
Apple is just Microsoft with better marketing - alrex021
http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/apple-is-just-microsoft-with-better-marketing/
======
dman
I disagree. Microsoft is a company that is about saying yes, to everyone.
Apple is one of the few companies which says no on various subjects to reduce
the problem space. Eg apple strategically obsoletes stuff like Carbon. I think
this has a dramatic effect on the companies involved. Microsofts feature +
backward compatibility matrix is so huge (theyre supporting applications that
were written for Windows 3.1) that theyre stuck solving an unsolvable problem.
Actually interesting anecdote - Simcity depended on a bug in windows 3.x for
correct operation, the bug in question was fixed in windows 95. However in
testing Microsoft found that simcity breaks and added code as a special case
to emulate the bug if simcity is run.
(<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000054.html>).I am not
favoring either approach, just saying that there is a big difference. Those
that favor backwards compatibility have their adherents (big businesses etc)
and those that stay nimble because of periodically cutting dead wood have
their own followers (early adopters, technophiles).

~~~
trobertson
> apple strategically obsoletes stuff like Carbon.

Way I hear things, Apple hasn't completely gotten rid of Carbon yet. iTunes is
still around, in all it's terrible glory.

~~~
glhaynes
Yeah, 32-bit Carbon is still around, but they axed a 64-bit version that was
(mostly?) complete.

~~~
andrewf
And newer APIs (and even obj-c language features) are only available to 64-bit
processes, so sticking with 32-bit so you can use Carbon will be less of an
option over time.

------
RyanMcGreal
That's a ridiculous comparison. Apple is _far_ more closed and controlling
than Microsoft ever was.

~~~
antipaganda
That's why I'm confused - I agree with you, Apple is way out of line on this.
So why are they doing this, when they're not a monopoly? Do they think that
having a walled garden of approved apps and the best UI will work forever?

It didn't work for their desktop business 20 years ago, why should it work
now?

~~~
butterfi
A monopoly exists when a customer has no alternative then to do business with
the monopolizer. Microsoft was/is a monopoly because Dell, HP, etc have no
recourse then to agree to MCSFT's terms or look elsewhere for their OS. And
considering the general public hasn't embraced Linux, that pretty much locks
those manufacturers in place.

Apple on the other hand develops its own hardware and software. I think they
have every right to control their environment, even if I don't agree with it.

Developers are not locked into developing for the iPad, iPhone, etc. Don't
like Apple? Develop for Android. Apple doesn't owe you a living. If you want
to sell on their marketplace, you need to abide by their rules.

I don't disagree that it would nice if Apple was more open, but comparing them
to MCSFT is somewhat of a red herring.

~~~
stonemetal
so replace MS with apple and Dell with app store developer and Linux with
WebOS or Android. The exact same argument applies.

Same applies to the other Devs aren't locked in to windows, IE, etc. MS
doesn't owe them a living. Develop for Linux.

Entity(MS, Apple) has vast majority of sales in the market place(os, phone
applications) sets rules that favor themselves and you can either go along or
die in a corner(develop for Linux, develop for WebOS.) Personally I prefer die
in the corner with freedom than happy subjugation.

~~~
BrandonM
So you're implying that something like 80-90% of smartphones in use are
iPhones? Because that's pretty much what the situation was with Windows in the
90s.

~~~
stonemetal
I am saying that 80-90% of apps sold market share is on iPhone. No one really
cares how many devices are in the wild if people who have those handsets
refuse to buy software.

------
ZeroGravitas
I think this whole situation was summed up for me by a slashdot comment:

 _Steve Jobs: "We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when
they will make our enhancements available to our developers."

Yet, it is just fine with Steve Jobs if every iDeveloper is at the mercy of a
third party deciding if and when their enhancements will be made available to
their customers._

~~~
davidedicillo
Actually, if you follow Apple terms, there it's really hard to be rejected.
Yeah yeah I know, Google Voice, but it's one application over tens of
thousands, and the fact that they are a major competitor didn't help. It's not
even a matter of developing cutting edge, because great technologies like Siri
or Remail made it to the store just fine. They have terms of services,
developers should just read them and stick to them.

Yeah, my car can do 150mph but if a cop stop me cause i'm speeding over 65mph
i'm not going to cry cause the USA aren't an "open" country where I can't
decide how fast I can drive the hardware I own.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
If you have to _follow Apple terms_ then they are, by definition, deciding
_if_ you can provide certain functionality to your customers.

I'm sure Adobe could make the same argument to Apple. If you only do what's in
our interests then we'll probably update our 3rd party libs within a
reasonable timeframe. And don't bring up that one time we didn't bother
supporting something in your API, that's just one feature out of thousands we
did support.

~~~
sankara
It's just that there are no "your" customers anymore. Apple owns them all!
Whether it's in your best interest? It depends on how big or small you are...

------
rbanffy
I must disagree.

As much as I dislike its present course, Apple has always pushed the
boundaries of what's possible since the day 1 (Apple I, Apple ][, Disk ][) and
continued pushing, sometimes crossing that border (certain aspects of the Lisa
are more advanced than OSX, for instance, but its 68K wasn't fast enough).

Microsoft started life cloning BASIC for 8-bit computers, gained relevance
cloning CP/M for 16-bit computers and became mainstream cloning MacOS for
32-bit PC-compatible computers, by entering shady deals with OEMs, by
misleading competitors (Lotus developed 123/G - "the future", acording to MS -
for OS/2 while MS developed Excel for Windows) and by hurting genuine
innovators by announcing vaporware and half-brained products (like Windows for
Pen Computing and its latest descendant, Courier).

No. As much as Apple has been every bit as evil as Microsoft, the two
companies share a completely different ethos.

~~~
codingthewheel
rbanffy is an Apple shill.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=rbanffy>

~~~
cubicle67
Did you read any of those comments you linked to? Perhaps you missed these:

    
    
      Microsoft's keyboards are much better than Apple's
    
      Every single computer I installed Ubuntu, 
      since the 6.x releases, has worked flawlessly ...
    

and so on. No more name calling please, ok?

~~~
codingthewheel
I heartily approve and endorse your downvote of my comment. I posted a knee-
jerk response and I paid the price for it (PWNed like a n00b in a first-person
shooter). Nevertheless, it was satisfying to call some one a "shill", and I DO
detect traces of shillery in every Apple-vs-Adobe polemic to be waged on this
site in the past fortnight.

~~~
rbanffy
To be fair, my first computer was an Apple II and I have a large collection of
Apples, from II clones to about a dozen Macs and a Newton (also a couple
RS/6000, Suns, one PA-RISC, two Amigas and one 8-bit Atari). I still use my
PowerPC iMac, but mostly to sync my iPod.

My wife has a Macbook. I tried to use Macs for work, but I prefer a more
traditional Unix desktop, one with X and select-and-middle-click goodness.

We are a multi-platform household here ;-) I even have Windows on a VM.

------
mechanical_fish
_The one answer I have is to rain (metaphorical) death and destruction on to
Apple... I hereby declare myself, officially, anti-Apple._

Wow, great. I'm sure your bile and vitriol will create lots of value for
customers. Who will want to pay for an iPad when they can get (metaphorical)
death and destruction for free?

OP is hardly alone with his rage; I see lots of people storming and blustering
about how Apple is the devil. But I see very few people making a serious
attempt to actually deliver the goods that will make Apple irrelevant. If a
mobile platform running Clojure-flavored HaskellLisp is the Silver Bullet, can
you show us an example of its unique value? Or if a mobile platform running
Flash is the Ultimate Object of customer desire, where can we buy it and try
it?

(Personally, I'll put my energy into the standardized web. It's out there,
it's ubiquitous. The servers run whatever software you like; the clients run
Javascript, which has its troubles but is not the worst of all possible
worlds. Steve Jobs himself endorses it and the iPhone platform has supported
it nicely from day one. We've spent well over a decade building it.)

~~~
donaq
_If a mobile platform running Clojure-flavored HaskellLisp is the Silver
Bullet, can you show us an example of its unique value?_

Of course he can't, because it hasn't been invented yet. But that's the point.
Apple is trying to make sure no one can _ever_ invent it.

------
yardie
This guy must be really young because either he's delusional or we read 2
different headlines in '00.

For Apple to be like Microsoft it would have to take a standardized language
(like HTML, Javascript, or Java), fork it so it is unreadable by the original,
then use it's monopoly so that no one else can create a competitor.

Here is a rundown of this MS behavior:

MS-DOS vs. PC-DOS

J# vs Java

IE6 vs HTML4

MS JS vs javascript

Now when Apple forks Flash and decides that is the only Flash that will be
available on iPhoneOS then they will have become Microsoft.

~~~
sgoraya
_"fork it so it is unreadable by the original, then use it's monopoly so that
no one else can create a competitor."_

Although MS may fork something, it does not force you to use their proprietary
language - In the examples above, you can still use the original
language...the choice remains yours.

I might be biased since I've basically only developed on Windows (Visual
Studio, code warrior, borland, etc.), but in the big scheme of things, MS has
been more open, had more alternatives and options and better developer support
than Apple...IMHO.

~~~
yardie
When you are writing for a platform that controls 98% of the market its less a
choice and more a mandate.

As anyone that has had to write parallel code in HTML/CSS/JS for IE vs every
other browser your choices are: do it our way.

MS was only open in their willingness to assimilate other good technologies,
and then lock everyone else out once they had enough influence.

------
JoeAltmaier
Apple plans and architects, sometimes acting autocratically. Microsoft grows
"vegetatively", pushing a variety of technologies and letting the market
choose. Honestly, I prefer technology to have a leader. Its almost poetic that
the current leader is the underdog. And no, I'm not an Apple shill, I don't
even own a Mac (or any other Apple device).

------
mahmud
I am not sure if the author is a native English speaker or not, but that
article needs some heavy editing to make it legible for publication.

~~~
codingthewheel
Great ideas: check. Decent writing style: check. Spell check: Houston, we have
a problem.

~~~
KirinDave
Could also use some simple consistency checks. A great example of this:

 _“If this clause had been written fifteen years ago, the languages then would
have been C, Fortran, and Cobol- and how would feel about being required to
program in those languages today? Well, that’s how you’re going to fell about
C++ and Objective C ten or fifteen years from now.”_

Er... ALL of these languages are currently in use. Cobol is _finally_ be
deprecated after decades of deployment. C and C++ are still going strong.
Objective-C shows every sign of actually increasing in popularity as Clang
rolls out and people realize that Objective-C++ actually does some pretty
amazing things for you.

That whole paragraph is not only using bad examples, but it also is contingent
on the premise that Apple has locked its user agreement in stone and will keep
it that way for years. Who knows if that could be true?

It's simple mistakes like these that magnify the spelling and style errors to
near intolerability, for me. I—like most readers, I think—can tolerate a lot
of errors and awkward sentences if the message is spot on. That really doesn't
seem to be the case here.

------
jsz0
The author is giving Apple a lot more power than they actually have. Apple
controls Apple platforms; OSX, iPhone OS, etc. That's it. That's a small
fragment of the market. Yes -- including the iPhone. There are good
alternatives to both. What's the problem?

------
jorgecastillo
Microsoft open sources the NT kernel... Not vs Apple releases the core of
their OS as open source (Darwin)

Microsoft open sources Trident... Not vs Apple creates the WebKit project

Microsoft helps to develop a BSD licensed compiler... Not vs Apple helps to
develop Clang/LLVM

<sarcasm>

Both companies are like twins.

<sarcasm>

------
tel
I wish Apple would just change the agreement to say "if your app isn't totally
polished to our legendarily exacting concepts of quality, we reserve the right
not to bless it with the App Store".

It wouldn't make anyone even sort of happier, but I can't help but feel it's
closer to the truth of the matter than questions of language use. I highly
doubt Apple would cry if a top notch app was developed in Haskell so long as
the developer knew the burden of maintaining the API divide and still
delivered. It makes me feel the whole thing is a matter of lacking trust and
legalese, and though language restrictions seem dumb I myself can't think of a
better way to achieve the goals Apple appears to be aiming at.

~~~
tuxychandru
Apple already rejects several applications submitted. If quality is the reason
they want to avoid flash apps, let the reviewers check it for quality
irrespective of how they are written.

If flash not utilizing the latest features of iPhone OS is a problem, market
will kill apps which don't use them (assuming they are worth using) on its
own.

------
endergen
People don't mention this enough, but the reason people build abstractions is
to not bet the farm on a platform. Apple paints it like the platform makers
are ONLY freeloaders that leverage their platform while also diluting it.
While in many cases this is true, many small shops build tools to make it so
that they can more cost effectively target more than one platform.
Android/iPhone being a common grouping, Windows/OS X another, and in games
it's XBox360/Playstation3.

And in my opinion, Apple is a monopoly or on it's way. But I almost don't care
they've done so much to improve mobile quality they deserve to reap much of
the benefit.

------
pedalpete
If this is true about Microsoft, then isn't Apple just Microsoft with worse
PR?

Microsoft didn't disallow netscape from running on it's platform. It came out
with a competitive product and leveraged (what turned out to be illegally)
it's position against it's competitor.

If Apple were behaving the same way, they would allow Flash (or other
programs) to be installed on the platform duke it out through business
processes to allow the market determine a winner.

------
jokerrr
Unfortunately, the article doesn't do anything to back up the headline. Apple
is being pretty douchey, but they actually make good products. Microsoft
generally doesn't. I think Apple may eventually lose mobile to Android, but
it'll take a while. I wish some one would make better products than Apple.
Their products aren't perfect, but they are better than most.

------
alanh
Pure linkbait title.

------
tszming
Apple's marketing strategy is better than MSFT, e.g. restriction (i.e. iPhone
OS 4.0 ToS) was marketed as a feature.

------
pclark
"just"

------
kgosser
I'm glad this crap keeps getting to the top of HN. I want news, not opinion!

------
ahoyhere
The OP essay has about as much logical integrity as a damp paper towel. It's
semi-transparent and will fall apart the second you poke it.

All you young people crying "monopoly!" and "anti-competitive practices!"
could really use a dose of history.

Just like a blogger removing your comments is not censorship; just like Apple
refusing your app is not censorship; Apple refusing to accept cross-compiled
apps is not censorship, anti-competitive, or monopolistic.

Apple does not have a monopoly.

There are many, many other smart phones you can use and develop for. Apple
does not control them at all, in any way, and has no agreements with their
manufacturers. Apple has no exclusivity agreements with telcos, either, as to
which phones the telcos will sell in addition to the iPhone.

Apple has nothing to do with twisting the arms of third-party companies who
sell computers. There is no illegal monopolistic action going on, like
charging OEMs for Windows licenses per computer sold - regardless of whether
Windows is loaded on the device. Safari can easily be deleted and replaced
with any browser you like on the Mac.

If you want to look at a company that is gunning for Microsoft-type monopoly,
look at Google with their Android and their questionable licensing scheme for
OEMs.

Blocking programming languages is not the same thing as blocking a competing
browser.

Apple does not have a product that competes with Flash in the world. They are
only disallowing it on their platform. That is their prerogative, and
completely legal and ethical in every way considerable.

Furthermore, Apple and Adobe do not compete head-to-head on the products in
question. Don't tell me "They would compete if you could use Flash apps on the
iPhone!" because that argument holds no water at all. You'd still be using the
iPhone, is the point.

If you don't like it, you are free to vote with your wallet and your code.
Develop for Palm Pre. Develop for Windows Mobile. Develop for whatever the
hell Blackberry runs. Develop for Android. Or how about Symbian?

Did I miss any?

This choice, by the way, is how you can tell it's not a monopoly.

Just because you WANT in, on your terms, and Apple says no, doesn't make it a
monopoly. Just because it inconveniences you doesn't make it wrong. And just
because it's happening to you doesn't make it important.

~~~
JamieEi
Where did the OP claim that Apple was a monopoly? Maybe it was this: "That is
one difference between Apple and Microsoft- Microsoft was (still is) a
monopoly, while Apple isn’t." No, that can't be it. Hmmm, I can't find it...

~~~
ahoyhere
The entire argument hinged around "cutting off the air supply to Netscape,"
which was Microsoft's defining anti-competitive (ergo monopolistic) practice
-- for people who only heard about monopolies from the major news network
soundbites.

This is just ludicrous:

> Microsoft may have destroyed Netscape, and Digital Research, and dozens of
> other companies, with illegal abuse of their monopoly powers. But nothing
> they did threatened to bring the industry to a shuddering halt, ceasing all
> development of new and better ways of doing things. Microsoft never made
> Haskell illegal.

Yes, they strongarmed every OEM within an inch of their lives -- and they
actually stifled competition -- meanwhile Apple just won't let you
crosscompile apps for their phone.

Yikes.

~~~
JamieEi
His argument really hinges on it being rediculous for Apple to dictate what
language people can program in. Comparisons to any other company are just a
rhetorical device. I actually think he overstates the effects of the Windows
monopoly, but even if you think he understates it that doesn't make what Apple
is doing ok.

------
napierzaza
And better products and better design

~~~
rbanffy
Microsoft's keyboards are much better than Apple's

~~~
robin_reala
Microsoft’s mice certainly are.

~~~
rbanffy
That latest Apple multi-touch mouse is very nice.

~~~
steveklabnik
I voted you back up to 1. Keep expressing your preferences. I don't know why
you were downvoted.

------
napierzaza
Apple makes things people like

------
nice1
... and vastly better products. Plus: they don't lie and cheat, and they are
not convicted criminals. But still, you made your point.

