That's a much better article than the others! More impartial.
More impartial? It seems like you must have woken up on the right side of the bed this morning to make such a generous. This article is no less biased than the other 2 in the series. Why didn't they just entitle the series, "Why System 7 Sux and Snow Leopard Rulz" And the "Sux" and "Rulz" parts are important to show the fanboy bias.
Much is made about Apple's use open standards versus developing proprietary formats. It seems pretty clear Apple is just interested in getting something for (practically) nothing by glomming off of Open Source developers. It has nothing to do with Apple's good intentions.
...I just can't think of any decent reason to keep the rest of Mac OS X closed, none that would outweigh the benefits...
Think of Psystar, and you'll probably are able to understand why OS X isn't Open Source. The moment that such thing happens, then you'll have clones in the PC world and they will be legal. Psystar's would abound. Apple would lose another reason for PC users to switch, the OS X.
Much is made about Apple's use open standards versus developing proprietary formats. It seems pretty clear Apple is just interested in getting something for (practically) nothing by glomming off of Open Source developers. It has nothing to do with Apple's good intentions.
Stop trolling. You are still confusing Open Source with Open Standards. And the idea that Apple is stealing Open Source's ideas without contributing back is pure uninformed FUD.
Edit: Also, it's not about "good intentions" at all. It's about good long-term strategy. It's good for Apple, but then again, it's good for all of us too.
I'm using Google Chrome right now, which uses, wait for it.... Apple's Webkit!! And it rocks!! (I substituted Safari for it in a nanosecond. Couldn't look back)
So while I like my MacBook alot, I don't think you could ever prove to me that Apple really stands behind Open Source. If they did they would open more of their sources because in my honest opinion its their beautiful hardware that sells. They have well thought out designs, when I bought mine I priced between a Macbook and Dell XPS M1330 and basically they were the same price at the same features (2.4Ghz, Intel X3100 etc). I doubt Hackintosh would change the volume for Apple Hardware.
Apple chooses Open Source when it makes sense like with Web Kit and LLVM. They just don't bless Open Source because it's cool and hip. Frankly I think a lot of Open Source software is utter crap. As long as the licensing is being adhered to I see no reason why Apple shouldn't leverage the good stuff.
I've been involved in computer user training since 1980. I have worked on operating systems from AppleDos and CPM through Unix, MS-DOS, Windows, and Mac. At this point, the debate between the latest Mac OS and the latest Windows OS is moot. Both systems do everything 99.999% of the users want and need and do it quite well. The user should try both of them in stores and make up their own mind.
It reminds me of when I was a professional photographer (before digital cameras). People would ask "Nikon vs. Canon" and I would say "Both of them are more than you need. Buy the one that feels best in your hand." The same could apply to the OS wars now.
All I want from any new OS release is please, for the love of God, do something about system font conflicts with the Helvetica family. License the real Helvetica and Helvetica Neue, fix the system versions so the font metrics match... ANYTHING.
That'd be a feature most design shops would kill for.
They will probably do something just for the Helvetica of it..........
Hey try Chalkboard..wish they had it on this forum web site.
How much do you want to bet that the version of Windows 7 offered by all the major OEMs will still be the 32-bit version?
HP already ships 64bit versions of Vista for a lot of Desktops and notebooks. And important detail is that the new Windows Server version developed with Windows 7 called "Server 2008 R2" will only be available in 64bit. Since Vista SP1 the client and server versions of Windows do share the same code base (kernel and stuff).
This means that OEMs do have to create 64bit drivers for a lot of hardware. There is no real reason not to deliver new client systems in 32bit.
Another reason for 64bit is the cheap memory. 4 GB RAM or even 8 GB isn't something special for Desktops at the end of this year. As you know 32bit only supports up to 3 GB.
Think of Psystar, and you'll probably are able to understand why OS X isn't Open Source. The moment that such thing happens, then you'll have clones in the PC world and they will be legal. Psystar's would abound. Apple would lose another reason for PC users to switch, the OS X.
Even that does not outweigh the potential benefits, potential benefits because going open source does not work like magic, they'd probably have to go through a prolonged transition, but in return they could put more R&D into the hardware market, and of course enter new markets like storage and networking. The software products they have now, the iApps, ProApps, iLife, and iWork could also reach a larger market (iApps and iLife bundled with Macs but sold separately), and Apple could make a decent amount of money off of support contracts for the ProApps and Mac OS X (Client and Server).
Customers would benefit from having more choice, more driver support, and more support options, and a much much larger library of software to choose from, and still run it on Apple's hardware, assuming Apple pulled the transition off correctly of course, this would be the best case scenario. Worst case scenario is nobody gives a damn, somebody ports everything to Linux, and Psystars eat Apple alive, haha.
SilverLight is a proprietary Microsoft technology... so you'll have download and install the SilverLight runtime to use Microsoft's "cloud" applications.
MobileMe and iWork.com were built with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. And will work just fine with any standards based browsers, which pretty much means all modern browsers and you won't need to download or install anything extra for it to work.
Can't believe nobodies pointed this out but despite Microsoft inventing Silverlight all the live stuff is written in AJAX not Silverlight! So no downloading free proprietary Microsoft software to run it, its completely standard AJAX.
Not only that but has the author actually checked out what Microsoft is developing for developers, most of the latest .NET release is AJAX controls, before that they realeased the AJAX control toolkit (check out http://www.asp.net/ajax/ajaxcontroltoolkit/samples/ for a but of free .NET control to add AJAX features to sites written in .NET), they also immediately added jQuery support to Visual Studio again available for free when that came out. Last November they released free AJAX charting controls for .NET developers. What exactly has Apple given the development community to promote AJAX, SproutCore? 1. Don't think they actually wrote it and 2. Its rubbish in comparison to .NET AJAX development.
Silverlight's just 1 technology Microsoft are working with, they do basically work with most ideas on how to program things. Sure .NET is proprietary but its also good, worth the money. Adding something like AJAX support when you post a message on this forum would take literally 10 extra lines of code let me see someone do that in SproutCore!
All of Apple's software is based on an open source or open standard. Windows is the complete opposite in that all of its software is based on proprietary standards that can use open software. Here is a list of examples.
UNIX - Windows NT
Webkit - Trident
HTML/javascript/css - IE Propretary Extensions
H.264 - Windows Media Video (VC1)
AAC - Windows Media Audio
PDF - XML
JPEG - Windows Media Photo
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderbread
How is Microsoft's use of "proprietary platform" different from Apple's MobileME and iWork? What "open standards" is Apple trying to promote? Or are you saying because they are working on a java engine that they are promoting open standards indirectly?The only difference between MS and Apple here is your characterization which is way off.
One feature that I would like to see in Snow Leopard is the ability to sync your laptop content with your desktop content - choosing which folders to sync a la Spotlight and Time Machine.
Open Source isn't a total utopia. It does have its drawbacks. Their are many advantages to the singular vision.
Webkit is open source, Safari isn't.
H.264 and AAC are open standards, but Quicktime isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis
.However, not all of their software is made available under an open source license which is sad, I mean I can understand that with iLife, iWork, and the ProApps which are separate and commercial projects, I just can't think of any decent reason to keep the rest of Mac OS X closed, none that would outweigh the benefits, and if they were to fully open source it, development would be much more rapid and they could sell support contracts for the software, adoption would improve, more open source software would be made available to Mac OS X at a faster rate, there would be a decent package manager, drivers would improve, etc. They do make their money on hardware, and wider support of OS X wouldn't be a bad thing although it would be one less of a reason to buy Apple hardware, since they control their hardware already they could always choose which parts of the source to include, polish, and support in their support contracts and there would be a wider base of developers actively working on the OS.
All of Apple's software is based on an open source or open standard. Windows is the complete opposite in that all of its software is based on proprietary standards that can use open software. Here is a list of examples.
UNIX - Windows NT
Webkit - Trident
HTML/javascript/css - IE Propretary Extensions
H.264 - Windows Media Video (VC1)
AAC - Windows Media Audio
PDF - XML
JPEG - Windows Media Photo
Sorry but that is a crap list.
UNIX - Windows NT - So Apple are selling something thats free, and Microsoft wrote there own, this is what your paying for remember
Webkit - Trident - Again same logic
HTML/Javacript/CSS - IE Propretary Extensions - Are you trying to say IE doesn't support HTML/Javascript and CSS, because last time I checked it did. Not only that IE was the first browser to support CSS!
H.264 - Windows Media Video - Doesn't MS support H.264 as well?
AAC - Windows Media Audio - Supports both...
PDF - XML - You know there not the same thing right. Not only that but XML was a standard long before Adobe decided they would release PDF's to become a standard! XML is also like the biggest standard the world has ever seen.
JPEG - Windows Media Photo - Again are you trying to say MS don't support JPEG's
Its like you've said the thing for a company to do it make a product full of stuff they can get for free and never invent anything themselves, then sell it. Rather than support all the standards and try having a go at inventing a few things along the way. After all what do you think things are before there standards?
All of Apple's software is based on an open source or open standard. Windows is the complete opposite in that all of its software is based on proprietary standards that can use open software. Here is a list of examples.
UNIX - Windows NT
Webkit - Trident
HTML/javascript/css - IE Propretary Extensions
H.264 - Windows Media Video (VC1)
AAC - Windows Media Audio
PDF - XML
JPEG - Windows Media Photo
To be fair, UNIX isn't really a standard, and "UNIX" certification of Unix-like OSs isn't exactly the most important thing to IT, and "WMP" is being considered by the JPEG group to be adopted as JPEG XR, VC-1 is also an open standard that competes with H.264.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
An easy one word answer to this: Linux
Open Source isn't a total utopia. It does have its drawbacks. Their are many advantages to the singular vision.
Webkit is open source, Safari isn't.
H.264 and AAC are open standards, but Quicktime isn't.
Linux isn't an answer at all, I assume you're pointing out the different distributions. The mainstream distributions use a recent verison of the kernel from kernel.org, the faster distributions (I'm talking about release-cycles) are rewarded with more users (Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE) while the slower distributions (Debian, Gentoo) are slower and usually have other distributions pull their packages from them (Ubuntu pulls from Debian unstable).
I never claimed it was a utopia, but it would still help Apple immensely to have a larger number of developers for the core OS and the core frameworks, as well as help their customers, and other benefits I already outlined (if they pulled off a transition correctly). Your arguments are also too simple, Apple wouldn't lose any advantage with an open source Safari, it would still be the default browser on the computers they sell, and the most complicated part of a web browser is arguably the rendering engine, just pointing out that Safari isn't open source doesn't mean it would utterly suck if it were. H.264 and AAC are open standards, not open source, they still have patents on them that the licensors collect through the MPEG group that the licensees have to pay if they wish to use those, not the same as open source, and the Quicktime Container is in fact an open standard (MPEG-4 Part 12 if I remember correctly, I assume you mean the container format?) used as the base for the the MP4 container (MPEG-4 Part 14, again if I remember correctly). The Quicktime framework and Player implementations though are neither open standards or open source.
Oh and speaking of H.264 and AAC, Apple could distinguish their machines from others by licensing and providing those codecs, and adding more fonts, professional wallpaper, etc. Stuff they do already, only well, without open sourcing their frameworks, GUI, and developer tools (developer tools, another potential differentiator, hell Apple could even start licensing it for a fee, an open source Cocoa would mean others could build their own tools anyway).
The point being made in the article is that Apple is promoting the use of web standards and Microsoft is not. Regardless of what Apple forces you to install to set up your account, the article is correct.
Of course it has to install things to run in the background! How the hell else is it going to auto-sync if it doesn't? The whole point of MobileMe is to keep your data sync'ed across multiple devices and the internet.
I'm not talking about requiring the proprietary MobileMe software when I'm talking about the background processes, but iTunes, which has nothing to do with MobileMe.
Do you have to install Windows Media Player to run Office on OSX? Does WiMP then install background processes to eat up RAM and processor cycles despite the fact you never even use it?
Apple is just as enamored of proprietary software as Microsoft, and Apple is infinitely more proprietary in that they lock you into very specific hardware and Microsoft will allow you to install their OS on anything that will run it.
>"Due to the volumes of PCs it will eventually be installed on, it's bound to be successful even if it is a marginal product."
The OEM scenario was the same when Vista was released and it was not successful. Many corporations decided not to upgrade and consumers demanded an XP downgrade. SUCCESS NOT GUARANTEED. false statement
Regardless, the PC market will end up shipping lots of Vista/7 eventually. If Win7 is at least marginal, then corporations will install it. Vista was not marginal, it was poor.
Quote:
>"Windows 7 perpetuates this problem by delaying the move to 64-bits to a future release."
Most applications will have a 64-bit version for windows 7. Certainly all microsoft products will and game developers have been making 64-bit binaries for years. If there are a few apps that are still 32 that's only because Windows has 500x the software firm development as Mac. Mac is at an advantage because they are so proprietary with their hardware but Windows 7 comes in 64-bit. period.
Doesn't matter if apps are 64-bit if users aren't installing the 64-bit version of Windows. And using the example of games, which benefit from 64-bits: look at the % of Windows users on Steam with a 64-bit OS. Last time I looked it was under 20%. That's NOT GOOD!
Quote:
>"Snow Leopard will extend touch frameworks to developers to allow them to take full advantage of multitouch trackpads in innovative ways, all without users having go out and purchase their own touch screen monitors.
In the context of mac you say "trackpads" but when talking about non mac users you say they have to buy "touch screen monitors". Making it sound like a huge purchase. Windows users can easily buy affordable multitouch trackpads. It's not as though the mac Multitouch trackpad is not factored in to the mac total price. Way to exaggerate the contrast between the two.
The contrast was between Apple's practical application of multitouch (trackpads) and Microsoft's expressed, demonstrated strategy that revolves around putting your hands on the screen. That requires new hardware. Apple put MT support in the OS when it shipped the MT trackpads. Windows trackpads are all supported by third party software. There is no OS level support for MT gestures. So please get your facts straight before suggesting I'm out of line.
Quote:
>"Microsoft, in contrast, is betting upon its own Silverlight, a Flash-like, proprietary platform for web development that ties web applications to the company's own development tools and runtime rather than leveraging open web standards for interoperability."
How is Microsoft's use of "proprietary platform" different from Apple's MobileME and iWork? What "open standards" is Apple trying to promote? Or are you saying because they are working on a java engine that they are promoting open standards indirectly?The only difference between MS and Apple here is your characterization which is way off.
I'm going to stop here. This article was so disappointing. Apple has not upped the ante. Although the author is forcefully trying to on his own. This is a worthy of an editorial post in the forums, not a news article. There was nothing new! Up your standards.
Apple is using standard HTML5 and JavaScript to implement MobileMe, that's why any modern browser can use it. There is no proprietary plugin required to download (OVER AND OVER AGAIN as with Silverlight). That's the difference. No need to be frustrated and angry.
... I'm not talking about requiring the proprietary MobileMe software when I'm talking about the background processes, but iTunes, which has nothing to do with MobileMe.
Do you have to install Windows Media Player to run Office on OSX? Does WiMP then install background processes to eat up RAM and processor cycles despite the fact you never even use it?
Apple is just as enamored of proprietary software as Microsoft, and Apple is infinitely more proprietary in that they lock you into very specific hardware and Microsoft will allow you to install their OS on anything that will run it.
I know this wasn't aimed at me, but this whole post is such utter rot I had to reply.
The "background processes" are necessary for any syncing of data to work effectively between any two computers. This is neither unusual, new, or exclusive to the Mac.
You are aware that "background processes" are going all the time on pretty much every computer ever invented right? On Unix (mac) they are called "daemons" and not much would work without them. These mini-programs or daemons are varied and do all kinds of things related to a whole variety of programs, not just iTunes.
The whole idea that because something is "running in the background" it's nefarious or "bad" is just ludicrous.
Also ...
Yes, I have had the experience of installing MS Office and having my arm twisted to install Microsoft Media Player as well.
No, there is actually no such thing as "proprietary hardware" in the sense that you mean it.
You are just wrong here. Facts are facts.
Whatever horrible things you personally think of Apple, the idea that they are "more proprietary" than Microsoft is (again) ludicrous. There are many charges that can be levelled at Apple, but not using open formats and standards is just not one of them.
It's like arguing that Steve Jobs is fatter than Steve Balmer.
Apple is using standard HTML5 and JavaScript to implement MobileMe, that's why any modern browser can use it. There is no proprietary plugin required to download (OVER AND OVER AGAIN as with Silverlight). That's the difference. No need to be frustrated and angry.
Have they stopped blocking Opera then? I tested that when MobileMe came out because I was curious, Opera was blocked no matter what user agent I used.
Comments
That's a much better article than the others! More impartial.
More impartial? It seems like you must have woken up on the right side of the bed this morning to make such a generous. This article is no less biased than the other 2 in the series. Why didn't they just entitle the series, "Why System 7 Sux and Snow Leopard Rulz" And the "Sux" and "Rulz" parts are important to show the fanboy bias.
Much is made about Apple's use open standards versus developing proprietary formats. It seems pretty clear Apple is just interested in getting something for (practically) nothing by glomming off of Open Source developers. It has nothing to do with Apple's good intentions.
...I just can't think of any decent reason to keep the rest of Mac OS X closed, none that would outweigh the benefits...
Think of Psystar, and you'll probably are able to understand why OS X isn't Open Source. The moment that such thing happens, then you'll have clones in the PC world and they will be legal. Psystar's would abound. Apple would lose another reason for PC users to switch, the OS X.
Much is made about Apple's use open standards versus developing proprietary formats. It seems pretty clear Apple is just interested in getting something for (practically) nothing by glomming off of Open Source developers. It has nothing to do with Apple's good intentions.
Stop trolling. You are still confusing Open Source with Open Standards. And the idea that Apple is stealing Open Source's ideas without contributing back is pure uninformed FUD.
Edit: Also, it's not about "good intentions" at all. It's about good long-term strategy. It's good for Apple, but then again, it's good for all of us too.
I'm using Google Chrome right now, which uses, wait for it.... Apple's Webkit!! And it rocks!! (I substituted Safari for it in a nanosecond. Couldn't look back)
So while I like my MacBook alot, I don't think you could ever prove to me that Apple really stands behind Open Source. If they did they would open more of their sources because in my honest opinion its their beautiful hardware that sells. They have well thought out designs, when I bought mine I priced between a Macbook and Dell XPS M1330 and basically they were the same price at the same features (2.4Ghz, Intel X3100 etc). I doubt Hackintosh would change the volume for Apple Hardware.
Apple chooses Open Source when it makes sense like with Web Kit and LLVM. They just don't bless Open Source because it's cool and hip. Frankly I think a lot of Open Source software is utter crap. As long as the licensing is being adhered to I see no reason why Apple shouldn't leverage the good stuff.
I've been involved in computer user training since 1980. I have worked on operating systems from AppleDos and CPM through Unix, MS-DOS, Windows, and Mac. At this point, the debate between the latest Mac OS and the latest Windows OS is moot. Both systems do everything 99.999% of the users want and need and do it quite well. The user should try both of them in stores and make up their own mind.
It reminds me of when I was a professional photographer (before digital cameras). People would ask "Nikon vs. Canon" and I would say "Both of them are more than you need. Buy the one that feels best in your hand." The same could apply to the OS wars now.
What are you doing running for public office ??
All I want from any new OS release is please, for the love of God, do something about system font conflicts with the Helvetica family. License the real Helvetica and Helvetica Neue, fix the system versions so the font metrics match... ANYTHING.
That'd be a feature most design shops would kill for.
They will probably do something just for the Helvetica of it..........
Hey try Chalkboard..wish they had it on this forum web site.
How much do you want to bet that the version of Windows 7 offered by all the major OEMs will still be the 32-bit version?
HP already ships 64bit versions of Vista for a lot of Desktops and notebooks. And important detail is that the new Windows Server version developed with Windows 7 called "Server 2008 R2" will only be available in 64bit. Since Vista SP1 the client and server versions of Windows do share the same code base (kernel and stuff).
This means that OEMs do have to create 64bit drivers for a lot of hardware. There is no real reason not to deliver new client systems in 32bit.
Another reason for 64bit is the cheap memory. 4 GB RAM or even 8 GB isn't something special for Desktops at the end of this year. As you know 32bit only supports up to 3 GB.
Think of Psystar, and you'll probably are able to understand why OS X isn't Open Source. The moment that such thing happens, then you'll have clones in the PC world and they will be legal. Psystar's would abound. Apple would lose another reason for PC users to switch, the OS X.
Even that does not outweigh the potential benefits, potential benefits because going open source does not work like magic, they'd probably have to go through a prolonged transition, but in return they could put more R&D into the hardware market, and of course enter new markets like storage and networking. The software products they have now, the iApps, ProApps, iLife, and iWork could also reach a larger market (iApps and iLife bundled with Macs but sold separately), and Apple could make a decent amount of money off of support contracts for the ProApps and Mac OS X (Client and Server).
Customers would benefit from having more choice, more driver support, and more support options, and a much much larger library of software to choose from, and still run it on Apple's hardware, assuming Apple pulled the transition off correctly of course, this would be the best case scenario. Worst case scenario is nobody gives a damn, somebody ports everything to Linux, and Psystars eat Apple alive, haha.
Sebastian
SilverLight is a proprietary Microsoft technology... so you'll have download and install the SilverLight runtime to use Microsoft's "cloud" applications.
MobileMe and iWork.com were built with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. And will work just fine with any standards based browsers, which pretty much means all modern browsers and you won't need to download or install anything extra for it to work.
Can't believe nobodies pointed this out but despite Microsoft inventing Silverlight all the live stuff is written in AJAX not Silverlight! So no downloading free proprietary Microsoft software to run it, its completely standard AJAX.
Not only that but has the author actually checked out what Microsoft is developing for developers, most of the latest .NET release is AJAX controls, before that they realeased the AJAX control toolkit (check out http://www.asp.net/ajax/ajaxcontroltoolkit/samples/ for a but of free .NET control to add AJAX features to sites written in .NET), they also immediately added jQuery support to Visual Studio again available for free when that came out. Last November they released free AJAX charting controls for .NET developers. What exactly has Apple given the development community to promote AJAX, SproutCore? 1. Don't think they actually wrote it and 2. Its rubbish in comparison to .NET AJAX development.
Silverlight's just 1 technology Microsoft are working with, they do basically work with most ideas on how to program things. Sure .NET is proprietary but its also good, worth the money. Adding something like AJAX support when you post a message on this forum would take literally 10 extra lines of code let me see someone do that in SproutCore!
UNIX - Windows NT
Webkit - Trident
HTML/javascript/css - IE Propretary Extensions
H.264 - Windows Media Video (VC1)
AAC - Windows Media Audio
PDF - XML
JPEG - Windows Media Photo
How is Microsoft's use of "proprietary platform" different from Apple's MobileME and iWork? What "open standards" is Apple trying to promote? Or are you saying because they are working on a java engine that they are promoting open standards indirectly?The only difference between MS and Apple here is your characterization which is way off.
Open Source isn't a total utopia. It does have its drawbacks. Their are many advantages to the singular vision.
Webkit is open source, Safari isn't.
H.264 and AAC are open standards, but Quicktime isn't.
.However, not all of their software is made available under an open source license which is sad, I mean I can understand that with iLife, iWork, and the ProApps which are separate and commercial projects, I just can't think of any decent reason to keep the rest of Mac OS X closed, none that would outweigh the benefits, and if they were to fully open source it, development would be much more rapid and they could sell support contracts for the software, adoption would improve, more open source software would be made available to Mac OS X at a faster rate, there would be a decent package manager, drivers would improve, etc. They do make their money on hardware, and wider support of OS X wouldn't be a bad thing although it would be one less of a reason to buy Apple hardware, since they control their hardware already they could always choose which parts of the source to include, polish, and support in their support contracts and there would be a wider base of developers actively working on the OS.
did anyone else notice that AI mixed up the pics for the Panther and Tiger retail boxes on their chart?
I, too, noticed the box image switch immediately. How soon some forget!
I hope the author will correct this embarrassing mistake ASAP.
All of Apple's software is based on an open source or open standard. Windows is the complete opposite in that all of its software is based on proprietary standards that can use open software. Here is a list of examples.
UNIX - Windows NT
Webkit - Trident
HTML/javascript/css - IE Propretary Extensions
H.264 - Windows Media Video (VC1)
AAC - Windows Media Audio
PDF - XML
JPEG - Windows Media Photo
Sorry but that is a crap list.
UNIX - Windows NT - So Apple are selling something thats free, and Microsoft wrote there own, this is what your paying for remember
Webkit - Trident - Again same logic
HTML/Javacript/CSS - IE Propretary Extensions - Are you trying to say IE doesn't support HTML/Javascript and CSS, because last time I checked it did. Not only that IE was the first browser to support CSS!
H.264 - Windows Media Video - Doesn't MS support H.264 as well?
AAC - Windows Media Audio - Supports both...
PDF - XML - You know there not the same thing right. Not only that but XML was a standard long before Adobe decided they would release PDF's to become a standard! XML is also like the biggest standard the world has ever seen.
JPEG - Windows Media Photo - Again are you trying to say MS don't support JPEG's
Its like you've said the thing for a company to do it make a product full of stuff they can get for free and never invent anything themselves, then sell it. Rather than support all the standards and try having a go at inventing a few things along the way. After all what do you think things are before there standards?
All of Apple's software is based on an open source or open standard. Windows is the complete opposite in that all of its software is based on proprietary standards that can use open software. Here is a list of examples.
UNIX - Windows NT
Webkit - Trident
HTML/javascript/css - IE Propretary Extensions
H.264 - Windows Media Video (VC1)
AAC - Windows Media Audio
PDF - XML
JPEG - Windows Media Photo
To be fair, UNIX isn't really a standard, and "UNIX" certification of Unix-like OSs isn't exactly the most important thing to IT, and "WMP" is being considered by the JPEG group to be adopted as JPEG XR, VC-1 is also an open standard that competes with H.264.
An easy one word answer to this: Linux
Open Source isn't a total utopia. It does have its drawbacks. Their are many advantages to the singular vision.
Webkit is open source, Safari isn't.
H.264 and AAC are open standards, but Quicktime isn't.
Linux isn't an answer at all, I assume you're pointing out the different distributions. The mainstream distributions use a recent verison of the kernel from kernel.org, the faster distributions (I'm talking about release-cycles) are rewarded with more users (Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE) while the slower distributions (Debian, Gentoo) are slower and usually have other distributions pull their packages from them (Ubuntu pulls from Debian unstable).
I never claimed it was a utopia, but it would still help Apple immensely to have a larger number of developers for the core OS and the core frameworks, as well as help their customers, and other benefits I already outlined (if they pulled off a transition correctly). Your arguments are also too simple, Apple wouldn't lose any advantage with an open source Safari, it would still be the default browser on the computers they sell, and the most complicated part of a web browser is arguably the rendering engine, just pointing out that Safari isn't open source doesn't mean it would utterly suck if it were. H.264 and AAC are open standards, not open source, they still have patents on them that the licensors collect through the MPEG group that the licensees have to pay if they wish to use those, not the same as open source, and the Quicktime Container is in fact an open standard (MPEG-4 Part 12 if I remember correctly, I assume you mean the container format?) used as the base for the the MP4 container (MPEG-4 Part 14, again if I remember correctly). The Quicktime framework and Player implementations though are neither open standards or open source.
Oh and speaking of H.264 and AAC, Apple could distinguish their machines from others by licensing and providing those codecs, and adding more fonts, professional wallpaper, etc. Stuff they do already, only well, without open sourcing their frameworks, GUI, and developer tools (developer tools, another potential differentiator, hell Apple could even start licensing it for a fee, an open source Cocoa would mean others could build their own tools anyway).
Sebastian
The point being made in the article is that Apple is promoting the use of web standards and Microsoft is not. Regardless of what Apple forces you to install to set up your account, the article is correct.
Of course it has to install things to run in the background! How the hell else is it going to auto-sync if it doesn't? The whole point of MobileMe is to keep your data sync'ed across multiple devices and the internet.
I'm not talking about requiring the proprietary MobileMe software when I'm talking about the background processes, but iTunes, which has nothing to do with MobileMe.
Do you have to install Windows Media Player to run Office on OSX? Does WiMP then install background processes to eat up RAM and processor cycles despite the fact you never even use it?
Apple is just as enamored of proprietary software as Microsoft, and Apple is infinitely more proprietary in that they lock you into very specific hardware and Microsoft will allow you to install their OS on anything that will run it.
>"Due to the volumes of PCs it will eventually be installed on, it's bound to be successful even if it is a marginal product."
The OEM scenario was the same when Vista was released and it was not successful. Many corporations decided not to upgrade and consumers demanded an XP downgrade. SUCCESS NOT GUARANTEED. false statement
Regardless, the PC market will end up shipping lots of Vista/7 eventually. If Win7 is at least marginal, then corporations will install it. Vista was not marginal, it was poor.
>"Windows 7 perpetuates this problem by delaying the move to 64-bits to a future release."
Most applications will have a 64-bit version for windows 7. Certainly all microsoft products will and game developers have been making 64-bit binaries for years. If there are a few apps that are still 32 that's only because Windows has 500x the software firm development as Mac. Mac is at an advantage because they are so proprietary with their hardware but Windows 7 comes in 64-bit. period.
Doesn't matter if apps are 64-bit if users aren't installing the 64-bit version of Windows. And using the example of games, which benefit from 64-bits: look at the % of Windows users on Steam with a 64-bit OS. Last time I looked it was under 20%. That's NOT GOOD!
>"Snow Leopard will extend touch frameworks to developers to allow them to take full advantage of multitouch trackpads in innovative ways, all without users having go out and purchase their own touch screen monitors.
In the context of mac you say "trackpads" but when talking about non mac users you say they have to buy "touch screen monitors". Making it sound like a huge purchase. Windows users can easily buy affordable multitouch trackpads. It's not as though the mac Multitouch trackpad is not factored in to the mac total price. Way to exaggerate the contrast between the two.
The contrast was between Apple's practical application of multitouch (trackpads) and Microsoft's expressed, demonstrated strategy that revolves around putting your hands on the screen. That requires new hardware. Apple put MT support in the OS when it shipped the MT trackpads. Windows trackpads are all supported by third party software. There is no OS level support for MT gestures. So please get your facts straight before suggesting I'm out of line.
>"Microsoft, in contrast, is betting upon its own Silverlight, a Flash-like, proprietary platform for web development that ties web applications to the company's own development tools and runtime rather than leveraging open web standards for interoperability."
How is Microsoft's use of "proprietary platform" different from Apple's MobileME and iWork? What "open standards" is Apple trying to promote? Or are you saying because they are working on a java engine that they are promoting open standards indirectly?The only difference between MS and Apple here is your characterization which is way off.
I'm going to stop here. This article was so disappointing. Apple has not upped the ante. Although the author is forcefully trying to on his own. This is a worthy of an editorial post in the forums, not a news article. There was nothing new! Up your standards.
Apple is using standard HTML5 and JavaScript to implement MobileMe, that's why any modern browser can use it. There is no proprietary plugin required to download (OVER AND OVER AGAIN as with Silverlight). That's the difference. No need to be frustrated and angry.
... I'm not talking about requiring the proprietary MobileMe software when I'm talking about the background processes, but iTunes, which has nothing to do with MobileMe.
Do you have to install Windows Media Player to run Office on OSX? Does WiMP then install background processes to eat up RAM and processor cycles despite the fact you never even use it?
Apple is just as enamored of proprietary software as Microsoft, and Apple is infinitely more proprietary in that they lock you into very specific hardware and Microsoft will allow you to install their OS on anything that will run it.
I know this wasn't aimed at me, but this whole post is such utter rot I had to reply.
The "background processes" are necessary for any syncing of data to work effectively between any two computers. This is neither unusual, new, or exclusive to the Mac.
You are aware that "background processes" are going all the time on pretty much every computer ever invented right? On Unix (mac) they are called "daemons" and not much would work without them. These mini-programs or daemons are varied and do all kinds of things related to a whole variety of programs, not just iTunes.
The whole idea that because something is "running in the background" it's nefarious or "bad" is just ludicrous.
Also ...
Yes, I have had the experience of installing MS Office and having my arm twisted to install Microsoft Media Player as well.
No, there is actually no such thing as "proprietary hardware" in the sense that you mean it.
You are just wrong here. Facts are facts.
Whatever horrible things you personally think of Apple, the idea that they are "more proprietary" than Microsoft is (again) ludicrous. There are many charges that can be levelled at Apple, but not using open formats and standards is just not one of them.
It's like arguing that Steve Jobs is fatter than Steve Balmer.
Apple is using standard HTML5 and JavaScript to implement MobileMe, that's why any modern browser can use it. There is no proprietary plugin required to download (OVER AND OVER AGAIN as with Silverlight). That's the difference. No need to be frustrated and angry.
Have they stopped blocking Opera then? I tested that when MobileMe came out because I was curious, Opera was blocked no matter what user agent I used.
Sebastian