A little different biting ...
While Peter is busy Biting Microsoft's hand, I figured I'd spend some time biting Apple's hand. I've been an Apple user since the Apple II, which I spent hours programming on back in college (oh yes, this dates me.) The first computer I owned was a Macintosh SE, and I have owned 14 Macs (or, briefly, Power Computing boxes) in the 21 years since.
I won't spend time here on my Linux desktop experiment(s), and I had a blessedly brief sojurn as a Windows user back in the late 90s. For the most part, I have spent the vast majority of my time in front of the Mac OS, from version 1.0 to 10.5. And, at the same time as it makes my computing life wonderful, it gives me profound misgivings.
No one (even Microsoft) will argue with the notion that Apple OS X has the best desktop user interface currently in use. They do say that "imitation is the best form of flattery" and if MS user interface is any indication, they love Macs.
Things "just work" in ways that make me spoiled. But part of the reason this is true is that Apple has a lock on both the hardware and the software. They don't have to spend developer hours making sure that every different chipset and processor and hard drive combination, etc. will work with their OS. So they spend their time on design and making things pretty and easy - because the hardware will work with the software - it's designed that way. Apple is, at it's heart, a hardware company. That's what they sell, and that's how they make a profit - not on software. Whether it be Macs, iPods, or iPhones, Apple sells primarly hardware.
To Apple's credit, they built OS X, their modern OS, on top of an open source base, called Darwin. It is UNIX, and provides an extraordinarily robust and secure underpinning for their user interface. That was a smart move. But, of course, their user interface is proprietary. Apple is still the leader in providing DRMed music to the world, and any application that runs on the iPhone has to be vetted by them, and has to fulfill certain criteria. They continue to make a profit using a standard proprietary software model. And as an open source advocate, that gives me pause.
However, Linux on the desktop (at least in the US) hasn't caught on, and isn't, in all honesty, anywhere near being able to compete with either Windows or Mac OS in terms of usability except for specific kinds of uses (at the low and high ends, like email/web stations and kiosks, or as workstations for developers - although tons of developers also use Macs.) And I can do more, and do it faster and easier on a Mac, so that's what I'm sticking with.
Would I like Apple to be different? Yup. Do I expect it? Nope. Because Apple will always (I think) be selling proprietary and premium products, I don't think they won't ever be in the position Microsoft is - as a monopoly. I don't necessarily think that they would behave much differently than MS in that position (although they'd likely do it with more style.)
I won't spend time here on my Linux desktop experiment(s), and I had a blessedly brief sojurn as a Windows user back in the late 90s. For the most part, I have spent the vast majority of my time in front of the Mac OS, from version 1.0 to 10.5. And, at the same time as it makes my computing life wonderful, it gives me profound misgivings.
No one (even Microsoft) will argue with the notion that Apple OS X has the best desktop user interface currently in use. They do say that "imitation is the best form of flattery" and if MS user interface is any indication, they love Macs.
Things "just work" in ways that make me spoiled. But part of the reason this is true is that Apple has a lock on both the hardware and the software. They don't have to spend developer hours making sure that every different chipset and processor and hard drive combination, etc. will work with their OS. So they spend their time on design and making things pretty and easy - because the hardware will work with the software - it's designed that way. Apple is, at it's heart, a hardware company. That's what they sell, and that's how they make a profit - not on software. Whether it be Macs, iPods, or iPhones, Apple sells primarly hardware.
To Apple's credit, they built OS X, their modern OS, on top of an open source base, called Darwin. It is UNIX, and provides an extraordinarily robust and secure underpinning for their user interface. That was a smart move. But, of course, their user interface is proprietary. Apple is still the leader in providing DRMed music to the world, and any application that runs on the iPhone has to be vetted by them, and has to fulfill certain criteria. They continue to make a profit using a standard proprietary software model. And as an open source advocate, that gives me pause.
However, Linux on the desktop (at least in the US) hasn't caught on, and isn't, in all honesty, anywhere near being able to compete with either Windows or Mac OS in terms of usability except for specific kinds of uses (at the low and high ends, like email/web stations and kiosks, or as workstations for developers - although tons of developers also use Macs.) And I can do more, and do it faster and easier on a Mac, so that's what I'm sticking with.
Would I like Apple to be different? Yup. Do I expect it? Nope. Because Apple will always (I think) be selling proprietary and premium products, I don't think they won't ever be in the position Microsoft is - as a monopoly. I don't necessarily think that they would behave much differently than MS in that position (although they'd likely do it with more style.)
Subscribe through Feedburner
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home