When it comes to Apple, proprietary, 'schmaprietary'

After taking over as Apple CEO for the second time, Steve Jobs pulled the plug on a program to license the Macintosh operating system to clone makers. No surprise, as that was consistent with his approach since the debut of the Macintosh. Keeping everything under one roof worked to Apple's advantage, and it found later expression in the development of the iPod and iTunes.

So it is that in the run-up to Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference, Apple's App Store is going to be the only way to get official third-party iPhone applications onto your device. We'll find out more next week, but you can expect some predictable baying in certain corners of the blogosphere. My hunch, though, is that most customers are going to be fine with all that.

Steve Jobs: Do the same rules apply?

The conventional wisdom these days has it that most tech companies shouldn't get away with being closed--Apple, of course, being the exception. Since so much of the conversations around technology these days concerns social media, I thought it was interesting to recall the collective howl which met Facebook's decision to block Google's Friend Connect last month. Social networking is obviously a different sphere of computing, but shouldn't the same standard apply?

That's an important debate, but being "closed" has allowed Apple to integrate its hardware and software in ways that have delighted customers over the years. As a consumer, I want my technology provider to make these as easy as possible for me to use. I don't want to waste my day tinkering with a screwdriver, downloading software patches, or praying on one leg to a four-eyed ancient deity in order to get the damned thing to work.

That really irks rivals. Remember this ad from Nokia last fall tweaking Apple for its closed-door policy toward iPhone development? Around the same time, a BBC contributor equated Apple's business practices with Microsoft's and suggested that the European Union launch an investigation. Apple went on sell 4 million units by the end of last year. The EU still hasn't opened that investigation--nor should it.

If it's going to attract new customers, the high-tech industry will need to behave more like the consumer electronics industry. That means simplicity. I want to plug in my stereo, turn it on, and listen to a CD. I don't want to first download the CD-enabling software. And when it comes to tech companies, Apple is the closest to providing that sort of simplicity, be it for music or photos. The company's "closed" behavior, you can argue, is what makes that simplicity possible. What limited Apple's appeal is now working to its advantage.

[AppleSuxLeo]

Yup...the iPhoney "keyboard" is so great , we will all throw out our QWERTY keyboards !!
NOT ! Look at what a POS the Mac mouse is. That will give you a clue. Even top Apple pros such as Leo LaPorte suggest throwing out the Mac mouse and getting a PC-style mouse.

[Dalkorian]

Feeling hungry troll? If these are the only complaints you have about Apple (I know they aren't, trolls like you can always come up with more BS) I'd have to say us Apple fans are doing pretty good. Let me ask a legitimate question since your position on Apple is so very clear, are you a Linux fan or a M$ prostitute?

[venuesdotorg]

Wasn't "Plug & Play" supposed to negate the need for downloading drivers? My mother now has an EeePC. I couldn't find a Linux driver for my old Iomega external optical drive. No problem. It plugged and played. Same with the Brother printer. No Linux drivers to be found. No problem. It plugged and played (after finding it in the "Add Printer" utility).
No wonder these EeePCs are selling so fast!

[amandachuck]

a high precision four button laser mouse with scroll ball sure is worthless... oh wait, it works great. which mouse are you talking about? the wireless version? oh, wait, it works great?

[LLoryck]

Gee... such vitriol... But you missed the point. The article referred to the ENTIRE user experience which is overall very nice indeed. To condemn everything based on your attitude regarding the keyboard (which I like) and the Mouse (which I don't much care for) is a bit weak. You like PC's Fine! I love the Mac and the user experience and I have for over 25 years.

[Renegade Knight]

I may get a MacBook as my next laptop. Having seen iPod and iTunes in action. No Thanks. iPhone where hobby applications (the kind I use for..my hobbies...) won't get a toe hold? No thanks. Apple should be open enough so programmers can get applications on the iPhone without hacking it and without red tape. Apples heading down the wrong path with their consumer electronics. They don't "just work" anymore. Apple itself is getting in the way.

[jumpjetta]

@applesuxleo: I have a bluetooth mighty mouse with 4 buttons and a trackball, and I tossed a microsoft intellimouse pro with its ridiculous 3 foot cord (a feature of most PC mice) for it. my iPhone keyboard adapts to the task at hand, auto-corrects mis-types intelligently and provides me with what I need for the type of input I'm entering. your arguments reek of ignorance.

[Kev Orng]

His arguments ALWAYS reek of ignorance.

[Hugmup]

There is nothing stopping other companies from using Apple's business model. For example, Dell could spin off a subsidiary, buy a Linux distro, hire an industrial designer, and put them together into a vertically integrated product and target it at a specific market. All the hardware companies could do the same thing.

Meanwhile, Apple released its kernel, its html rendering engine, and its Bonjour implementation of Zeroconf as open-source software. It has opened up its Time Machine and dot-Mac APIs to all and sundry. Apple uses standard protocols. Apple does nothing to lock people into its Safari browser.

"Proprietary" isn't the word you are looking for, it's "vertical integration." The reason other companies aren't doing the same thing is because they haven't noticed the obvious yet.

[ittesi259]

Proprietary in software, not as much as the ability to code on the Mac platform has always been there....but in terms of hardware....which is what the article is about....Apple is closed, and I agree its not a bad thing. I will say I don't care for the mouse, which is why I don't use it....but that doesn't make it a piece of crap like that moron wanted to claim

[CmdrRickHunter]

Macintosh works great if you like Macintosh.

Sounds meaningless right? Its pretty accurate. If you already think breathe and feel Macintosh, you'll find their UIs to be wonderfully intuitive. If you don't, however, you'll find all of their decisions totally backwards, unless its a decision which they ripped off from BSD.

Example: you cannot change mouse acceleration without applescript hacking. Example: The mouse (as stated above). Example: You throw a CD away to eject it (I had a CD-R/W in there.. how should I know that that is "eject" and not "clear"). Example: the only OS where normal apps do not quit when the last window is closed Example: the only platform which BOOST C++ doesn't run on nativly (Apple's frameworks muck it up). Example: artificially disabling the multimonitor features on their personal grade OS, forcing you to buy the commercial one (or just hack it)

The list goes on and on. If you don't think exactly like Steve Jobs, there's no option to tweak your computer closer to your thinking.

[Riquez-001]

1) The OS X System prefs have full mouse speed controls..
What are you talking about?
2) A CD is dragged onto the "Eject Icon" to eject it, or by pressing the "Eject Key", or by right-clicking & selecting "Eject"
What are you talking about?
3) "the only OS where normal apps do not quit when the last window is closed" Don't talk daft - Does Photoshop quit if I close the last document window on Windows? No, neither do many other programs. Now, what would be stupid is if your OS mixed this behaviour - just as Windows does.

[bjlevine]

You don't "throw away" the CD; you either drag it to the Eject icon in the dock or you simply press the "Eject" key on the keyboard.

You change the mouse acceleration in the System Preference for the mouse using the UI.

"Personal grade OS"? No, OSX is OSX; all Macs (for a number of years) except the mini have external monitor support as either "mirrored" or "extended" mode (your choice). I have a MacBook and an iMac; both may use a second monitor without a problem.

"Boost C++ doesn't run natively". Okay. Shall I complain that something written by a Mac developer for the Mac doesn't run on a PC?

"If you don't think like Steve Jobs...". Ummm, not sure what this means. Maybe one should think like Steve Ballmer the monkey boy?

[FellowConspirator]

One might suppose that you're unfamiliar with Macs as your comments don't reflect my personal experience, but then again, I'd not dealt with them prior to OS X 10.4.


To eject a CD, you *can* drag to the Trash (the trashcan turns into an ejection icon) -- but most people seem find it more intuitive to simply press the eject button on the keyboard, or command-E ('E' for 'eject'); Windows users will also find that right-clicking and selecting "Eject" from the pop-up menu or highlighting and selecting "Eject" from the File menu also work. Windows and Linux have similar behaviors with regard to not quitting when the last window is closed (look at apps that remain in the system tray -- identically to remaining flagged in the dock); precisely which apps behave that way differ from platform to platform, but all three do it. I've never seen an issue with Boost C++, but perhaps there's something magical about the Macs I've used that it works on them. I've never heard of or experienced issues with multi-monitors -- Apple doesn't have a commerical-grade versus personal-grade OS, their two versions are standard and server (which simply adds server management apps, directory server, and some remote administration tools -- everything else is identical).

There are issues that bug me about OS X. The VFS support is poor -- not as bad as Windows, but nothing like Linux (which gets it right in spades). Later versions of OS X are resolution independent, but it's more or less not used (you can set it via a script). The syncing app (iSync) is not as up-to-date with devices as it should be. OS X natively handles WebDAV fantastically, but Finder limits its use to .Mac.

Generally speaking, it appears that Linux has the most complete UI (esp. KDE, but GNOME is a decent simplified environment), Mac has the most consistent and deliberately designed UI, and Windows has the most inconsistent but widely used UI.

[flatloop]

---If it's going to attract new customers, the high-tech industry will need to behave more like the consumer electronics industry. That means simplicity.

That also means lack of functionality. What you want is a High-Tech appliance store. A bunch of single minded devices that only do one thing REALLY well. Whereas the history of tech has been to see how many different things can we make this one PC do. Both arenas have their advantages and disadvantages. Personally I like Apple. Their design, simplicity and ergonomics are a beautiful marriage, but I'm not lazy (or is it rich?) enough to pay the price. I'd rather cobble the same functionality together on PC of similar power for half the price.

Mac and PC are essentially the same, moreso every day. It's more about branding and status than functionality. Whether you drive a Ford or a Toyota, you end up in the same place. The nice thing is you can buy your gas from anywhere. If you could only gas up at the Toy-store, that might influence your decision as to how far you'll go.

[ittesi259]

Having use both I'll say this, the money I paid for my Mac has more than made up for the time I spent at my PC going "***!" and spending the time to get it to work. At least I can turn on my computer and launch my applications and complete my tasks, not troubleshoot half the time.

[Thomas, David]

First of all, the idea that closed/proprietary systems goes against the grain of "conventional" wisdom it flat out wrong. It goes against "popular" thinking, especially by those who think they can do a better job, or add their own flair. This path of thinking in itself is closed, because it stipulates all choices, of this type, should be the same.

The truth is, it is simply a different approach. An approach that yields control of research, design, and development to the owners. Even if it misses out on some of the new, and cool stuff someone else has come up with, it protects the design path, for the owners.

This is extremely important to Apple because it allows them to be flexible, innovative, and gives them complete control. Of course this is a double edged sword. As much as people want to hack on Steve Jobs, the truth being he is great for Apple, and will scare the crap out of any Apple lovers when he leaves.

However, currently, it has proven to be the correct approach, as long as the ship has the right Captain. For now, all is well. In the future, we all will wonder.

[markdoiron]

I like the simple-as-a-stereo-to-plug-in analogy. Unfortunately for your case, Apple fails it. Twenty years ago you could buy a Pioneer receiver and plug it into a Sansui amplifier with Kenwood speakers and everything worked fine. Apple shuts that down, and the loss is in higher cost and reduced creativity (unless you believe that the one button mouse is the end all and be all of creativity). At least Microsoft makes an attempt to allow third party developers and interoperability between different hardware sources (and that results in mouses/mice that far exceed what many of us need, but what a few of use feel we need). --mark d.

[ittesi259]

In the stereo analogy the receiver is the computer and everything else is peripherals.....and every peripheral I had connected to my PC work with my Mac....go figure?

[Dalkorian]

It's amazing to read something that's even more clueless than the applesuxleo troll spews out. Point: I'm currently using a M$ mouse with my Mac mini (I liked the MightyMouse at first, but had issues with the scroll button so I went back). Doesn't that totally blow your argument out of the water? How about the Envision monitor I'm using, it's not made by Apple either. Nor are the old Parrot speakers. This is all with the least expensive Mac you can buy. Next time you want to sound smart, get a clue first OK?

[William Schnippert]

I find it amazing how people liken closed OS and software for a smartphone to whether or not facebook will open their ecosystem to Google.

If open phone OSs are so much better then I am sure Android will eat Apple's lunch. But we haven't even seen an actual product yet from Google and partners, so one can only surmise...

[eksAirbusdriver]

" you cannot change mouse acceleration without applescript hacking"
"You throw a CD away to eject it (I had a CD-R/W in there.. how should I know that that is "eject" and not "clear")"
"the only OS where normal apps do not quit when the last window is closed"

What on Earth is this guy talking about?! Has he even seen anything since OS 7?! LOL
OK, now, perhaps he can tell me why I'd want an app to Quit just because I closed all it's windows. Many apps don't even use a window until it needs to. Just because I close all the windows doesn't mean I don't want to have the program immediately available to use again. Especially since OS X, virtual memory works so cleanly I often find my wife with a dozen apps running! No Problem.

Seesh, if you like Windows/linux/generic hardware, fine, use it, buy it, even build it. :-) But don't get so upset when some one else suggests that there might be a different way, even a better way, should you but give it a try. Do you still use a hand crank to start your car? Still buying ice down at the plant? How are your gas lanterns holding up? Need a new supplier of mantles?

Oh well, back to enjoying my use of my computer! ;-)

[pjhenry1216]

Calling interoperability an outdated technology is ridiculous. A lot of the parts in an apple computer ARE generic. Apple doesn't make every bit of hardware in that box of yours. If you don't know how to build a computer, fine, buy a mac. But if you're skilled enough, you can easily build a better and faster machine for a fraction of the cost. when it comes to the OSes, most linux distros give the people with the skill to use it, even more power than os x, for zero dollars. You pay a premium so you're not required to have any extra knowledge. they make it easy to use, but that cuts out a lot of flexibility that plenty of people want. you like macs, thats great. some people find them a bit inflexible and want to be able to do more. for the slightly less skilled, there's windows. vastly more flexible than os x, but at times unstable (note: i refuse to acknowledge vista's existence. i still use xp, and would prefer if people would compare os x to xp instead.). for the more skilled, there's linux. infinitely more flexible, but sometimes requires a lot of work. some people like having that control. it just depends on what you want. but don't EVER say flexibility is an outdated concept. You like products that clearly tell you what you can do and how you do it (mac). Some people like it where the product tells you what kind of things you can do, but lets you use various methods (windows xp). Then there's some who like products that do whatever they tell the product to do (linux).

[wango2007]

What amazes me is that so many Open Souce freaks (everything belongs to everyone else) are also Apple freaks. They are confused people.

[Massacabre]

I created an account just to say that this article is pure crap.
The apple Ipod dock could have instead been a simple USB 2.0 dock.
But no, they made it proprietary. So all other MP3 players cant work with the dock. Itunes. Enough said. I think that combine popularity with poor interoperability and you create a monopoly.

Basically the interoperability test that you mention, Apple fails spectacularly. Apple works with apple and that's it!

[Riquez-001]

For so many years Apple users were shut out of using certain printers, music players, cd drives, scanners, websites etc etc because they were "Windows only"
Now Apple start making stuff that does work with Apple for Apple users & all the Windows users go "Wahhh. I want an iPod. wahhh, it doesnt work with Windows, wahh, I dont like Safari" - literally dude, ****.

There are 100 other mp3 players out there, they all work with windows & are limited for Mac - so hush up your moaning.

Additionally, everyone like to band around the word "proprietary" & make out its exclusive to Apple. So what about the Zune? Can you use that with a Mac or on Linux? How about songs that use Windows DRM, is that not proprietary? How about Windows itself - that's all OSS yeah?
How about your HP Scanner that needs the special HP ImageLab software, or that Panasonic Digital Camera that only comes with a Windows installer CD?
How about the xBox360 that requires you use Win Media Centre to stream music/video?

I think, in fact, you will be hard pressed to find any hardware or software from any vendor that doesnt have some element of "proprietary" bundled along with it.

[Thomas, David]

Wow, in reading so more of the comments, I can only say that people agree to disagree.

It appears it's mostly about a point of view. But the bottom line is, Apple needs to be Apple, and does NOT have to be like everyone else. As one poster put it, "Microsoft does ...". Well that is fine, it really is. But why on earth does Apple have to be like Microsoft?!

Apple makes products their way. Inviting everyone else in, would require them to consult with everyone else to get anything done.

Look at the headaches Microsoft has, and please try to explain to me why consumers should lose a choice, that provides them far less headaches, just because a few people believe Apple should give them the red carpet treatment into their (Apples') architecture?!

[open-mind]

If I buy a Dell PC, it can only run Windows or Linux. If I buy an Apple PC, it can run Windows, Linux, or OS X.


=
If I buy a Zune, it will only work with Windows. If I buy an iPod, it will work with Windows or OS X.



Every Apple web site works equally well with every browser and platform. If I try the MS Live web site, much of it will only work with IE on Windows.



So which company is more closed?

[superswiss]

Actually, a Dell PC runs OS X just fine. The issue is that it is illegal to run OS X on anything else than Apple Hardware. Apple is on a different level of proprietary. It actually legally forbids things that could technically be done. Microsoft does not make it illegal to run Windows on Apple hardware. They also don't make it illegal to connect the Zune to your Mac. Nobody has written software yet to connect the Zune to Mac. At first, Apple didn't provide iPod support on Windows. It took them a while to support it on Windows.

[Lerianis]

Wrong. Totally, absolutely wrong about the MS Live website. I use firefox for most of my browsing, and ALL THE THING ON LIVE WORK ON IT, except for the Windows Live Safety Scanner.
Considering that needs a ActiveX plugin (which Firefox doesn't support), I can let that slide.

[open-mind]

Sorry, my bad on the LIVE. It does work with Firefox now, but I swear it used to only work with IE. Hope it works with Mac Firefox, since their satellite imagery is far superior (depending on location) to what Google offers. I'll check that when I get home.

As for OS restrictions, clearly Apple restricts OS X to their own hardware via their EULA. Just as Microsoft restricts Windows on a Dell to run only on that Dell. Vista Home Basic (last I heard) also had EULA restrictions about running on a virtual machine. There is lots of debate whether such EULA's are even binding. If you want OS X on a non-Apple box, you could try a Psystar.

I doubt Zune will ever work with a Mac, so comparing that to the brief iPod delay in supporting Windows is not really valid IMHO.

Another example of Apple openness ... their world-class development tools are completely free. Equivalent tools from Microsoft cost a lot of money, representing a significant barrier to entry.

Another example ... Apple is leading the race (last I checked) to support web standards in Safari. They're not trying to pollute web standards by introducing proprietary extensions that only work with IE on Windows. To Microsoft's credit, they are also (at least publically) trying to support these standards.

There are many opinions about what "open" means, but other than the EULA issue (which is open to debate IMHO) I don't see how Apple is so lacking in openness relative to their competition (except Linux of course).

[superswiss]

open-mind: Yes, certain Windows editions are restricted and yes you are not supposed to install an OEM license on anything else than the OEM hardware it came with, but that doesn't mean you cannot walk into Best Buy, pick up Windows from the shelf and install it on any hardware you like. Apple doesn't offer any edition of OS X that you are allowed to install on anything other than Apple hardware. I'm sorry, but that's a HUGE difference. I'm not sure Zune will never be supported on Mac. It all comes down to marketshare. Apple had a huge incentive to support Windows with their iPod, because of the large user base. They couldn't afford to ignore Windows users. It's a whole different story for Microsoft to add Mac support and any other software vendor who faces this decision. As much as Apple has been picking up Marketshare, it still pales to the Windows marketshare. Targeting Windows gives software vendors a much larger return on their investment. Has nothing to do with whether Microsoft is open or not. This is pure economics.

[theveggiedude]

Marcel Good said in one post:
"Apple is on a different level of proprietary. It actually legally forbids things that could technically be done."

Doesn't occur to you that they don't want the headache of supporting all of those different pc's?

Then in another later post you say:
"Apple had a huge incentive to support Windows with their iPod, because of the large user base... This is pure economics."

That kinda shoots down your first argument. If there is a huge amount of money to be made (from the 90% of the worlds PC's) then isn't that incentive enough to sell OS X for Dell and all the others?

I guess it shows Apple is not in it just for the money. They want to be practical about their business. They own the iPod hardware, and so it is practical to share it with the PC crowd.

They do not own Dell and the 100 other PC's out their and it would be too much headache to try support OS X on them.

Now, if only Microsoft could let the X-Box games run on regular PC's...

[jimoase]

When i first used the Mac Mighty Mouse I thought it was a solution looking for a problem. Then I took another look a the preferences. Now I think its a wonderful solution for making my computer do what I need with little effort.

Jim

[kalkalith]

Very astute ...

[Lerianis]

This article REEKS of Windows bashing. Personally, the only problems I have had on my Vista PC, I have made myself, by 'going where smart men fear to tread'. If I had a Mac (which costs a LOT more than a PC for the same hardware, something I am NOT GOING TO PAY FOR), I would still be doing the same thing.

I've also found that most problems on Windows PC's are from people who do the same thing that I do, or who are stupid enough to run a Windows PC on the internet without any protection for their system (no firewall, no anti-virus), then they are surprised when they get a virus or spyware app that breaks their computer.

[open-mind]

The price issue really depends on what you mean by "same hardware".



Apple tends to include hardware items (camera, 802.11n, bluetooth, firewire, DVI, remote, etc) often omitted from the "cheaper" PCs. Macs also include great software (iMovie, iDVD, xCode) missing from most cheap PC's. Also no need for Mac virus software.



When you factor in these extras, the price comparisons become much closer.

[JadedGamer]

"Open Souce freaks (everything belongs to everyone else)"

Um, that is just WRONG Open Source means the source is available. Copyright is of course retained, unlike what you seem to believe...

The difference to traditional software is that IN ADDITION there is a license that allows the recipient to create derived works under some conditions (i.e. GPL's requirement that you must provide source on request if you distribute the derived work - other open source licenses don't require this).