not going out on a limb, legally, on this.

I respect jsb's right to refrain from providing such.

[Urian]

I am going to continue my travel into the OS X architecture.

Application Services (II): Quicktime, Cores and OpenGL.

Quicktime is one of the most application services in OS X, thanks to this App Service any application that uses it can manipulating, streaming, storing and enhancing video and it has access to sound, animation, graphics, text, music, and VR. With every new version of Quicktime the applications can get better and better support for new technologies.

Core Audio is another application service and the first Core that was released, in the original NextStep it was included a DSP for sound processing, Motorola 56K the first idea of Core Audio is to delete the need of use of hardware synthetizer, Core Audio provides the Synthetizer for any application. The second part is that they wanted to include full MIDI support in the OS from the beginning and the support of audio plug-ins that can be used by any application.

Core Image was the second one, is one of the parts of Core Graphics but because Core Image+Core Video+Core Animation are equal to Core Graphics I only need to talk about them instead of Core Graphics. The idea of Core Image is the same than Core Audio but this time using the modern GPUs for image management in real time. The main idea is the image unit, an image unit is a subprogram that runs in the GPU and can be used as a plug-in by any application in OS X.

Core Video is exactly the same than Core Image, only with movies and the programs that uses Quicktime API with Core Image, Core Video is only the bridge between Core Image and Quicktime API.

Core Animation is just another use of the Core Image/Graphics, the idea is that when when a developer modifies an attribute of a layer, Core Animation automatically interpolates the intermediate steps (color, opacity, etc.) between the changes, visually enhancing these applications and reducing the amount of source code that would have been required using traditional Cocoa animation techniques. In other words, reduces all the code that is needed between complex animations creating the transition code between one part of the animation and other. This technology is going to be a part of the next OS X release, Leopard.

Core Data is the last of the main Cores, is the only Core not designed for multimedia applications, is designed for database applications and it makes more easier the link between data inside a database transforming the objects inside the data code into XML, Binary or SQL. It runs very easily, usually is the developer who must say how to link the objetcs, in Core Data it can be done with a graphical interface and the code will be able to be like you want and since the Application Code, Interface Code and Data Code aren´t joined in the same code you can manage the data like you want.

Tomorrow more.

[marzetta7]

Originally Posted by Shadowself

You state, “In fact, other than Apple's iTunes, no other online music vendor has such a restriction in place...” which is, in fact, untrue. Microsoft has a similar restriction. The DRM laden music put forth under the “Plays for Sure” banner plays on any OS as long as it is a Microsoft OS. How is that different from Apple’s DRM laden music from iTunes playing on any MP3 player as long as it’s an iPod? As I understand it, the Zune is even more restrictive. Buy music from Microsoft’s store that is targeted for the Zune and it only plays on the Zune. So it is restricted to both Microsoft’s OS and Microsoft’s Zune.

What Apple is doing with DRM is not to be praised in any shape or form, but it is not unusual in the industry, and it most certainly is no more illegally monopolistic than what Microsoft is doing with it’s Zune ecosystem.

Apple came late to the MP3 player market and worked a deal with the music industry over DRM and such. Apple’s market share has grown tremendously since that late start. Apple has done nothing with it’s software and hardware to make it less interoperable with the overall community than it was on day one. In fact, it has made it even more usable by the community as it is the only major hardware/software pair that works with both Windows and Macs after it ADDED Windows support several months after its initial efforts (which were Mac only). Adding usability to almost 90% of the installed personal computer base is not what anyone I know would call anti competitive.

You continue with, “That is about their DRM and Apple preventing anyone else to play iTunes files on other portable players and other software playing music on iPod...”. I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here, but you can play iTunes obtained music on other players – sure it’s not a lossless conversion (but then the AAC bit rate Apple uses is not lossless to start with), but it can easily be done. And you can play any music on the iPod as long as it does not have a competitor’s DRM on it. Is Apple to be faulted because Microsoft has not licensed it’s DRM to Apple? Is Apple to be faulted because Real has not licensed its DRM to Apple?

In fact, Real has created software that lets iTunes purchased songs on players supported by Real and on Real players under Windows. Has Apple sued Real for creating this software? No. (One Apple exec did call them “pirates” though.) What Apple officially has said is that it won’t actively support Real’s “transcoding” software. Thus when Apple upgrades iTunes and the iPod firmware sometimes it breaks Real’s software and sometimes it does not. But the bottom line here is that Apple has never attempted to stop Real from creating the software.

Additionally, IIRC, “DVD Jon” (I don’t’ recall his real name at the moment) has written software that breaks Apple’s DRM. Has Apple gone after him about this? No. Do they like it? No. But between Real and “DVD Jon” you have options other than the iPod.

Whew. Damn good read. Well stated, and informative. Thanks.

[JTK]

I feel like I should be writing out checks to some people for some of this! Great read! I didn't know probably...99 percent of what I've read here thus far.

[Zvi]

Originally Posted by kilofox

BTW: Microsoft is doing the exact same thing with the Zune.

This must be the popular answer I saw in few msg. So, IMHO.
a) That doesn't justify what Apple does.
b) I said I don't like neither MS nor apple. I simply don't consider Apple to be any better of a company than MS is.

Would Apple do what MS did(still does to some extent) to competitors given the chance? Yes they would, and that DRM thingy is an example.

[Zvi]

Originally Posted by Shadowself

To even imply otherwise tells the world just how little you know about both Microsoft and Apple having virtually no control over what software is shipped for their platforms.

I can't claim a lo for macs, but for MS I could Being a software eng. for last 15 years that is.

Originally Posted by Shadowself

I fail to see how making both the hardware and software (OS) has anything to do with the installed software base.

Perhaps too much of control in one hands. What can I say. Otherwise we have to conclude it happened for no reason whatsoever and was a fluke?

Originally Posted by Shadowself

Apple’s OS does work more reliably because it controls the hardware.

I REALLY don't want to argue about that. For one, second half of your statement is rather vague. At least makes it sound like windows or Linux don't control hardware at all.

Originally Posted by Shadowself

Apple makes the hardware, the OS and some applications. Because of this the combination of Apple hardware, Apple OS and Apple applications is typically more stable than on other systems.

Would be nice to see some conclusive data on that. Because in my personal experience that wasn't really the case. I know this is the most popular Mac myth, and it's been debated for decades. Not really a place on Blu-Ray forum to argue over that.

Originally Posted by Shadowself

Apple does not have to contend with 10s of millions of variations in hardware.

Actually MS doesn't really have to do that either. Individual drivers are responsible for hardware.

Originally Posted by Shadowself

None of it is done through Apple personnel reviewing your code and sanctioning it. I can live with this kind of control.

Like i said it would be unrealistic from Apple or MS to review that amount of code even if they were willing.

Originally Posted by Shadowself

In actuality, I believe the reference was to Apple’s planned control over software for the “iPhone”.

Sortta. Same goes for iPod...

Originally Posted by Shadowself

If you are in ISV and you want to develop and app for the iPhone you will need to get the final version OK’d by Apple before it goes onto any iPhone.

Yeah, Which brings us to the oldest problem in the world, that all the forms of control as usual are promoted, masked and imposed with the best intentions for people, user, whoever... and way too often they end up doing very wrong things. So, pretty much U either play by apple's rules or U can't program for Apple. Yeah, I know it's their product etc, but the same argument can and was used by MS, it's our OS, we put whatever we want in it etc...

Originally Posted by Shadowself

First, having a monopoly and maintaining that monopoly are perfectly legal in the U.S. Period.

Depends on methods you maintain your monopoly with. And as usual it's too temping to go outside of fair business practices. So, I don't think Apple is any different in that regard.

P.S. those quotes about Apple DRM lawsuit shouldn't be to me, I forgot to provide a link, I was quoting an article. But i do agree with it

[Shadowself]

First I have to say that it is quite interesting to see the snippets to which you chose to respond. It often takes things out of context. I would prefer you respond to the full context.

Originally Posted by Zvi

I can't claim a lo for macs, but for MS I could Being a software eng. for last 15 years that is.

So you're NOT a Mac developer yet you claim to know how Apple controls its developers? How do you know this?

And 15 years writing software? Then you should know better than to ask anyone about 100% reliability of any OS. Get back to me when you cross 40 years.

Originally Posted by Zvi

Perhaps too much of control in one hands. What can I say. Otherwise we have to conclude it happened for no reason whatsoever and was a fluke?

If anything Apple creating both the hardware and OS would make (and did prior to 1992 and after 2001) the software/hardware interaction better defined and thus a more "known" entity to which to program. It is NOT a matter of control of developers or the exclusion of developers input that you seem to be trying to make it out to be. Apple had a HUGE installed base of software prior to the dark days. Companies were bringing their newest software to the Mac FiRST -- Even Microsoft did so. Did you even know that the windowing version of MS Word showed up on the Mac first? Did you know that Excel showed up on the Mac first? Did you know that a modern IDE development environment from Microsoft showed up on the Mac first? Did you know that almost all desktop publishing software showed up on the Mac first? Did you know that almost all major U.S. DOE and NASA labs wrote a significant fraction of their scientific software on Macs and not DOS or Windows machines?

Apple lost the majority of its ISVs when its market share was in freefall. Virtually everyone thought the Mac would be non existent by 2000. Hell, even Intuit -- who had a person on Apple's board of directors -- had not put out a significant update for the Mac to their flagship product and when they did they shipped it crippled!

The trend of interesting software showing up ont the Mac seems to be starting again, but it will be a very, very, very long road back -- if they ever make it back (and personally I doubt they will). It will take such a long time because organizations don't want to spend the money to code for a new environment when they have one already which is making them money. It has absolutely nothing to do with Apple's control of the Mac hardware, OS and APIs.

Originally Posted by Zvi

I REALLY don't want to argue about that. For one, second half of your statement is rather vague. At least makes it sound like windows or Linux don't control hardware at all.

The "it" in the second half of the statement refers to Apple, not Mac OS X. In the full context of the dialog I thought that was clear. Maybe it was not clear enough.

Originally Posted by Zvi

Would be nice to see some conclusive data on that. Because in my personal experience that wasn't really the case. I know this is the most popular Mac myth, and it's been debated for decades. Not really a place on Blu-Ray forum to argue over that.

There's been tons of anecdotal evidence of this, but no one really believes anecdotal evidence.

However, the most glaring I remember was back around 1999 or 2000. Intel made the error of including actual costs to support their Windows and Mac OS based systems in their SEC filing. IRC they claimed it cost them over $11,000 per year to support a Windows based machine per year and about $9,000 per year to support a Mac OS based system -- for equivalent systems. Intel caught a LOT of flack for publishing that information from the Wintel organizations -- how could they publish numbers which clearly show their side being more costly to support?

Apple commissioned a study in 2001 or 2002 IIRC that said Macs are more stable and require less IT support than Windows based machines and that even in a mixed environment Macs cost less to support... but since it was commissioned by Apple no one really believes it. If Microsoft ever commissioned a similar report to show that Windows is less costly to support it has never seen the light of day... maybe because it says something similar to the one commissioned by Apple? (MS did commission a similar type of report comparing Windows to Linux which showed that Windows was less costly to support than Linux, but again no one really believed it because MS funded the study.)

Originally Posted by Zvi

Actually MS doesn't really have to do that either. Individual drivers are responsible for hardware.

Actually they do. This is why Microsoft has such long and extensive Alpha test periods, then multiple Beta test offerings, then “Public Beta” test offerings, then final candidate releases. It is to test the OS against as many hardware variations as possible. As I said before, I’m sometimes amazed that Microsoft gets anything out the door at all.

The press finds it popular to beat up Microsoft for taking so long to get the next version of Windows out the door. Considering all the variations MS has to deal with in getting Vista shipped I think they’ve held a decent schedule. Do I wish it had come out faster and without cutting away key features? Yes. But I’m still amazed they’re actually shipping it.

And yes, many third party ISVs and hardware vendors provide their own drivers, but through the Alpha and Beta and FC test periods MS tests (and others test and report bugs) its OS against virtually all currently shipping (and soon to be shipping) drivers and hardware variants. Thus Windows is tested against millions of variations before it ships.

Originally Posted by Zvi

Like i said it would be unrealistic from Apple or MS to review that amount of code even if they were willing.

Let’s look at the context of what you said before...

Originally Posted by Zvi

Which effectively kills 3rd party software for Apple. If you look at the amount of open source and third party software for PC, it clearly impossible for one company to either validate or review even 10% of it. So, one way or another Apple is shooting themselves in the foot. I'd think they'd learn by now after all those years, but no. They're just as arrogant and greedy as before.

Actually I should have taken you to task for taking Urian’s comment out of context which was. . .

Originally Posted by Urian

This partie support is allowed in iPhone, the problem is that the PC media have confused the words "closed API" and "it must be validated by Apple" with no third partie support.

Actually this is the same situation of OS X, we program in closed APIs (Cocoa and Carbon) and we must validate our applications in the ADC.

In context what Urian seems to be saying is that a “closed API” and validating within the development environment does NOT mean the software must be “validated by Apple”. In your taking a fraction of his statement out of context you clearly are trying to imply he meant otherwise, i.e., “it must be validated by Apple with no third party support”. Your follow on statements are about how no company can validate even 10% of what’s out there for the PC (meaning the Windows environment). You do NOT say that you believe Apple is not trying to validate software for the Mac. In fact, your statements are clearly that you believe Apple has tried to do this and that is why the Mac environment has less software out there than the Windows environment.

When the basis of your argument is shown to be false you change your story. Not so fast. Your original context will still be there to haunt you.

Originally Posted by Zvi

Sortta. Same goes for iPod...

Not even close. There is a development environment for the iPod and ISVs can write games and small applications for the iPod and they do NOT have to have that software validated by Apple.

... broken for length ...

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by Zvi

Yeah, Which brings us to the oldest problem in the world, that all the forms of control as usual are promoted, masked and imposed with the best intentions for people, user, whoever... and way too often they end up doing very wrong things. So, pretty much U either play by apple's rules or U can't program for Apple. Yeah, I know it's their product etc, but the same argument can and was used by MS, it's our OS, we put whatever we want in it etc...

First, check the context of what I actually wrote. I’ll wait.

. . .
. . .

Now, the context is that Apple only instituted the validation by Apple because of the phone companies (Cingular specifically, but others too). These are not “apple’s [sic] rules”. These are rules Apple agreed to put into place in order to please the phone companies. If MS or anyone else comes out with a phone with a virtually complete desktop OS in the phone – before the iPhone is cracked – you can be sure they will be pushed very, very strongly by the phone companies to “validate” the software on the phone too.

It is analogous to DRM on music and video. Apple didn’t want to put DRM on songs or videos. However, the only way they could get the rights to resell those songs and videos was by putting DRM on them. The same goes for “validating” software on the iPhone.

Originally Posted by Zvi

Depends on methods you maintain your monopoly with. And as usual it's too temping to go outside of fair business practices. So, I don't think Apple is any different in that regard.

True, to some extent, there are limitations on what you an do to maintain that monopoly.

How is Apple no different in that regard? What has Apple done to illegally maintain any monopoly it might have? Apple is clearly different from Microsoft which has been sued by the US Government twice (settled out of court the first time and convicted the second time) and the EU (still not 100% settled) and which is being sued yet again for anti trust practices by another state. Seems Apple is a bit different. Apple and Apple management are certainly no saints (and some can be downright asses at times) but so far there has been a distinct difference in monopolistic practices between Apple and Microsoft. So to say Apple is no different in this regard ignores a great deal of information to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Zvi

P.S. those quotes about Apple DRM lawsuit shouldn't be to me, I forgot to provide a link, I was quoting an article. But i do agree with it

Well then you agree with things that are both factually and logically wrong as I explained before.

[Shadowself]

Urian,

Your description of Mac OS X has been great. I could not do it so succinctly for the Mac OS or any other OS with which I work (except maybe a couple embedded systems OSes).

Your history needs a bit of tweaking though. However, it might be because you don't know some of the inner happenings over the years, e.g., Pink was actually up and running within Apple more than two years before the Taligent agreement. And the agreement with IBM was based on more than just the OS. It had significant ramifications for other things too like OpenDoc.

(I'd love to see how many of the things on those "red" cards have actually come to pass!)

Yet all in all, a very good summary so far! Thanks for rekindling old memories. Now if I can just get someone to do the same for me for the old BSD versus System V wars!

[WriteSimply]

Apple needs to release a Windows version of Quicktime/Pro that lets users export 5.1 .MOV into 5.1 .MP4s. It's long overdue, especially with the capabilities of exporting 5.1 trailers from the Apple site to the PS3.


fuad

[Urian]

The only that I know is that I have discarded Windows for programming, actually I am not a computer professional and I prefer to help into some GPL projects in OS X instead of making my own software.

Your description of Mac OS X has been great. I could not do it so succinctly for the Mac OS or any other OS with which I work (except maybe a couple embedded systems OSes).

Basically I wanted to tell why OS X is superior from my point of view, a MVC OS is better because code is more easier to maintain and upgrading. I ever believed since 2000 that Microsoft needs to make an OS like NextStep/OS X and learn from other modern OS developments for making Windows from 0. They cannot live forever with the Micra architecture.

[Zvi]

Originally Posted by Shadowself

It is analogous to DRM on music and video. Apple didn’t want to put DRM on songs or videos. However, the only way they could get the rights to resell those songs and videos was by putting DRM on them.

Good. So they put DRM, and later on used that part for anticompetitive practices. You don't see it that way, fine, everyone has an opinion.

Originally Posted by Shadowself

The same goes for “validating” software on the iPhone.

Same goes for iPhone.

Originally Posted by Shadowself

How is Apple no different in that regard?

Given their chance they'll do the same. Are they less greedy than others? No, probably more so. Their profit margin is always 50% pr bigger. You listed prices yourself. And they do the same thing with their new products. Obviously their business how they price, but does tell about greed.

And as for number of lawsuits, MS was sued more, they're bigger, and did more damage too, however Apple has it's share too.
Apple faces US iTunes lawsuit, that's in addition to similar lawsuits in EU. And there's bunch of others too. Some of them probably are crap, others may not.

Originally Posted by Shadowself

Well then you agree with things that are both factually and logically wrong as I explained before.

Let's agree to disagree. Some people don't believe MS did anything wrong back then, you today believe Apple didn't do anything wrong.

What you are arguing and trying to prove here is that closed platforms like Apple-Mac are better than an open platform as PC and more 3rd party friendly.
That it is good when one vendor produces OS/Hardware and pretty much controls everything on the platform.
So far, in real world that wasn't the case.

[JTK]

Quick comment:

Apple, like any other company, is hardly a "perfect saint", but it's hard for me to see too much mud slung their way when they only have what? 20-25 percent of the computer market whereas Microsoft uber-monoply Windows run machines (Pc's) fill out the rest of that large percentile?

Microsoft and their Windows OS (among other things) truly has one of THE most unfair and monopolistic, competition squashing setups I've ever seen anywhere at anytime for anything.

Whatever Apple could ever be accused of really pales in contrast to something like that, IMO at least.

I wish the markets were a LOT closer than this. We need more competition all the way around.

[Zvi]

Agree with you on all points.

My original point was that Apple isn't much better and I wouldn't wish Apple gaining 80% or higher market share on home PC market.

I think it would be much worse than today because Apple/Mac is more closed platform than PC and Apple would be dictating their policies just as bad as MS did. Except MS had less control due to opennes of PC platform.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by Zvi

Agree with you on all points.

My original point was that Apple isn't much better and I wouldn't wish Apple gaining 80% or higher market share on home PC market.

I agree. I don't want ANYONE to have that kind of absurd command in ANY market, but that's pretty much what we've got right now with MS and Windows.

I think it would be much worse than today because Apple/Mac is more closed platform than PC and Apple would be dictating their policies just as bad as MS did. Except MS had less control due to opennes of PC platform.

Could be.


I'm sure you've seen the talk about some investigations beginning on possible price fixing with some of the GPU companies and so on.

So all is far from being well even in the more "open PC" land.

[Zvi]

Originally Posted by JTK

I'm sure you've seen the talk about some investigations beginning on possible price fixing with some of the GPU companies and so on.

So all is far from being well even in the more "open PC" land.

Yup. Exactly the problem. If that happens in relatively open platform as PC, imagine the opportunities in the land of Single manufacturer.

[Urian]

Is useless to discuss with a person that never touched a Mac, if you want to continue a stupid debabe about iTunes DRM you can continue but without me.