Apple more proprietary than Microsoft, survey finds

In the interest of finding an alternative to the Microsoft overlord, we may be rushing headlong into a new, even more proprietary overlord. Its name?

Apple.

According to a recent poll that The Register ran with its readers, 55 percent crown Apple as the King of Closed, while only 21 percent awarded that dubious distinction to Microsoft. Twenty-four percent think they're equally bad.

While I'm a big Apple fan, and like using it as the foundation for a wide range of open-source software that I happily run on my Mac, I can sympathize with the sentiments of The Register's developer audience:

The most frequently cited reason for regarding Apple as closed was the end-to-end proprietary nature of its offerings, which tie hardware to software to services and in a way that is thought to restrict choice and interoperability. Whether it's OS X being wedded to the Mac, the iPod being dependent on the iTunes service, or iPhone software distribution being controlled via the Apple Store, there is a strong perception that openness is not always the biggest priority for Apple.

For developers in particular, this end-to-end proprietary approach appears to be a big turn-off, which is interesting given that one of the most frequently cited strengths of the Mac, for example, is the Unix foundation that underpins OS X, which is generally considered to be an indicator of openness and compliance with standards....In terms of specifics, references were made to lack of transparency with regard to proprietary API specifications, and being secretive about known faults, vulnerabilities, and so on - behaviour that Microsoft simply could not get away with nowadays without drawing fire from its customers or the regulator.

So, even as Microsoft seeks to find ways to open up, Apple is content to close off, figuring that its consumer crowd simply wants something that works, regardless of the consequences to ultimate computing freedom. This is, in fact, precisely how Microsoft started down its now well-worn path to closing off customer choice: tie products together to make them work well together, and often to the exclusion of third-party alternatives.

Will Apple become the next Microsoft? Time will tell. But its recent action toward open-source Songbird, which poses a threat (albeit a weak one) to iTunes, is no credit to an organization that bills itself as the cool alternative to stodgy Microsoft. Cool? Maybe. Alternative? Well, that would mean that it would have to be different.

[Rawnchie14]

You hit the point right on the head, people are figuring out Apple's mantra, and will eventually get sick of it. Apple probably knows this too, but are making their bucks while they can.

While MS is no better, I think I'll stick to Linux, out of principle.

[Penguinisto]

Can you please point me to a freely downloadable repository of Vista's core source code?

[js.matrix]

I also second the motion.... 'hit the point right on the head'. I made the 'exodus' so-to-speak because MS let an animal escape in the 'tech zoo', the scientific name called, 'Vista' of the Windows species. Concurrent with that, Apple made a brilliant decison to adopt the Intel core processor. Now, with the overly protective policy and disposition of a proprietary nature, over priced equipment with few alternatives and Windows 7 coming in 2009 which 'might' (not necessarily will) breath some new life into the Windows camp, I may very well need to reconsider the Windows world again versus proprietarily open sourced Unix world of OS-X. Will see what happens in terms of attitude and policy shifts in 2009 with the release of Snow Leopard versus Microsoft's release of Windows 7. (In any event Vista's out of the equation in this lifetime. I'll leap frog that one.

[shinji257]

Looks like Apple will become the new "Microsoft". Microsoft is starting to embrace Open Source with various programs that they have endorsed. In fact they have started providing funding to the Apache Foundation. OTOH Apple is closing up. It doesn't matter that Mac OS X is based on OpenBSD (and therefore open source at the core) the fact remains that almost all of their developer programs are closed up and restricted under NDA. They need to open up more. They need to be more relaxed on the ability of programmers for their handheld devices like the iPhone and iPod.

I think with the way Microsoft is going they will get alot more slack and people will begin to forget past evils while Apple is now starting to go down the path that got Microsoft into all the mess it is in at the moment.

Apple lost my vote for them a long time ago even though I have an iPhone. To think that I had, at one point, considered getting a Mac...

[Penguinisto]

So a reader survey is now authoritative?

Umm, yeah.

Meanwhile, can any of those readers surveyed point me to a freely downloadable source code respository for Windows Vista's OS core?

...

....what, you mean they can't? Well... pretty much solves that assertion then, doesn't it?

While OSX isn't as open as, say, Linux or FreeBSD, it's damned sure more open than Windows is.

/P

[softwaremaniac]

Can you explain how OS X is more than Windows? Mac is a useless closed box.

Life without walls. Get Windows now.

[sal4114]

The idea of "open" technology is not always applicable to source code. Open source and keeping your technology open so other companies can get involved in your technology, are entirely different things. For instance, Apple sells their system using their own hardware and does not give people a choice on hardware. Microsoft gives you the choice of Dell, HP, Toshiba, Sony, or a custom built system. Lets face it, Mac hardware is nothing more than a PC in a fancy case. Yet Apple, like IBM on the mainframe, wants to control the hardware you use. Therefore the Macintosh platform, in a hardware sense, is not considered an open technology where Windows would be.

[Vegaman_Dan]

I think you may be having some issues with the term 'open'. Your interpretation is apparently different from those surveyed.

You're doing a great job of putting a negative spin on the survey.

That's not a sign of an 'open' mind, but that of a 'closed' mind instead.

But in the end, the survey is as authorative as your own comments. If you are preparded to dispute and disrespect the survey, then you should do the same to your own opinion equally.

[Random_Walk]

What he's saying is valid. You can download the source code for OSX right now. You can run OSX on more than one hardware platform (PPC, x86, x86_64)... You can't do either of these things with a Microsoft OS product.

re: "Open source and keeping your technology open so other companies can get involved in your technology, are entirely different things."

Not entirely at all. If the source and the license to that source is open, you can pretty much do what you will with it. Nobody is stopping world+dog from taking a copy of Darwin (OSX' kernel) and making a competing product out of it.

[milowerx]

I find it funny for you to say that Apple is so 'closed' when I am typing this on a Hackintosh/PC hybrid that I built for $500 with off the shelf PC parts and a retail copy of OS X.
I would argue that Apple might be a little more 'open' than they even know!

[superswiss]

You do realize that you are violating Apple's license terms? It's not about what's technically possible, it's about what Apple legally allows you to do. You simply don't get it. Now let me call Apple's lawyers and have them serve you with a lawsuit. What's your address?

[sal4114]

Helk, with that line of thinking why not just rip copies of Windows and register with phony licenses? By building a Hackintosh you are breaking Apple's licensing. According to them, you are NOT ALLOWED to run their OS on anything other than genuine Apple hardware. Microsoft has no such restriction. End of story.

[superswiss]

Actually, I consider Apple to be way worse in this respect. At least Microsoft never limited your hardware choices and they always kept their platform attractive to developers by not restricting them. That's what made Windows what it is today. I was a Windows developer at one point and until Java came around there was nothing that could match the development experience on Windows and it took the Java community a while to come out with IDEs that match Visual Studio. I was also a C/C++ developer on Unix early on in my career and also developed in ADA on VMS, just to name a couple, so I have my share of experience with many OSes and programming languages. To this day, Mac leaves me cold. For somebody who considers the computer an appliance that does what it does and nothing more, a Mac and Apple products in general are a good choice. Anybody who wants more and wants access to a virtually unlimited selection of hardware and software, investing in Apple products is a poor choice.

The best gauge is my wife I think. She is not a computer geek, but knows how to use technology. She's a musician who has grown up with Macs for obvious reasons. These days she uses Windows. I got her an iPhone and at the beginning I heard all about how cool the iPhone is. Now, all I hear about is what she can't do on her iPhone and how she was able to do those things with her previous Sony Ericson phone .

[Random_Walk]

"At least Microsoft never limited your hardware choices"

So where can I get a copy of Vista that runs on my dual PPC (that is, non Intel/x86) computer?

[davbeck2835]

Apple is very close to the perfect blend of open source and proprietary software. I use to use linux exclusively right after I gave up on windows xp. While I loved the warm fuzzy feelings I got from using open source software, I was continually frustrated with bad user experience and poor design. Their core technologies (UNIX core, webkit rendering engine, various protocols) are open source. Usually when apple closes something to the public it is for the sake of good user experience. If they had prematurely allowed for third party apps on the iphone people would remember their experience on the device as having to deal with poorly designed apps. Apple provides their developer tools for free. They do have a developer program that cost money, but you do not have to be in it to release software for a mac. I think that eventually you will be able to say the same about iphone development, they will just have to figure how to do it and maintain user experience.
I agree, a poll is no sign of how open a system is, just what people, who know nothing about computers, think about its openness.

[euonymous]

Um, this is Apple we're talking about. Hello. Apple built the first completely closed system pc (now serving as small aquariums all over the USA). Having bought one of those little darlings and actually started running the marketing side of my software company from it.... the open or closed nature of Apple's offerings has not diminished the fact that they have always understood human interface design. And Microsoft, ghod bless 'em, doesn't. (What's with those ribbons? Good grief. How much worse can you make my user experience? Just keep ripping the familiar interface away from me every couple years.) My simple point is that Apple always has been and always will be more proprietary than MS. Your point being?

[DeveloperDude]

I am a Java developer, so the proprietary APIs are less of an issue from a dev perspective than is the attitude of Apple towards developers, especially with regards to NDAs and controlling apps (especially iPhone apps) - making it much less likely that I will every develop an app specifically for an Apple product.

Then there is the marketplace for any app I develop and for my skills/experience. I try to not be tied into any one platform, SDK/API, or framework, strictly and tightly controlled solely by one company.

I will never get locked into MS APIs/SDKs again (I live near Redmond and have turned down job interviews with MS) because they limit me as far as jobs go. Developing specifically for OSX in Obj-C even more so (non-standard language, non-standard platform, limited number of jobs). So no Objective-C/Cocoa/etc. or .NET/Windows for me. Every couple of years or so Apple and Microsoft change their frameworks yet again which means I would have to learn a new platform/framework when I just want to get my work done. I like learning new stuff, but not for the sake of doing the same thing in a slightly different way/language/framework that offers little advantage to me.

All that said, I develop for Windows/Linux/OSX - depending and the employer's/client's needs, and being a Java dev makes that relatively easy - but while I use a Linux box at work (not by choice) at home I have a MacPro and a Powerbook. I am not really concerned about their being proprietary - I run Windows/Linux and OSX all at the same time on the MacPro, and I can run Linux/OSX on the PB as desired. I specifically bought a MacPro because it would run more software and OSes than other boxes. About the only thing I ever upgrade in a computer is the memory, so the upgrade path is not a big issue - but I can upgrade the vid cards and the drives with fairly standard off-the-shelf hardware if I want to.

As for OSX itself - I like it because it just works (unlike Windows or Linux) and I can get work done. Almost everything I need to use runs on it, and if it doesn't then I fire up Windows in a VM.

[rjw_mpwr]

i am totally glad this article is here. i never understood all the hype about mac products. they are proprietary and expensive. everytime when a mac product comes out, there is always so much hype.