Well, there’s the rub, isn’t it?
“Hey, Apple, why can’t I run OS X on an Athlon-based system?”
“Fuck off.”
I am an Apple person (in that my personal computers are Apples and I have an iPhone, although I don’t have any real loyalty one way or another, just the best tool for the job), and even I agree with this statement. Well, substitute “much more” with “as” and I’ll agree. Both are amoral corporations doing the best to protect their business interests, which is exactly what you should expect.
Picard: Fire!
Worf: One moment captain, the environmental control screen keeps popping up over the top of the weapons screen.
Riker: Whoever decided to let those clowns design starship software?
But why would you even expect it? What response would you get if you called Ford and said, “Hey–I’m trying to install a Ford transmission in my Chevy truck–help me”?
A point that people keep missing in these kinds of exchanges is that Apple and Microsoft are not in direct competition. They are fundamentally different businesses. Microsoft sells software and has a sideline in hardware. Apple sells hardware and has a sideline in software.
If you want to compare apples to Apples, you’d have to look to other hardware manufacturers like IBM, Dell, HP and Sony.
How “open” are these companies when it comes to installing other OSs on their hardware? They don’t care, but they probably won’t help you do it. Apple actually provides tools for doing so.
Do they provide support if you’re using an OS other than the one they installed at the factory? No way. You installed it, it’s your problem.
Can you take the OEM version of Windows and install it on another computer? Hell no. Not only does Microsoft consider that a breach of their license agreement, but the computer maker isn’t going to give you any support either.
Apple is no more open or closed than any other company in their industry. The small differences in their business practices are due to tighter integration between their hardware and software. No other hardware company also makes the entire OS for their computers; they license Windows or some version of Linux. They do, however, write some driver and accessory software. If you tried to install those on a non-OEM box, you would get the same amount of support and encouragement that Apple gives to people who try to install OS X on different architecture: none.
:rolleyes: I am by no means an “Apple person,” whatever that means, anyway. The only Apple product I use is the iPhone (and consequently, iTunes). I just see no reason to fault them for wanting their software to be used with their products.
I don’t fault Palm for gaming the system and trying to use iTunes, either. It’s a widely used application that provides the functions it needs. But it’s a hack. A trick they used to get iTunes to work. There was no arrangement with Apple to provide support for their device, nor was there any promise from Apple to support it. There should be no whining when Apple exerts ownership over their own software to make it work with the devices they want it to.
Last time I checked, Apple paid for all of the R&D and coding for iTunes. They are under no obligation to continue supporting devices that they don’t want to.
Were I Apple, I might break it on purpose, too. Breaking it now forces Palm to come up with their own software solution, which will give Apple less headaches in the future. Were Apple to make some kind of change to the software down the road that inadvertantly broke Pre-syncing, who do you think is going to get inundated with support emails; Apple or Palm?
Palm used a loophole. The loophole is now closed. Best I can tell whenever a loophole is closed, the problem then lay with the person who thought it ought to be a permanent solution to their situation. Never rely on a loophole.
Clearly the most appropriate analogy would be if, back in 2001 or whenever the iPod were introduced, Microsoft were to release an “update” to Microsoft Windows which prevented iTunes from connecting to Windows computers. What if instead, Microsoft claimed to want to provide, “a close and smooth integration between our dominant OS and our terrific music players.” This could have killed the iPod and ultimately permitted the Microsoft “Plays for Sure,” or Zune or whatever else Microsoft licensing standard was being promoted at the time to prevail.
It’s a clear example of utilizing an existing monopoly (audio player and music organizing software) to a market in which they hope to increase their monopoly (smartphones). In what conceivable manner is this less of a transgression of what Microsoft did in the late 1990’s with Windows and Internet Explorer and got smacked down by the Justice Department and federal judges for? Someone above commented, “Windows isn’t finished until Netscape won’t run…” yet I can’t recall any point in Windows development in which it actually failed to execute Netscape’s code.
Now, Apple is concerned that a competitor has released a product (the Pre) that some consumers might consider to be a superior one. To improve their market-share in Smartphones, Apple is leveraging an existing monopoly. I can’t imagine anyone in this thread defending such behavior from Microsoft.
This isn’t a question of “providing support,” for non Apple products. I don’t imagine that Apple should have to field tech-support phone calls related to the Palm Pre, rather they should not remove the nominally easy technical capabilities of their software to sync with non-iPod devices. Again, the capability obviously easily exists for Apple to provide this feature in their software.
You’d be amazed what customers ask, expect and demand that we support.
Ten year old software that they bought at a fleamarket? “I don’t care, I’m running it on my MAC!!”
Blackberries, Printers, Aircards, Linksys routers, blah, blah, blah. “But I’m using it with my Mac!” :rolleyes:
My business used ThinkPad laptops for a while but decided they were no longer reliable so we switched to Dell. Users didn’t care since they still use the same OS and software. We could have switched to HP, Toshiba, Sony, Acer, etc.
If Mac users decide they don’t like their Macs anymore (for any reason) what do they do?
This isn’t really an appropriate analogy; Microsoft has created and marketed an entire operating system which, from the beginning, they said would be capable of running any program written to that OS’ specs. Microsoft has also said from the beginning that it would refuse to support programs that didn’t run because they didn’t meet that criteria. Apple wrote a Windows version of iTunes which conforms to the criteria required to run on Windows, and they provide the support for it.
I’d defend Microsoft for doing the same thing. And for the record, I don’t think Microsoft should be shamed for bundling IE with Windows.
Sure, they could provide it. But they certainly don’t have to. Nor is there any truly compelling reason for them to do so. If you doubt that Apple would be fielding tech support calls and emails from people complaining that their Pre won’t sync, you should try working a few days in tech support.
iTunes was never designed to work with other media players, nor was it ever marketed as such. In fact, the loophole that Palm used in order to access the functionality was exploited in part by having the Pre identify itself to Windows as an “iPod.” The loophole is closed; the onus is on Palm to support their own hardware.
Palm set up the Pre to imitate the iPod when talking with iTunes. Apple changed iTunes to recognize whether the device it’s communicating with is really an iPod or not. Palm will change their software again. Apple will change theirs again. This is a dance done by hundreds of companies in the computer business over the past few decades, and it shows no sign of stopping.
Microsoft, Apple, and a lot of other companies patch their software on a regular basis when somebody hacks it. This is just another patch to just another hack. I really don’t see why it bothers people so much.
Except, of course, that Apple doesn’t have an existing monopoly in audio players and music-organizing software. They also can’t “increase their monopoly” on smartphones when they don’t have a monopoly there at the moment (they’re coming up from behind with a new product).
Switch to Windows or some handy-dandy Linux distro. If I were to switch from Mac to Windows for my regular work tomorrow, I’d still be using pretty much all the same applications: Word, Excel, Photoshop, inDesign, Firefox, and so forth.
I’d miss a few of those “utility” apps (e.g. iPhoto and my FTP client) that aren’t available for Windows, but it certainly wouldn’t shut me down.
A Mac user switch to Windows? Most of them would rather die 1000 deaths than do that.
I think you’re making the mistake of believing that the dude in the Mac ad represents the majority of Mac users.
Most of us have used both Windows and Macintosh, evaluated the two systems, and picked one (or in some cases, like mine, picked both). The rabid silly Mac users are as much a minority as the rabid silly Windows users.
Because its competitor does it. And actually makes more money with it. So it would seem to be in their best interest to at least offer the same options. It’s frustrating seeing the company with the better product shoot itself in the foot by not at least offering a platform independent version. Especially when Joe Hacker shows it’s trivial to pull off.
If Chevy sold a transmision that was designed to go in either Chevy or Ford trucks, and it was less expensive Ford’s which did not work in Chevy trucks, do you think the people who built their own cars would purchase the Ford’s Motor?
Palm’s return shot. Now they’re spoofing the USB vendor ID, which is a clear violation of the standard’s use agreement.
This is a seriously stupid move. Palm could have written their own software, making use of the open format for the iTunes library file and the music files themselves. If they’d done that, they’d be using their programmers and engineers; people who actually make stuff for a living.
Now, they’re threatening to start a multi-front patent war, with the USB standards board and Apple for starters, so only the lawyers are going to benefit. If they’re really lucky, they’ll only lose a large amount of money instead of a massive pile. I don’t see this coming out with a ruling in their favor since they’re being pretty flagrant about it.
I’m an ex-Mac user who switched to Windows. My reasons were purely practical: I had lost my 9-to-5 job and was supporting myself as a freelance writer, and thus absolutely had to have a computer. My Mac died and I was nearly broke, so I decided to spend my money on an adequate toshiba laptop + rent rather than a wonderful Mac laptop + living in a box in an alley.