That said, the one thing that continues to concern me with Apple is the continuation of their closed philosophy. The Mac App Store being the latest incarnation of their quest for total control. I, frankly, don't know what to make of it.
An Apple ecosystem would have no competitors. Like it or not, Microsoft enabled an incredible level of global competition that, ultimately, has been responsible for bringing us the Internet as we know it. Stop and think about what I just said before you disagree. Nearly all of the hardware developments in the last thirty years have come on the backs of the MS platform. You can build inexpensive and powerful servers today because of MS. Same with Linux and other advances. They lit the fire that triggered an incredible evolutionary chain in both consumer and professional computing.
While I understand why Apple does it this way --and they are fully entitled to do so-- I would not want to see a world where their computers are adopted en-masse unless they let go and break the chains.
Like it or not, Microsoft enabled an incredible level of global competition that, ultimately, has been responsible for bringing us the Internet as we know it
That's pretty rich. Networking was a fundamental feature of many operating systems that predate Microsoft's existence . The first web browser was developed not on Windows, but the precursor to OSX (NextSTEP) and MS played catch up in basic browser features around the web's early years. The vast majority of servers are Linux based.
It's silly to attribute the rise of commodity PC hardware to them as well - it's only their lawsuits that prevented Linux from seeing widespread distribution, which would have enabled just as much innovation.
Re-read what I wrote and think about it. I knew it would be open for creative interpretations like yours.
I did not attribute the Internet to Microsoft.
What I said is that "Microsoft enabled an incredible level of global competition" and it is this competition that, in turn, allowed the internet to evolve into what we have today.
Yes, networking existed way before MS.
Yes, TBL wrote the first browser on NS.
Yes, MS played catch-up with browsers.
That is not the point.
Linux didn't begin life until 1991. By that time the MS-ecosystem-driven PC evolution was very well under way. Linus Torvalds wrote the initial version of Linux on a '386 based PC. By that time PC clones ruled the world. The evolution had gone through the 8086, 80186 and 80286 processors. Machines cost a fraction of what the original true IBM PC cost, were faster and did a lot more.
None of this would have happened with a closed hardware model. In fact, it did not. Apple was around at the same time, of course. They focused on keeping it all to themselves. MS, in turn, just did the software and let everyone else figure out the hardware. Yes, it was chaotic but it worked.
As the internet begun to heat-up it was Linux running on PC hardware that made it explode. The internet required hardware to grow and explode into every corner of the world. It was the cheap PC hardware that resulted from the evolution of the PC around the MS software that, among other things, enabled the internet to explode like it did. Nobody can even attempt to credit Apple with any of that.
Again, I am not anti-Apple here. Among other things, I develop iOS apps and have a nearly equal number of Windows and MacOS machine in the shop. I will likely buy more Apple hardware in the next few months. No issues there.
My original post was not about bashing Apple, it was to highlight my concern for the increasing closed-everything (not just hardware) approach Apple is taking --which is a fact. In some cases it is almost despotic. As a developer, that concerns me a great deal. As a consumer, I prefer to see competition at all levels. I'd really like to see Apple open-up.
MS, in turn, just did the software and let everyone else figure out the hardware.
Microsoft had nothing to do with the openness of the PC architecture. By the time MS had any influence, the PC market had already been well established with several manufacturers churning out PC clones.
It was the cheap PC hardware that resulted from the evolution of the PC around the MS software...
Isn't it the other way around? At least in the beginning, the MS software seemed to evolve around advances in the PC hardware. At some point Microsoft probably got enough leverage to influence the process, but another company (or a consortium of companies) would have probably got to do that if MS had not been around.
"Microsoft had nothing to do with the openness of the PC architecture."
Actually, it does! You've mentioned Microsoft leverage - it could have been used a lot more Apple-like way, to impose a "Microsoft Application Store" or something, to racket every software company, to pillage every developer with "rights to develop" licences and to take "it's rightful cut" from every product sold on Windows. All those could induce a strong feeling of closeness. Yet, all those didn't happened under Microsoft rule. Those "goodies" we come to enjoy first-hand only in the great Apple garden!
"...another company (or a consortium of companies) would have probably got to do that if MS had not been around."
I am glad it wasn't Apple or another one with an Apple-like vision. It would have been a curse on the computing industry.
That said, the one thing that continues to concern me with Apple is the continuation of their closed philosophy. The Mac App Store being the latest incarnation of their quest for total control. I, frankly, don't know what to make of it.
An Apple ecosystem would have no competitors. Like it or not, Microsoft enabled an incredible level of global competition that, ultimately, has been responsible for bringing us the Internet as we know it. Stop and think about what I just said before you disagree. Nearly all of the hardware developments in the last thirty years have come on the backs of the MS platform. You can build inexpensive and powerful servers today because of MS. Same with Linux and other advances. They lit the fire that triggered an incredible evolutionary chain in both consumer and professional computing.
While I understand why Apple does it this way --and they are fully entitled to do so-- I would not want to see a world where their computers are adopted en-masse unless they let go and break the chains.