Windows 7 vs. Mac OS X Snow Leopard: Apple ups the ante - Page 4

Apple primarily bases its apps on open source/standard tools. Is willing to cooperate with partners such as Google and Yahoo in using or supporting their services. What if MS made its own phone. Looking at MS strategy an MS phone would be Windows only and locked into Windows services and development languages.

The iPhone development platform is Objective-C, HTML5/CSS/javascript.
MS development platform would be .NET and Silverlight.

The iPhone uses OpenGL-ES and Open AL for multimedia API.
MS phone would use its own DirectX as its multimedia API.

iPhone allows easy set up of several popular email services.
MS phone would allow easy set up of Outlook and Windows Hotmail.

iPhone calendar and address book are based on the open source vCard and CalDav/WebDav.
MS phone calendar and address book would be based on MS Outlook extensions.

iPhone encourages downloading pictures to Flickr and Facebook.
MS phone would encourage picture downloads to Windows Live Photos.

The iPhone has a built in Youtube app.
MS phone would have a built in Soapbox app and Silverlight streaming.

iPhone has integrated google and yahoo search
MS phone would have integrated Windows Live search.

iPhone has integrated Google Maps app.
MS phone would have integrated Windows Search Maps.

iPhone has encouraged the use of AOL AIM
MS phone would encouraged the use of MS Messenger.

iPhone encourages the use of Facebook for social networking.
MS phone would encourage Windows Live Spaces.

iPhone encourages the use of Twitter.
MS phone would encourage the use of Windows Live Groups.

Does Apple allow me to use a different browser on my iPod Touch?
Does Apple allow me to not use iTunes to sync or download information to my Touch?
Does Apple allow me to uninstall QT, since I don't use it on either my Mac or PC, without breaking iTunes?

All I really see are competing standards, which is fine, but if everything was truely 'open', I could do whatever the hell I want, but of which neither Apple or Microsoft will ever allow, as there is money to be had and protection of their interests. Closest to being open is Linux, in it's various forms and flavors, in which you could tweak anything if you had the knowledge, time, and patience.

MS and Apple both want market domination, but I would never either is particularly better than the other IMO, just wishing to protect their own. Google wants to dominate the market too, but most of the time, I find them better than Apple or MS, but I don't totally trust them either.

Tell me about it - no big deal though.

Just run REGEDIT go to HKey_localMachine>software>microsoft>windows>curre ntversion?runonce and remove the offending program.

:-)

Most of the time it won't run again, except quicktime - quicktime lives to place the run on startup file over and over and over in this location.

sigh

Quicktime framework is required for iTunes to run. That's why.

You forgot to add immoral.

Really, I expected more.

- Yes their are different browsers for you iPod Touch.

- iTunes and the iPod are vertically integrated, that is what has made them such a popular platform.

- iTunes and its media are based on the Quicktime framework. All of Apple's applications are based on the Quicktime framework are will not work without it.


I am not arguing that everything has to be open. To build a software platform with products and services their needs to be some degree of propriety. I see no problem with that.


I disagree with your assertion in the sense that Apple, Google, and MS are using very different business models and practices.

Apple and Google have mostly picked certain markets to aggressively compete in. Yes the goal is to capture a dominant share of those markets with superior products and services. Outside of their primary markets Apple and Google have shown a willingness to partner with others in sharing their services, products, and use open and widely interoperable software architectures.

Microsoft has taken a different strategy in they want to dominate most every major product category and service with an MS or Windows branded product or service that forms an ecosystem dedicated to Windows desktop OS. MS generally directly competes against everyone. MS shares its own products and services by licensing them out, but directly promotes someone else's technology. MS does not directly support widely interoperable software architectures developed by others.

backtomac:

Expected more with regards to what? You’re ducking the issue entirely. Apple forces MobileMe users on Windows to install a hell of a lot of proprietary software, most of which has nothing at all to do with the actual MobileMe service itself.

Those extraneous pieces of proprietary software run background processes, phone home, and bug you to install yet more extraneous pieces of proprietary software.

Your response that other software developers do it as well is childish and it is an attempt on your part to dodge acknowledging the simple fact that Apple is just as bad as other developers in this regard, if not worse.

But that is to connect to 3rd-party ail clients, address books and browsers to send updates to and from the machine to the cloud. Accessing MobileMe from any PC does not require any installation of Apple software.

This isn't true. You can access and manually upload information into MobileMe through FireFox and IE without any proprietary Apple software.

The proprietary software is so that you can automatically sync information directly into MobileMe from 3rd party apps.

Apple are just as bad.

But don't in anyway insinuate that Apple are the ones sullying up the pristine Windows landscape. Windows was and still is a ghetto of pop up notifications telling users to do this that and the other. If MS condones and promotes such user interaction, I don't see why Apple is obliged to do differently.

TenoBell:


The entire purpose of MobileMe is for all of this data synchronization to happen automatically.

I find the "well that's only if you actually want to use MobileMe's features!" rebuttal confusing.

I think Apple's affinity for installing its own proprietary software on alien OSs is much higher than Microsoft's.

But that's OK, because it's Apple.


backtomac:


Well thank god no one said that. Thanks for not contributing anything useful.

Then be honest and admit its common on that platform. Why just blast Apple for doing it?

Look we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

What do you feel would be an appropriate alternative?

MobileMe does not directly support Windows file formats. For the process to be automatic their needs to be a central point that manages and connects information from 3rd party apps to MobileMe. MobileMe management is integrated into OS X and has to be added through a control panel to Windows.


Sounds as if you are being biased against Apple, most all software installed on Windows is in one way or another proprietary, that is nothing specific to Apple. Consumers voluntarily choose to buy into Apple's vertically integrated platform. If people did not like it they would not use it.

Microsoft doesn't make very much software for other platforms because they want to build an ecosystem around Windows to maintain its dominance. To grow the iPod/iPhone market Apple has to develop Windows software, because of its dominant position.

backtomac:


At no point did I ever say that it was not common.


This is a thread about Apple.

If you have some examples of a corollary from another company I'll happily "blast" them for it. I like "blasting" things.


TenoBell:


- Not requiring the installation of Quicktime and iTunes to use the MobileMe control panel.
- Remove "Hey install more unrelated software!!" from the supposed "updater".

I have zero problem with the MobileMe control panel. It's a fine way of doing its job. However, the issue we have in this thread is a bunch of fanboys bashing the idea of proprietary software and lauding Apple's "openness" when, in reality, Apple does the exact same thing (even more flagrantly, it turns out).

I think "open" is an overused adjective and one used to simply say "it's good" when, in reality, a lot of "open" software is total shit and proprietary software does the job much much better.


Of course consumers choose to buy into Apple's platform, just as they choose to buy into Microsoft's. All I intend to point out is the glaring hypocrisy in so many posters here bashing Microsoft for pushing proprietary software and pretending that Apple is any different.

I like both Microsoft's and Apple's proprietary platforms and solutions. I love my MacBook Pro running OS X 10.5.6 and my Vista/Win7 desktop and my iPhone. And I love my Sony PS3 in all its proprietary goodness.

Where these discussions go badly wrong is when people try to argue that any of these corporations are fundamentally different from each other. They are not. Some are just better at certain things and some are more successful.




The best-selling piece of software on OS X is made by Microsoft.

How about MS and HP?

Every time my pc at work is booted up I'm reminded of "updates ready to be installed". Perhaps my biggest gripe is the proprietary crapware OEMS put on their machines. I guess MS can't be responsible for that but bit does negatively affect the Windows platform.

Anyway it was interesting discussing things with you. I've not changed your mind and you've not changed mine.

I'm sure MobileMe media synchronization requires Quicktime framework. MobileMe is intended to be used with iPhone/iTouch which requires iTunes. Would/do many people use MobileMe on Windows without an iPhone/iTouch?


Their are clear differences between Apple and MS. While both do have proprietary software, services, and platforms. Their is nothing wrong with creating a vertically integrated proprietary platform of products and services.

The difference is that Apple builds its proprietary platform on open and interoperable extensions and gives its development back to the open source community.

MS largely builds its proprietary platform on Windows-centric proprietary extensions and offers to license its extensions to other for a fee.


To enable equal and fair competition across various platforms their needs to be some key software that is freely readable and interoperable between all platforms, such as media and documents.

What makes open software good is the fact that its not beholden to one companies requirements and needs. One company controlling media and document files creates too much of an opportunity of anticompetitive abuse.

Is their any case where open software is dominant where their is a clearly better proprietary solution? I don't know of proprietary solutions that work a great deal better than H.264, MP3, PDF, or Webkit.



No one has said Apple has no proprietary software.



Their are clear examples of how different Apple and MS are in supporting open software or supporting other companies.

Apple supports other companies software or services directly in OS X: Google, Yahoo, Adobe, AOL, Wikipedia. MS directly competes against all of these companies, does MS support anyone else's software or services directly in Windows in this fashion? None that I can think of.

backtomac:

You'll have to give me something specific with regard to Microsoft, but HP really is terrible about it, as are the OEM builders.


TenoBell:


MobileMe can be used with iPhones and iPod Touches, but in no way is the MobileMe service dependent upon them.

All you're doing here is trying to find a justification for the unnecessary bundling of proprietary software.


These are two absolutist statements that are unsupportable. Both companies do both of these things. Do you sincerely think that Apple does not license technology to other companies? Do you sincerely think that Microsoft contributes nothing to the open source community?

Microsoft is a fairly huge player in open net standards and sponsors a hell of a lot of "open" development.


How about Open XML? (The foundation of Office 2007's files)

The funny thing is, every single one of those open standards is fully supported in Microsoft's products. Microsoft likes to find its own solutions, but it doesn't shut anyone out. Apple relies more on open standards than Microsoft, perhaps, but a "standard" is only a "standard" if someone calls it that.

The reverence for the term "open standard" is asinine. Look at something like Flash, for Christ's sake. What's the "open standard" equivalent of that extremely powerful and flexible tool?


Your ignorance of what Microsoft's contributions are is not evidence of Microsoft not contributing.

And we are still stuck on this ridiculous idea that contributing to the open-source/open-standards community is necessarily the best path for the end user.

I'll say it again: Open-source software generally sucks, and those pieces of open software that don't suck are usually helped a great deal by investment from private industry. There's a reason most of the real, work-oriented apps people run are proprietary pieces of software built by teams of paid engineers. Even Apple's vaunted contributions are extremely limited in scope (they may provide some crumbs to WebKit, but damned if we ever actually see Safari's code).

In Apple's marketing materials it clearly shows the intention of using MobileMe with the iPhone and Touch.



How are they unsupportable, its pretty easy to see. No Apple does not generally create software extensions that compete with open extensions to then license them for profit. As a recent example Apple created the mini Display port and offered it as a free license until it will be approved by the official Display port standards board. This is Apple creating a technology and offering it for free.

In the past few years MS has begun to offer some of its proprietary extensions for open source. Otherwise they would not be widely used.


Such as?



This a good move, but its recent as MS sees the tide turning against its proprietary formats. As well MS is staving off anticompetitive suits in Europe.


MS has been forced to support open standards, because everyone else is using them. If MS were able to push the industry into using its proprietary standards they would not support the open versions.


HTML5 is developing to be the open standard competitor to Flash. Its not there yet but its being worked on.




You are free to enlighten me.


It is important. Its important for the end user to have competition and options. To foster competition and options their needs to be basic software formats that are free to all OS's and devices.

End users need to be able to plug any monitor pr other peripheral into any computer. Open standards insure this.




As though all proprietary software is gold? Theirs crap software either way you go.

Dave Hyatt is the head of Webkit development. I saw a blog post were Dave Hyatt said if you want to know the difference between Safari and Webkit, everything below the chrome (url bar, tabs, bookmarks) is all webkit.

gee, what an odd debate here.

both MS and Apple market proprietary products as a key to their core businesses. but comparing the way they each do it and why as directly as many comments here do is comparing apples, er, bananas to oranges.

as everyone knows, Apple makes $billions selling hardware and finds proprietary ways to tie its software to it toward that goal. the famous Apple "walled garden," of which iPod/iTunes is a pluperfect example - and the foundation for Apple's crucial media hardware products. using open source standards is often amenable to this because non-Apple new customers need to be enticed to enter and stay in that "garden."

and as everyone knows, MS makes $billions selling software and services instead and seeks proprietary ways to maintain its dominant market position in those fields no matter what brand of hardware. more of a "prison yard" approach, of which Exchange is a pluperfect example - and the foundation for MS' crucial enterprise software/services market. open source standards are often a threat to this because they might help current customers escape to competitors' software products.

there is no denying that historically MS has sought to undermine or co-opt open standards. it would love to repeat the triumph of Office in the 90's when its file formats became the de facto global standard, effectively killing all their competition (now it does not matter anymore because converting file formats is trivial). it is determined to keep Exchange as the de facto enterprise server standard. it would like TSQL to take over as the most common database standard and leave Oracle and MySQL in the dust. these are all enterprise products, the bread and butter profit machine for MS, its true core business. MS has fared less well in promoting its proprietary versions of all the media products, tho not for lack of trying (Silverlight is the latest). there is just too much competition, and really too large an overall context, for any one company to dominate the media universe.

Apple's proprietary software are instead mainly instrumental to its hardware, lacking any such grand goal of market monopoly or hegemony. Apple lost any chance at world domination by 1990 ... and so took another path.

you can tell which approach i prefer, but that is just my own value system.

one basic outcome of their differing situations is that MS allows you to load its proprietary Windows on your Mac if you want, but Apple does not allow you to load its proprietary OS X on your PC. ah, irony.

TenoBell:


Yet it's not a requirement, so why is software unassociated with the user's needs required?


I see you're already backtracking from your absolutist statements, now saying "generally" instead. You keep making huge, sweeping statements without providing evidence, it's ridiculous.


This is not how logic works. You don't make huge, sweeping claims about something and then say, "The burden of evidence is on you to prove me wrong."
You are the one making these claims about Apple and Microsoft, so it is your burden to provide evidence. Your efforts have been scant-to-nonexistent.


Sure. So tell me. Which operating system is most flexible with regards to what it will run on and what peripherals/hardware it will support: Windows or Mac OS? (Please answer this question.)


No. Never said that.

List some fully open-source apps you use every day.


Alfiejr:


Exactly.

Each company is out to protect its business model and neither one does anything out of altruism or for the overall good of the community without concern to self-interest.

Your logic is weak. Apple uses open standards to render web based pages. Period. Your assertion that Apple does use an open source sync service to gather and update data on Windows machines is foolish.

No its not a requirement, but it seems disingenuous to complain when you clearly see that is how Apple has intended the service to be used.




I gave plenty of examples. I gave one with mini DP right after the sentence you are addressing.



You want to refute my claims. So yes the burden of proof is on you.



This has nothing to do with being open or closed. These are differing business models. MS makes direct profit from Windows. Apple does not make its profit from OS X, it makes profit from selling hardware.



I don't use any open source apps everyday. I use proprietary apps that are based on open source frameworks everyday.

You do have to keep this in context also. As this has nothing to do with open or closed. These are two different business models.

At this point Windows installed base is likely near a billion computers. Selling Windows licenses is highly profitable for MS.

Apple only having an extremely small fraction of that installed base cannot equal Windows. Apple uses OS X to make money from its hardware.

solipsism:


Explain what you mean by this.


I don't remember asserting that, so I guess I'm clear.


TenoBell:


I think it's perfectly rational to criticize Apple for requiring the installation of unnecessary software that wastes resources in the background. Then again, I'm not a fanboy.


Apple does this kind of thing out of self-interest. They have no ability to push proprietary solutions, and they have done so many times in the past (ADC, for instance, just to stay within the monitor realm).

It's easy to just go with the most commonly open standards if you have no power to do anything else effectively.

Apple only behaves as it does because of their business interests, not out of any sense of goodness or altruism.


Right, it's about business models, not about corporate integrity.


List some open source frameworks that Microsoft does not support.


And to do so they must remain very closed and rely heavily on proprietary software. Nothing wrong with it, but that's how it is.

Reading and understanding Apple's marketing materials makes one a fanboy?



Its only really been within the past 10 years that the computer industry has collectively agreed to use common standards. Since that point Apple has become consistent about using common or open standards over proprietary.

ADC wasn't truly proprietary. The ADC combined DVI, USB, and power in one cable. With DVI and USB being open standards, it was possible to use an adaptor to split the signals and use them on any other device.


I don't think you are totally correct that Apple has no option. Apple has built its own highly successful proprietary platforms. Fairplay is a very proprietary DRM scheme that only Apple uses, but has been very successful.

It is in Apple's business interests to use open standards because interoperability of standards across the entire electronics industry is good for everyone. As a group the entire electronics industry can counter MS and its desire to control these standards.

Where it is not in Apple's business interests to use open standards. If people are free to move and view media or documents on any device or service they choose. Apple cannot use media and document formats to lock users into its platforms.

Which is what people accused Apple of doing with Fairplay and the iPod/iTunes. Now that Fairplay is gone from music no one can accuse Apple of locking people into the iPod or iTunes.





Its not just this simple. Microsoft has not been an major advocate of open software. MS has been forced to support open software because the computer industry at large understands its important for these frameworks to be open and not held by any one company.

MS still only tentatively supports W3C web standards. The internet is the next big software development platform, which helps loosen the influence of the desktop OS over the computer industry. Is it a coincidence that IE8 has poor support for HTML 5.

To repeat, the MobileMe website uses only open standards for its pages; HTML, CSS, JavaScript. Whereas Microsoft would choose to use its SilverLight platform on its web pages.

The difference is that when I direct someone to look at my photo album, or my calendar, they can use any modern browser they'd like. If I used Microsoft's solution for my data, that same person would have to download and install SilverLight, just to view that web page.

Or if I'm sitting at someone else's computer and I need to add someone to my address book or add an appointment to my calendar, I can log onto MobileMe from their browser and do it. If I had a Microsoft "cloud" account, I would have to install SilverLight on that person's computer in order to log in and make those changes to my account.

This has nothing to do with what I need to install on my own computer to setup and use my account. This has to do with access to the web applications; nothing to do with setting up the account, or syncing the data. Using an external run-time engine, be it SilverLight, Air, Java, or Flash requires the installation of 'extra' software on every system you plan on accessing those sites from.

This is not true of Apple's MobileMe website, which uses pure HTML, CSS, and JavaScript to render it's pages.

Having support for something and actually using it and promoting it, are two different things. Microsoft has to support certain open standards, otherwise they would lose that portion of the market to others that do. Apple actually uses, embraces and contributes to open standards and open source projects in both MacOSX and its software.

Display and Print Technology -> PDF, GNUPrint
Graphics -> OpenGL
Audio -> OpenAL
QuickTime -> MP3, MP4, AAC, H.264
System/User Configuration Services -> XML
WWW Services -> Apache
WWW Rendering -> WebKit
Networking -> Bonjour (ZeroConfig)
Processing -> OpenCL
Media Streaming -> Darwin Streaming Server

I don't believe Apple wants os x on non proprietary hardware... knowing what hardware your os runs on is a big advantage in terms of reliability.

So? I'm a .NET developer, I don't want to develop in Objective-C, from what I've seen there's less support and will take longer. Plus why develop in different languages for different products. .NET does web, client, mobile, server controls, silverlight everything. Plus MS probably wouldn't stop Java, Flash and everyone else's languages having a compiler.


Its just as easy to set up my email account on Apple Mail as it is on Outlook. Plus why wouldn't they promote Hotmail, there one of the oldest free email providers?


iPhone promotes picture downloading to MobileMe, whats the difference?


I think its more likely MS phone would give you the option to choose any browser like Internet Explorer does. Its only Safari restricting me so Apple can make money from my search's.


So who uses AOL AIM. I live in the UK everyone uses MSN or Skype. Whats wrong with promoting something people actually use?


Now I have an iPhone and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with Twitter on it. Are you trying to say because Twitter have made an iPhone app Apple are promoting it? And why wouldn't there be an app for an MS Phone? Out of the two MS are the one to put less restrictions up.

For a lot of your other arguments like promoting Facebook, you do get that the companies iPhone promotes are the ones that pay apple to be on there! Apple isn't just going Facebooks popular lets put them in out ad. Every other company that is featured will have paid.


Your argument is flawed in that photo albums on Microsofts site don't use Silverlight, in fact very little does. On top of that, everywhere Silverlight is used for people that don't have Silverlight an HTML version displays instead.

Plus the latest version of Microsofts .NET framework supports browser recognition so developers can easily make sites work with different browsers, after all even browsers that follow standards are all at different points. Not to mention there is more than one standard.

I could give a rusty f*** whether you do or do not want to learn another programming language, just as I don't expect you to have compassion for my dislike to learn C#.

If you don't want to learn it, then don't develop for a platform you clearly see as a money pit, but with barriers to entry that won't bend for you.

Yet you argue that Apple is better because an MS phone would be locked into MS development services and languages, despite the fact this is exactly what Apple did with the language its in.

Also I think its worth pointing out that C# probably the more popular .NET language is in fact an ISO standard and has been since 2003! Plus Silverlight uses the C# and Javascript again another Standard that everyones been going on about.

CUPS


A language is a tool for getting things done. The cocoa environment is well capable of getting things done and quickly. If you don't believe this then consult the impressive portfolio of applications Apple has assembled in the 8 years since OS X launched.

Look at Cappuccino if you think cocoa and Objective-C can't do web. Better yet:280slides.com

You make me giggle! Microsoft generally doesn't support new ideas. They embrace and extend then give their version a new name and try to rely on market penetration to render moot what an ISO number would do for anyone else. I am having a very difficult time thinking of a unique advanced technology that MS has developed in the past 15 years without using another product as the template. Something has to exist surely, but being as hard to think of as it is means they don't really have that many "new" ideas.

You also poorly mix your metaphors. Industry standards and distribution pipelines are entirely different beasts that serve entirely different spaces. iPhone uses lots of ISO standards: ECMAscript(Javascript with an ISO number), HTML5, all the associated web graphics and codec formats, OpenGL, and a host of others... Almost all of them developed outside Apple.

Java isn't a standard, it is an open platform programming language. DirectX isn't as standard, it's a very well executed attempt to kill OpenGL and Open AL that almost worked. C# and J# are continuing attempts to kill Java after MS's first attempt failed in court. .NET isn't a standard, it is a MS API submitted for consideration to become a standard, but will never be one because nobody else will implement it.

And to keep the grammar police happy:
1) aloud - uttering a phase audibly
2) allowed - permitting
Proofing a post before hitting submit is a priceless habit. You may still make subtle errors, but won't look like you are vocabulary impaired.