Would you like to see Apple opening up?
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a comment.

Showing messages 1 through 23 of 23.

• Preposterous Nonsense
  2005-10-05 06:58:04  decoder [Reply | View]
  
  
  The good thing about this article is that it prompted a response that showed the community around here is capable of intelligently rejecting/correcting the editorial equivalent of an encomium for the Easter Bunny. The fact that someone like Giles could so easily be appeased by a few empty gestures is sad, but also, it makes me wonder what's next from this outlet. Perhaps O'Reilly should hire some of their readers as editors to prevent further embarassment.
• Preposterous Nonsense
  2005-10-05 07:52:17  Giles Turnbull | [Reply | View]
  
  
  Your heartfelt flame doesn't clearly say what you consider to be nonsense, so it's hard for me to defend myself.
  
  I'm not 'appeased'; it's not like I'm rushing out to buy a Dell machine based solely on the posts I've read on a few weblogs.
  
  My point was intended to be about communication, and the willingness (or otherwise) of large corporations to communicate openly with customers and users.
  
  I simply don't accept the argument (made elsewhere in the comments here) that MS's apparent openness is a result of it being so behind the competition, *and that by logical consequence*, Apple has no need to open up at all. It just doesn't follow. Why can't a market leader allow just a little insight into its internal activities? Being market-leading web services hasn't stopped Google and Yahoo opening up with official and not-so-official communications channels.
  
  From my point of view, the good thing about this article was the fantastic response it triggered from readers, almost all of whom had a valid criticism or useful additional insight to add.
• Preposterous Nonsense
  2005-10-05 18:51:51  decoder [Reply | View]
  
  
  The ellipticism of your response is great: you end with my initial conclusion, which, btw, answers your other question: I didn't enumerate the preposterous aspects because that has duly been done.
  
  You also don't answer the claim that you are falling for a Microsoft ruse by refuting a straw man argument. The insane irony is that Mickey has been doing this same nonsense forever, and your not even acknowledging that is ludicrous. You mentioned Office. Remember when they first promised to 'open up' and make all the apps use XML? Go ask Tim Bray about that. The promise... the reality...

• The way I see it
  2005-10-04 19:31:00  TerryO [Reply | View]
  
  
  I couldn't disagree with this article more.
  
  First a few somewhat obvious observations about Microsoft. To whatever extent they are "opening up" via blogs or other content, it is arguably more out of necessity at this point than a newfound commitment to corporate "openness." It all boils down to marketing, no matter the flavor. Although tech blogs may have a targeted audience (corporate or otherwise unaffiliated technonerds), the fact remains that four years have now passed and Microsoft still has yet to produce a successor to XP (and XP is largely built on NT4/Windows 2000 which further enlarges it's legacy underpinnings). Microsoft made a huge error in tying everything ("bet the company" according to Gates) into a blunderbuss, next generation release of Windows that, by Microsoft's own decree, wasn't going to be encumbered by a release date.
  
  The wisdom of that decision led to year after year with no product from Microsoft and XP aging less than gracefully. As of today, the biggest tangible accomplishment from Microsoft regarding it's next generation OS (in so far as users are concerned) is that it has a name: "Vista". Other than that, nothing. Microsoft finally relented from developing it's next generation browser from being specifically tied to (and released with) Vista by announcing IE 7 for XP, but...where is it? By the time it actually gets into users hands, it likely that Vista will have been released, or will soon. There just isn't any mincing of words (blogged or not) about this situation; it's a mess. Microsoft painted itself into a corner with Vista, and without any interim OS release to it's name, it will take ANY publicity, any traction, any interest at all for Vista that it can possibly get. They are so far behind the 8-ball with Windows now it's laughable.
  
  Apple is a different story these days. It doesn't blog about its technologies in development, it releases them. It's OS has been updated almost yearly from, 10.0 to 10.4. I think Apple realizes that its far more valuable to put products into users hands than it is to blog about their development. Also, Apple is in a position where it must be extremely competitive. In order to maintain it's current position and competative edge - and remain relevant in an MS dominated world - Apple just can't afford to release products that aren't really noteworthy. It MUST put out products that surprise, amaze and impress when they are released. Nothing short of that will work. Telling the world about all of your great ideas you have in development isn't "openness" for Apple, it's suicide. It loses it prime marketing advantage of head-turning, deer-caught-in-the-headlights surprise.
  
  Take the move to Intel. Apple only stated that it's next generation Macs will be equipped with Intel procs. Apple never said a word more, but nevertheless there has been countless theories and speculation everywhere on the net about the specific model of Intel procs Apple might use, and so on. But the reality is no one outside of Apple knows. Every article, blog, or post about the Intel switch has been nothing more than glorified guesswork. Is that really bad? Is it too "closed" on Apple's part?
  
  Well, if you expect to see nothing more than a Dell box with an Apple sticker on it when the new Macs are released, then maybe you could say Apple is being too tight-lipped about it's products. But when the day comes when Apple takes the wraps of the new Intel-based Macs, you can expect at least one thing: you will be surprised. And that moment will prove to be exponentially more motivating to buy than having read developers blogs about it beforehand
• The way I see it
  2005-10-05 01:38:57  Giles Turnbull | [Reply | View]
  
  
  You've got it spot on with your point about surprise. That is what Apple depends upon, and it does work.

• Old school mythology
  2005-10-04 17:52:33  MattSherman [Reply | View]
  
  
  Although this is not the thrust of this article, I must answer the opening two paragraphs, which serve up some olde-tyme religion for the Mac folks.
  
  (For the record, I am regular and generally happy user of XP, Panther and now Tiger.)
  
  I haven't had a blue screen on any Windows machine I've used in probably three years. However, each Mac used by me or a member of my staff has failed in recent memory.
  
  Be it the inexplicable scrolling console text instead of a login screen, a software update aborted due to permissions problems, or an iMac just plain overheating, the failure rate is much higher on Macs around here. And this is a design firm -- we've got the best Mac support talent around.
  
  Add that to the multiple dozens of security fixes that Apple has offered in the past several months, and I don't see how these myths persist.
• Old school mythology
  2005-10-05 01:37:20  Giles Turnbull | [Reply | View]
  
  
  Useful perspective, Matt, thanks.
  
  Personally, I think there's a gulf separating "professional" Windows setups - those with plenty of skilled support on hand - and "non-professional" ones - those, including small businesses and home users, who lack guidance and backup when things go wrong.
  
  It's great to hear that the BSOD and related hangups are becoming a thing of the past, but in small business and domestic situations I've continued to see plenty of them in recent years.
  
  I agree with your other point - that Macs can and do fail more often that some people give them credit for.
• Old school mythology
  2005-10-06 09:25:24  MattSherman [Reply | View]
  
  
  Excellent point, Giles. I've lost count of the number of rebuilds I have done for family members' Windows machines.

• Should apple open up
  2005-10-04 16:23:33  ja95 [Reply | View]
  
  
  It would be nice,but no apple can't afford to, they have to little market share and any negative press
  would effect them more than Microsoft.
  
  I would love to see them address Bugs and safety concerns, but Apple just releases 40 bug and safety fixes and no comment from coppurtino.
  
  Oh well, for some fans that's ok, but not for me.

• This isn't opening up, it's just more FUD with a new tool
  2005-10-04 04:54:55  DaleG [Reply | View]
  
  
  You've got this the wrong way around. MS aren't opening up. They're trying to control market share by releasing FUD about their products. They've always done this, it's just that they have a new tool to do it with - blogs.
  
  Now more than ever MS two monopolies are under threat - Windows and Office. How do they counter this? The traditional way, generating FUD.
  
  MS aren't involving business or consumers in the development of these apps. They're just releasing tidbits of information about the development, after the development.
  
  How is telling us that Office will export to PDF being open? What's earth shattering about knowing that they're gonna do PDF in Office? It's obvious, its marketing and its FUD.
  
  If they were being open about Office 12 they'd blog about whether customers want an ODF format. And then they'd implement it. Instead, MS force their own XML file format down customers throats and broadcast it via their blogs.
  
  Look at the new Office 12 UI. MS have already dictated a UI change in Office 12! They just did it and told people at a PDC conference like they would've anyway. Then they broadcast it via their blog.
  
  Look at IE7. They're blogging how they're gonna support basic standards and a UI that's the same as every other browser. How is this open? Consumers aren't being asked what IE7 should do. Again, feel threatened by Firefox, they develop first and dictate the change after the fact. This isn't open or innovative. Just obvious and manipulative.
  
  Now to the Apple vs MS openess issue. MS have a monopoly. What have they to loose by broadcasting their intentions to their captured consumers? Nothing! They gain, by keeping the sheep in the pen. What do Apple have to lose by blogging early about their (actually) innovate products? Their competitive advantage against a monopoly, and a significant method to communicate in a market flooded with MS FUD.
  
  Blogs are a cool new channel/tool to influence people with. MS are using it for their marketing and FUD. And people think Steve has a reality distortion field! MS were built on one and it continues to power them!
• This isn't opening up, it's just more FUD with a new tool
  2005-10-04 13:31:09  manickernel [Reply | View]
  
  
  Microsoft has been uncool for so long that now they are cool again. The real FUD is in Mac security.

• The London Train Station?
  2005-10-04 01:26:21  michael98 [Reply | View]
  
  
  
  

  "...the London Train Station is ... running on [Windows]"

  
  
  "The London Train Station"? Which one is that?
  
  Sorry, Giles, I couldn't resist that. (I had a look at one of the blogs you mention and found that.) <grin>
  
  Actually, I suspect that most, if not all, of the rail companies use Windows for almost everything. I've regularly seen the Blue Screen of Death up on the departure-announcement board at railway stations after Windows has crashed yet again. Why they don't use a more robust solution (read Unix) for everything they possibly can is beyond me.
  
  You see, I read:
  
  

  ... the best-known and most obvious being Robert Scoble's Scobelizer.

  
  
  And I looked and found this
  
  http://radio.weblogs.com/0001011/2005/10/03.html#a11353
  
  I picked a single amusing comment out of a post on Vista/Office 12, but basically he seems to me to be whistling in the dark to keep his spirits up. Time Bray had mentioned out that more businesses are using web apps, something we all know, not a new observation, one of the things Microsoft fears (and one of the reasons Microsoft used illegal methods to destroy Netscape: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm) -
  
  http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
  
  - and this guy doesn't like to hear it. Tough.
  
  Sorry, I'm not sure this is a particularly constructive post, but while I've very little time for Apple (I'm an OSX-user but not suckered by the "cult of the Mac"), I have even less for Microsoft. Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks to me like Scoble blogs is about arguing Microsoft's corner, and I don't see that as a model.
  
  
  
  

• Re:
  2005-10-03 23:45:08  aristotle [Reply | View]
  
  
  The Safari team already is open. But I’d wager that’s because at this point, no cutting-edge innovations will happen in that corner of the company – rather, it is a product that thrives on continuously improved interoperation, and so it makes nothing but sense to open up its development.
  
  And that’s where I see the model making sense – with established products where the potential for innovation in the forseeable future is minimal. I wouldn’t expected to have heard about the iPod nano from any Apple blogger beforehand, say.
  
  And don’t forget that MSFT’s blogging seems half-hearted at best sometimes. For one thing, it sounds like a rather stifled voice on occasion, usually so when there is a distinct sense (for me as an outsider, anyway) that a particular direction seems to have been dictated from above, where the team might have chosen differently or just doesn’t have an opinion.
  
  But notably, the entire upper echelon at MSFT is absent from blogland. That’s interesting, no?
  
  Contrast the other company which you didn’t mention, which has done a much more respectable job at this so far: Sun. Not that I’m a fan on Sun at large; their upper echelon seems rather conflicted at times. But at least they’re not entirely phobic, as MSFT is.
• Re:
  2005-10-04 00:57:49  Giles Turnbull | [Reply | View]
  
  
  Good points about Safari and Sun, thanks for pointing them out.

• pluses and minuses
  2005-10-03 20:04:12  carlj7 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I agree that I'd appreciate it if Apple were more open, but I don't know how good it would be for their bottom line. Just look at the current flap on drunkenblog.com-- someone at Apple closed a bug because they didn't know how aliases work. This in turn exposed Apple to public humilation and a loss of face.
  
  Meanwhile, even on the "super-open" IE blog, my suggestions for/questions about the MS anti-phishing software have been ignored. So, openness is not the be-all, end-all. The be-all, end-all is good software that does what the user wants. Openness is just a means toward that end.

• It's easy to be open when speaking about monopoly products.
  2005-10-03 18:20:01  poboxbot [Reply | View]
  
  
  It's interesting you note two products -- Vista and Office -- where Microsoft has monopoly control.
  
  It would be more impressive if there were weblogs coming out of their R&D office about speech recognition software, or out of the XBox group about game lineups at launch or wireless controllers.
  
  In short, they don't risk anything in the marketplace by being "open."
  
  Apple, on the other hand, would risk a lot since it is (arguable) that where Apple goes, the rest of the industry follows.

• How many ways have you gone wrong?
  2005-10-03 18:16:48  AnjanBagchee [Reply | View]
  
  

  
  I started counting the ways you have gone wrong in your presumed assessment and then I got confused because I can't any logic whatsoever in your contentions. So, instead of answering each point which might take hours, I divide your mistakes into two buckets -
  

  
  
  1. You are assuming that Microsoft is doing something right because it has a larger market share? That's a hilarious proposition. So, now that's what Porsche is doing wrong!! They should communicate better and come out with a compact four door economy sedan. Microsoft is a company of Lowest Common Denominator and it'd be asinine to follow in their footsteps.
  
  
  2. Microsoft can afford to be "open" about their moves because they are the plagiarizer, never the plagiarizee. Starting from MS-DOS to their upcoming Longhorn, or whatever they call it now, is stolen concepts from other companies. Apple's hardware is copied by Dell, and software by Microsoft (as observed by Jobs at the Paris Expo this year). There is ABSOLUTELY no reason for Apple to make their products a community decision. Last time I checked they are not an open source company.

• How many ways have you gone wrong?
  2005-10-04 00:57:06  Giles Turnbull | [Reply | View]
  
  
  Microsoft is a company of Lowest Common Denominator and it'd be asinine to follow in their footsteps.
  
  I disagree. I'm as much a fan of Apple as most other Mac DevCenter readers, but I'm not prepared to declare MS and everything it produces in those terms. Some of Microsoft's products are genuinely innovative (look at all the positive reviews of OneNote).
  
  Microsoft can afford to be "open" about their moves because they are the plagiarizer, never the plagiarizee.
  
  Again, I think this is an unfair generalization.
• Re:
  2005-10-03 23:30:44  aristotle [Reply | View]
  
  
  It’s a bit of a stretch to call it all stolen, though it is correct that MSFT are always just reacting.
  
  Well, Microsoft Research Labs are breaking some ground. But then, very little of that has so far shown up in actual products, or so it seems anyway.

• Apple is doing just fine.
  2005-10-03 16:04:47  SMR [Reply | View]
  
  
  There are several schools of thought - Apple has chosen to speak carefully, after they have their 'ducks in a row'. As a result, they rarely make a public statement that comes back to bite them. I would much rather have a few, meaningful presentations from Apple than be subject to some Ballmer-esque ravings every other week.
  
  As for employee blogs and less formal/high profile communications - what, exactly, is the value there? What, besides publicity and/or scorn, has Microsoft ever benefitted themselves of their users by yapping?
  
  Frankly, Steve Jobs has a history of saying brilliant things - and then he's been accused of 'reality distortion'. Perhaps he is smart enough to know he needs to keep his mouth from running ahead of his train of thought, esp. when dealing with the public.
• Apple is doing just fine.
  2005-10-04 00:51:49  Giles Turnbull | [Reply | View]
  
  
  I'd say the value would be in allowing other Apple employees to talk to the public. Then perhaps we might see through the distortion field to the reality.

• what is the relevance of Microsoft "opening up"
  2005-10-03 14:10:23  GerardM [Reply | View]
  
  
  It is not relevant as it is not the opening up that is what is needed. Needed are the publication of API's, conforming to open standars.
  
  So as far as I am concerned it is just marketing. That is not something that I find interesting nor relevant. Yes, for the hardcore Microsoft afficionados it may be interesting, it is also interesting as a sociological occurrence. But really...
  
  Thanks,
  GerardM
• Open APIs are important
  2005-10-04 00:29:48  bioinfotools [Reply | View]
  
  
  I agree. Two thoughts from many from reviewing these issues some time ago:
  
  1. APIs should be well defined, documented and open. The guts of the "engine" can remain closed. Where accepted standards are present, they should be made available (note this allows for extensions or enhancements). [All obvious perhaps, but these aren't always true...]
  
  2. Where possible and realistic, companies ought to pledge that if they cease to maintain development of a product, that either the product be sold onto someone who can maintain it whilst maintaining the same service and fees for users or its source code be released to the public for the community to maintain as they see fit.
  
  
  I'd like to think that for most people documentation of the points at which they interact with the software and being able to give feedback are more important than access to the source code.
  
  Point 2 avoids products dying unexpectedly that might otherwise be maintained by the community. My understanding is that this is what has happened with Web Objects (?).
  
  With these two in place, I suspect two of the more practical needs of "openess" are covered. I'm open to (civil!) comments about that.