By the same token, I can’t believe I’m defending Apple. Not because I dislike their products- honestly, I couldn’t give a shit- but because I hate their customers. 
I think we’re largely agreeing with each other- it’s just that last “That’s Palm’s lookout, not Apple” I’m addressing.
People think Apple should let the Pre sync with iTunes. Fine and dandy, but Apple needs to update their Apple software to work with their Apple products, and that’s been understood from (almost) the beginning. If Apple allows Pre to use iTunes now, but updates their syncing software in a way that incidentally breaks Pre syncing (which would likely happen eventually), who is the non-tech-savvy (or yes, “stupid”) user going to be mad at: Apple (who changed things to make them not work) or Palm (which hasn’t changed at all since it came out of the box)? Better Apple piss off a few Pre geeks now than piss off a ton of iTunes/Pre users later on. Yes, that’s technically Palm’s fault, but Apple would be the one catching the most flak.
Yes, you’re right- I see what you’re saying now.
This is exactly what Quicken does, to itself. Old versions can’t talk to the bank software, because they make an arbitrary change that doesn’t at all affect the raw data transfer. Instead, the bank just refuses to talk to Quicken 98, and you’re forced to upgrade to Quicken 07 with its horrendous, god-awful interface.
In the old days of MS-DOS there was stuff where MS said “reserved for future use” and developers would write software that used those features. Then when MS changed stuff their software would break and they would get all ticked off at MS but it was their own fault.
To me, that seems like a separate issue. Deliberately making your software incompatible with previous versions of another application that you intend to support the new version of != deliberately making software designed to support your hardware incompatible with a competitor’s hardware.
I’ve worked directly with both Apple and Microsoft a fair amount. I’ve been involved with companies that buy from each, companies that have been acquired by each, and companies that sell from each.
Apple isn’t squeaky clean, but they sure aren’t the devil incarnate, either. Microsoft has done some pretty slimy things in its history, and lately, they haven’t been as bad.
I have found no evidence whatsoever to support your claim of Apple as being “much more slimy and despicable than Microsoft ever dreamt of being since it’s inception.”
I exaggerate for effect but the main point is that Apple has always fundamentally been a closed, proprietary system and they leverage that closed system to mark up their products a ridiculous degree. Microsoft has always made software that was intended to be hardware agnostic and operate as a platform for other software to build off of. In light of this any Apple fans criticism of Microsoft has always been hypocritical in the extreme.
That said, I don’t begrudge a company the freedom to do what they want to make money. It’s all good. Of course I reserve the right to dislike their actions and make my own choices where I spend my money. The only conflict arises when fanboys start screaming and making hypocritical claims.
Understood. I see your point. Although the price difference isn’t nearly as bad as it used to be. A local nonprofit I work with needed a simple office setup with a few workstations and a server. They got quotes from Dell and Apple for equivalent systems, and Apple ended up about 10% cheaper.
My biggest gripe has been the OS pricing. I saw a Microsoft speech (can’t remember whether it was Gates or Ballmer) talking about how they’ve driven down the cost of computers. They provide the OS. When I built my first computer with a Microsoft OS, it cost me around $2,500. The copy of MS-DOS cost me $50. The OS was 2% of the cost of the system. Today, the computer would be around $400, and the cheapest copy of Windows Vista to put on it would be around $129 (call it $100, just in case there’s a sale somewhere). The OS is now 20% of the system cost!
Windows Vista is available for under $60 at some online retailers, just for the record. I nearly ordered a copy until I realized they expect you to pay them $60.
That’s an upgrade. You can’t use it to load up a new system.
Bullshit. There are legitimate reasons to criticize Apple (the App store vetting process is one huge glaring fault right now) but you’re spouting off from a position of ignorance.
All of the guts in any Mac made in at least the last 8–10 years are made from off the shelf parts. You can make your own hackintosh if you really want to get your hands dirty. As long as you don’t try to do it for commercial sale, Apple’s jackbooted thugs won’t come over and rape your grandmother with a spatula in retaliation.
The core of the OS, Darwin, is open source, as are a great number of the software tools used in OS X. They make proprietary implementations of open source software, but that is allowed by the licenses on the software they use, and they seed improvements back to the open source community. If you’re experienced enough or masochistic enough to want to tinker with your system at that level, you could be running it on the completely open source versions of the kernel and other tools. You can, if you want, run Linux or Windows on a Mac too.
Apple makes their money mostly from the hardware, not the software, so they don’t really care what software you run as long as you buy their gadgets. That doesn’t mean they have to give you a big sloppy blowjob if you try to use their software to try and sell your gadgets, though.
So it is. Didn’t look closely enough at the listing. :smack:
Microsoft allows you (or Dell, HP, Acer and anyone else with buying power to make it cheap) to do it commercially. Apple doesn’t. Closed system vs. Open system. No bullshit or ignorance here. Are you really equating being able to hack together your own machine with the MS business model?
Apple people are SO DELUDED!
Apple doesn’t what? The only thing Apple prohibits is distribution of their unlicensed software. “Clone”-makers (in Apples estimation) are violating Apple’s software license (whether that is fact or not is currently in the court system) by installing it on non-Apple hardware. Apple does not discourage installation of Windows or Linux on Apple hardware. In fact, Apple promotes this by providing high-quality Windows drivers for their machines (try to call Dell and explain that you replaced Windows with Linux, and see what support they give you). There’s no proprietary hardware to speak of. In fact, Apple machines are completely open systems. The high-level parts of the OS, though, are just as a closed as Windows, Office, Adobe, Corel, and everything else – you must follow their licenses. What makes you single out the Mac OS as being any more closed than the others?
Ad hominen attacks don’t help your cause. You’d have to explain point-by-point why Apple people are “SO DELUDED.” Are Apple people that also use Linux and Windows extensively also deluded? What if we’re not poor and therefore the insignificant price difference that’s so important to poor people like you is meaningless to us? Are we similarly deluded for buying Campbell’s soup instead of the Piggly Wiggly brand? Do you accuse your friends that choose a Hyundai instead of a Kia as being deluded? Do you cry about Hyundai being closed because you can’t flash new fuel-injection algorithms into the engine management computer? Grow up. Your kind of attitude is childish.
We seemed to be coming to an understanding until this. Your points are completely “bullshit and ignorant,” and your “SO DELUDED” insult doesn’t help your cause either.
I’m typing this message on a Mac to which I’ve added 3rd-party hard drive, keyboard, mouse, monitor, USB splitter, RAM upgrades, and many other devices. The architecture is completely open, and other manufacturers are encouraged to make compatible hardware. And this isn’t new–look clear back to the Apple I (a kit), the Apple II (documented open buss architecture), the Apple III (ditto), the Mac II (designed for user upgrades and modification), and on and on.
OSX uses far more open architecture than Windows Vista, Safari follows standards better than IE, and Apple has adopted industry-standard interfaces for darned near every piece of equipment you can add to it. They’ve even released APIs to allow you to modify iPods and iPhones.
And while this has happened, Microsoft has subverted industry standard after industry standard on the Internet, doing their best to replace them with proprietary standards that work only with Microsoft products. Remember “Windows ain’t done 'til Netscape won’t run”? How about their attempt to kill off Java and JavaScript, replacing them with proprietary languages? How about FrontPage producing HTML that didn’t work on non-Microsoft browsers? All that time, Apple has been working with the standards committees trying to keep the Internet non-proprietary.
You really don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to Apple.
You people keep changing the subject.
As Balthisar says:
The only thing Apple prohibits is distribution of their unlicensed software. “Clone”-makers (in Apples estimation) are violating Apple’s software license (whether that is fact or not is currently in the court system) by installing it on non-Apple hardware.
Windows is built and conceived to be installed on any hardware. Apple’s OSes are specifically prohibited from being installed on unapproved hardware. Closed versus Open. I’ve never claimed anything beyond that, yet the Macheads are descending with arguments and MS bashing on topics that are completely off the subject.
Does Apple allow you to install their OS on custom built hardware? No. Does Apple mark up their proprietary hardware as a result of this? Yes. End of argument.
I’m not a Machead, by the way. I just find myself defending Apple here because I think you’re exaggerating and filling your arguments with hyperbole–and it’s not us that keeps changing the subject. The subject was Palm Pre’s and Apple’s music store before you made it about Macintosh computers.
Will Gibson sell me a guitar body so I can add my own neck & head to it? Will Sony sell me just the screen electronics so I can add my own LCD array to them? Will Microsoft sell me an XBox or Xune with no software on it so I can install my own?
Apple sells a package when they sell a Mac - it’s a computer with an operating system on it. They are under no obligation to separate the two.
It is, however, not a closed system. As I explained a couple of posts ago, you are welcome to design your own RAM, video cards, disk drives, and so on. The whole operating system sits on top of FreeBSD, which you may feel free to modify and add to. The specs are open.
If I can’t build a computer and stick a copy of OSX on it, it’s not an open system in the same sense.
To the best of my knowledge, you can. You’d obviously have to purchase a copy of OS/X, and I’m sure Apple wouldn’t support it, but the last time I checked you could put legally-purchased copies of OS/X on your own hardware, and you could also put other operating systems (e.g. Windows or Linux) on Macintosh hardware.