Mac OS X 10.5.2: Lots of internal fixes but little connection to the "real" world

Apple recently released an update to Leopard, version 10.5.2. If you read the list of goodies included, it's a pretty compelling update. I've particularly enjoyed better WiFi connectivity with the update.

It doesn't, however, solve my biggest problems with my Macs right now: an inability to sync between Microsoft's Entourage and iCal (which may be Microsoft's problem or it may be Apple's problem - both support teams point fingers at the other company when I've called on the issue) and it doesn't remedy my inability to sync between my Blackberry and Entourage (which is a RIM/Microsoft problem, but both companies like to point fingers at each other on this issue, too).

In sum, my biggest problems on the Mac today have little to do with the Mac and everything to do with the Mac's intersection with third-party software. This may be Microsoft's big moment to yell out, "I told you so!"

If I were to stay within the Apple cocoon, I'd probably be fine. My wife has zero problems working between her iPhone and Powerbook - they work great together.

But I don't live 100 percent within the Apple ecosystem. Because I like an office suite, I use NeoOffice (OpenOffice) and Microsoft Office. Because I like an integrated email client (address book, tasks, calendar, email, etc. - all together under one roof), I use Microsoft's Entourage suite. And so on. Apple doesn't control these products and, just like in the Microsoft world, the more software complexity introduced into the Mac's universe, I'm betting (because I'm experiencing it) that the "everything just works" logos of the Mac will start to break down.

All of which may demand a better paradigm for cross-platform, cross-application development. I like Firefox because it works pretty much the same across any platform (Linux, Windows, Mac). This is also why I increasingly love Zimbra. I don't want to use an application that treats the Mac (or Linux) as a second-class citizen, because I think good product design often stems from a certain amount of independence from the vagaries of a given operating system.

In like manner, I wish applications were developed with open APIs and open standards so that plugging the two together would be a bit less guesswork and black magic and a bit more science and artistry.

I'm not a programmer, so I might be asking for the impossible. I'd like to think, however, that the principle of modularity that makes open source tick could be applied more generally to software. I think I'd prefer applications with loose, promiscuous affiliations to other applications than tightly wedded applications that rely on insider knowledge to make them work together properly. I'm sure I'd be giving something up in this loose-knit affiliation model but the greater pluggability might well make it worth it.

Coming full circle to the Mac, is the Mac too tightly integrated with its kin to effectively socialize with third-party software? Any developers out there who could comment?

[Sean_Anderson]

Hello Matt,

Your article must be solely response oriented. I find it hard to believe that you are unaware of Markspace, which, as a "third party" developer has has a Blackberry/Windows Mobile/Entourage/Ical syncing solution down for some years now. To your credit, I too am sometimes frustrated by Apple's apparent omissions in their software and/or hardware packages. However, i am happy to see that this apparent oversight off blossoms into a cottage industry and in some cases major application development. I do understand this in our culture. I would be very cautious to support a company that has me locked in so deep, that anything I desire could come from only one source. Kind of umm, monopolistic? Everywhere that I can scream "Lack of Apple insight", there are two or more companies filling the void. Apple and the Mac OS community supports and is supported by the open-source community as well- Apple's as well as a multitude of open-source development packages are available free online! I suggest you take a que from your wife's lack of issues, and do some online researching before denigrating a good product. Without reading any other posts, I am sure you are getting a "box" full of comments on this apparent lack of knowledge.

http://www.markspace.com/missingsync_windowsmobile.php
http://www.markspace.com/missingsync_blackberry.php

I hope these links helped, and no, I do not work for Markspace!
Sean Anthony

[eduardgrebe]

The problem you are describing seems to me a very difficult one, for the following reason: both open source and proprietary ecosystems have inherent weaknesses that make them unlikely to solve this type of problem.

I use both a Mac and Ubuntu. The Mac has many advantages over ubuntu, but the most important ones relate to the focus and integration that Apple is able to bring to the system. The reason things like sync works well on the mac is precisely because there is a single company that develops all of the components in the isync/ical space and has an interest in making sure "everything just works." However, a closed ecosystem like Apple's leaves you no recourse when the controlling party (Apple) does not integrate components for you (as is happening to you with Entourage).

In an open ecosystem it is not be up to one party to make components work together, and (if you had the thecnical skills) you could even do so yourself. However, open source developers, particularly in a sprawling project like Linux on the desktop, are notoriously bad at integrating components in ways that make the ordinary user's life easier. One of my main frustrations with Ubuntu is that I have never been able to sync my PIM data properly, for example (despite the existence of things like the syncml framework).

I suspect the best solution would be a strong, integrated (probably corporate) open-source effort to build an integrated desktop system that can compete with Apple's effort, but that avoids Apple's tendency to try and control everything. Canonical is the closest we have come to this, but they are too small to bring the level of coherence to Ubuntu that Apple is able to deliver in OSX. They have marshalled the community fantastically, but where the community fails, ubuntu fails. That is a pity.