
Wozniak calls for open Apple - jacobr
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/300704,wozniak-calls-for-open-apple.aspx
======
rogerbinns
Here is a nice comparison. Buy a mobile device and try to use the standard
developer tools to put Hello World on it.

Android: Download Eclipse (Windows, Linux or Mac) and the Android SDK
(Windows, Linux or Mac) - no accounts or registration needed for either of
these. In your phone menus enable development and connect via USB. In Eclipse
make your hello world project, and hit Run or Debug. Enjoy.

Apple: You must buy a Mac. In the App Store (requires an account) or the
developer site (requires an account and registration) download Xcode. Create
your project. Connect the phone via USB. Right click to enable it for
development and then do some song and dance with Apple to get permission to
use "your" device for development. (I haven't yet worked out the exact dance
required and how much it costs.)

I don't know what it looks like for WP7 but assume it is substantially similar
to Apple.

~~~
ricardobeat
That's a brutal over-simplification of what you need before developing for
Android. "Downloading the Android SDK" is actually a dozen steps of installs,
updates, add-ons, setting up emulator devices and so on.

The Apple dance takes a couple minutes to do and costs $99/year.

~~~
gnufied
Ahem, if you are registering from something like India. You will have to fax
some documents to them for review. There is no option to even pay online. In
fact, this song and dance is so time consuming that, I haven't bothered to
register an account myself.

~~~
megablast
I have no idea whether you are talking about Apple or Google.

~~~
gnufied
It was for Apple obviously. Only apple can require you to pay $99 and fax them
your proof of identity just for running a app on your own device (actually, I
no longer remember which document they asked, but I remember I didn't had time
or motivation to scan and fax those documents).

~~~
leviathan
There are not documents to scan, there's a form that you have to download and
put your credit card info on and fax it.

Still pretty lame to still be faxing payment info in 2012.

------
jacquesm
I absolutely love Steve Wozniak for stuff like this, he's everything I could
ever dream of being.

At the same time that lovely naivete about what would happen is exactly why
this will never fly.

Apple is the golden goose and nobody will sign off on a risky move that might
kill the goose or stop it from laying those golden eggs. If there is one thing
that makes CEO's conservative it is very large streams of income. You can take
risks when you're small.

If 'the Woz' wants to have a more open platform comparable with Apple then I'm
pretty sure he'd find tons of people willing to follow him if he decided to go
down that road himself. What will happen is that sooner or later he'll need a
business guy to take care of all of those non-technical details and at some
point in time after that we'd have a new Apple, just as bad as the old.

~~~
rbanffy
I'm not sure.

Apple has been faithful to its principles since Jobs returned - to offer a few
products, not to compete in features and to provide a seamless experience.
It's successful because its clients like it that way.

I don't think Woz has as many fans as Jobs had, but I still suspect the
"tablet ][" is yet to be invented.

------
RandallBrown
I think Apple can be more open and be just as successful. I don't think they
can be as open as Wozniak wants and still be successful.

Apple's biggest strength to me is timing and execution. They didn't invent the
tablet, but they made it _better_ and at a time when more people were ready
for it.

I think the time is coming that being more open will be an advantage. Right
now controlling your entire experience (to me) produces better products. I
think Apple will patiently wait for the time and likely execute it correctly.

~~~
1qaz2wsx3edc
It depends on the context of `open`.

Should Apple relax restrictions on the app store, sure. However then quality
may dip or so users are told.

Should Apple open source more technologies, sure. However it comes with a
cost, such as documentation efforts and etc.

Both of these problems are in the critical path of timing & execution. So I
highly doubt Apple will do anything.

The Woz has always pushed for an open Apple, and damnit I wish he had it, but
I doubt it from happening.

------
swedenborg
Apple was hope . now its the new MS ...

comes with the territory . if you the one and in bed with CIA who's to say
open up ...

~~~
ghost91
At the momenent, Apple is even worse than Microsoft.

~~~
fjarlq
How?

~~~
cooldeal
Two ways I can think of now.

Microsoft got docked for just bundling IE with their OS. I just installed
Netscape back in the day(before switching to IE coz Netscape started sucking).
Apple bans all competing browsers. (Windows RT is a different story).

The iOS app store forces developers to use their in-app purchasing with a 30%
cut for Apple and bans any links to the developer websites to sell services.
The Windows App Store does not require this.

~~~
Tloewald
Sigh. This meme.

1) plenty of non apple browsers in app store, try searching. No HTML rendering
engines because that's a security issue.

1a) Microsoft did a heck of a lot more than bundle IE. They made it impossible
to remove or avoid or even hide. (you can hide Safari on the tenth home screen
in iOS -- IE was locked onto your desktop). They also did similar things to
screw around with Java, QuickTime. Borland, Paradox, etc. etc. all of which is
on the public record. And all while owning 95% of the desktop market and even
more of the app market.

Apple simply has some fairly clear up front rules about how to play on its
__minority __platform.

You. Have. No. Idea.

2) iOS was incredibly open compared with predecessors. It's less open than
WebOS was and Android is precisely because they came after and used "open" to
try to compete.

Again, people coming after iOS and trying to set competitive terms to attract
developers are meaningless. Where are the guyS who were nicer than Apple when
they were in top position? Amazon pays much less to writers than Apple, is the
dominant player, and cries to the government.

~~~
JackC
_No HTML rendering engines because that's a security issue._

It's not a security issue; there are plenty of apps that download and render
content, just not HTML content. You're not allowed to publish browsers on iOS
because it's a _business model_ issue. Browsers download and run code. Apple
likes being the only one who can decide what code runs on an iPhone, so Safari
is the only rendering engine.

 _Apple simply has some fairly clear up front rules about how to play on its
minority platform._

Minority platform? They're outselling all smartphones combined on AT&T and
Sprint, and running neck and neck with all Android phones combined on Verizon.
They hold 85-90% of app store revenue. The fairly clear rules are "you cannot
do anything with your phone that we do not approve of, and we do not approve
of anything that potentially interferes with our business model." This should
not make you a happy customer.

 _iOS was incredibly open compared with predecessors._

It was incredibly open compared with J2ME and BlackBerry. It was and is
incredibly closed compared with other _computers_. The iPhone isn't a big deal
because it's a better phone; it's a big deal because it's the first usable
pocket computer. Why should it be a deliberately crippled one?

Now here's why this is important: Apple is making amazing pocket computers,
and teaching people that it's cool for a computer vendor to lock down what
software people get to run -- to pay engineers to actively try to prevent
people from running unapproved software. It's dominating the cell phone
market, and making monopoly plays to lock down its position. It's trotting out
a line of bogus claims about why we can't opt out of the walled garden (it's a
security issue!), when there are millions of computers with un-locked-down
access to cell modems that somehow don't pose a security threat.

I've owned nothing but Macs my whole life; I doubt I'll stop any time soon.
But I'm not going to high-five them for taking my money and using it to make
my phone less useful, while promoting the idea that computers are too
dangerous to let just anyone write software for. Screw that.

~~~
Tloewald
Downloading data and rendering a ui around it is very different from providing
a general purpose HTML renderer. One is going to make you vulnerable to
attacks on a single custom protocol, the other to any security issue in the
rendering engine for all users of that browser. It may well be that Apple
derives both business and security benefits from sticking to one HTML
rendering engine, but it's simply untrue to argue there is no security
benefit.

As for the iPhone being crippled — it's the only significant computer platform
with no malware in the wild. And it's not for lack of interest - jail broken
iPhones are not free of malware. It's a tradeoff that some customers choose to
make. It's also a trade off apple thought made sense for a device we carry
around, communicate with, which can track our movements, and so on.

Personally, I think the security model apple is pursuing on Mac OS X is better
than that for iOS (an opt in walled garden which is what I think you want).
Maybe they'll converge. But I don't think there's any evidence (so far) of
insidious intent behind Apple's moves. They're figuring this stuff out as they
go along, and they're being careful. One thing is pretty certain -- they can't
put the genie back in the bottle, so as they ease up on security and other
restrictios they need to figure out what works and what doesn't.

------
vegas
The actual video interview wherein wozniak speaks with his own larynx is at
[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-10/apple-co-founder-
refle...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-10/apple-co-founder-reflects-on-
jobs-legacy-and-the/4004384)

------
roc
_Open_ Apple is a description of a fundamentally different company. Apple does
do a bit with open source and could do quite a bit more without problems.

But what "Open Apple" implies, are things like an "Open" specification for the
Dock Connector. And "Open" specifications that invite vendors to write their
own device drivers to handle those accessories.

And that's an invitation for third parties to sell crap accessories with buggy
or broken drivers and generally annoy the hell out of users who are currently
paying Apple a premium to _not_ be annoyed.

Similarly with services. "Open" the specification, allow the world in, and you
get crap and esoteric support problems.

Again: things that people pay Apple a premium to _not_ suffer.

And none of this is to say Apple is perfect, or their way is better. They make
their mistakes, but they believe they're the right people to fix them. And
they naturally support fewer devices, fewer services and fewer use cases. So
it's far from appropriate for everybody. But it's damn sure appropriate for
Apple's customers.

Woz's statement reads like a musing from someone who doesn't understand why
the best of intentions don't always become the best of manifestations.

If you _Open_ Apple, they'll get new, different customers. And lose all the
old ones.

------
bobsy
A big part of Apples success has been its closed platforms.

Would the devices be as compact and look good if they had a bunch of removable
slots in the back? No.. no they wouldn't.

The thing that differentiates Apple from everyone else is that they make
simple, classy products which are easy to use. If Apple open up they move into
competition with the likes of Dell. This is something they simply don't need
to do.

I recently switched back to Windows and the difference! My Windows computer
came with a list of dos and don'ts. If I want to keep my warrenty intact I
need to keep the box. I shouldn't smoke around it. I should do a yearly
inspection to check for dust build ups! With a Mac you plonk it on the table,
attach your mouse and keyboard and off you go. I was messing around with
cables for ages with my Windows computer.

Look at Apple now. Jobs was right, Woz was wrong. Would it be nice if Apple
products were more open? HELL YES! Should Apple do it? No... because then they
loose a big chunk of what makes Apple, Apple.

------
Loic
This would be a cultural change, a big one. Jobs said many times he considered
his products as perfect and was against the ability to be able to open them
(hardware and software). This obsession not to be able to open the system
extended even to the new Apple building which is designed without any opening
windows. You can see that everywhere in the Apple products.

This is the philosophy of Steve Jobs, he even said he did not want to go
through surgery first because he did not wanted to be "opened".

This is really interesting, in fact, these points are the ones I found the
most interesting in all the media frenzy we got after his death.

------
oldschooltaper
What would he say to the idea of selling Apple hardware without tying it to an
OS?

In other words, you can buy the great Apple form factor and design, but you
don't have to deal with the restrictions of the OS. You could install your own
OS.

Obviously this would initially only target hackers. NetBSD can run on some
Apple hardware. And there is all the Hackintosh work to build on. Eventually
there would be more free OS offerings to install after giving the hacker
community some time to adjust to the newfound freedom.

Apple could even sell OSX and iOS separately.

There is a lot of value just in the Apple hardware. Even without the Apple OS
offerings. Apple is primarily a hardware company.

~~~
myko
This is already possible though. Or you mean just purchasing the hardware with
no OS on it to start; which would be a savings of $30?

~~~
userdeveloper
The purpose may not be to save money. The purpose may be to have flexibility.
To install only what the user wants to install. Maybe the user does not want
OSX preinstalled on the HDD. Maybe the user wants to boot diskless with a
blank HDD only used for storage or something else, but not the OS.* The point
is that it allows more flexibility. Let the user decide what she wants to
install. Sell the user the hardware. Charge whatever you want. Then stay out
of the user's business. How she uses the hardware is her business.

*There are some real security benefits from keeping the OS on read-only media.

------
ezolotko
1\. Make the things cost nothing, and you will lost the simple value of the
thing. The value of the things comes with people caring about it. The simplest
way to make people care about something is money.

2\. Make the AppStore open and censorship-free and half of the apps will not
be able to launch.

3\. You need to get rid of script kiddies and lovers of fun and former middle-
tier managers and game magazine review writers etc etc to have something that
is close to a quality thing. Behold: native development and steep learning
curve.

So, keep talking.

------
maz29
I always wondered what would happen if someone leaked the source code to OSX
or iOS. Would the forked versions outshine new releases? In my opinion normal
users would prefer apple's versions while hackers would take the other route
for greater flexibility. Maybe Woz should anonymously leak iOS 4 or OSX 10.4
source. Apple wouldn't have to worry about maintaining documentation and it
would also give them a nice buffer to outshine any competition.

~~~
sbuk
You do realise that a large portion of OSX/iOS is open? The closed portions of
the os are mainly the GUI layer. See for yourself;
<http://opensource.apple.com> and <http://www.puredarwin.org/>

------
swedenborg
Apple is the Finder upon a os ...

one man TOG : <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Tognazzini> another :
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Norman>

se the finder has a redundancy slowness to mimic human perception built in ...

~~~
freehunter
I literally have no idea what you just said.

------
Derbasti
The sad truth is, if Apple were a private company, they could do this. Being a
publicly traded company, their first responsibility is their shareholders.
Hence, they can not indulge in good-heartedness just for the sake of it if
there is even a slight chance that it won't bring in money.

This is the big big problem with the stock market.

~~~
anextio
That's a fairly common meme and a complete misunderstanding of the motives of
corporations.

Companies do lots of things that don't immediately look like profit-gaining
moves to investors.

Actually, put another way, do you think that Google is not a corporation, and
instead a basket of goodwill, since they market things as 'open'?

~~~
Derbasti
No, but then I don't think that Google is a basket of goodwill. Quite the
contrary, actually.

------
chj
We need a young Woz to deliver a new "Apple II" tablet. No need to beg for Big
Brother's mercy.

------
swedenborg
call to arms : Woz a new "next" ... maybe start back where
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS> left !

~~~
treetrouble
Haiku <http://haiku-os.org>

~~~
swedenborg
WozOS : hey we are here ...

need to find a hardware model is all . because software is not paying alone .
Apple now gives a free OS with proprietary hardware ... all is well ...

------
xutopia
He's so naive it is adorable.

------
loverobots
_"I think that Apple could be just as strong and good and be open, but how can
you challenge it when a company is making that much money?"_

I think he knows it well. Like it or not Apple is AAPL, or there to make money
for shareholders. Would "being open" result in more money for the people that
bought a tiny slice of a $500 Billion pie? Will any CEO try when they're
making $50 Billion or whatever they're making this year in profit? Not sure

~~~
MattGrommes
Having the extra slots on the Apple ][ allowed for there to be more uses of
Apple's computer, and almost certainly led to more profit. It also did no
damage since you couldn't use the slots to do anything to the computer that
would cost Apple money. If Apple opened up, say, the licensing on the adapter
plug on the bottom of iPads and iPhones, that would do just what Woz is
talking about with the only impact to their bottom line being the licensing
revenue for the plug. It would also allow more uses of their devices. I think
there's plenty of places they could "open up" and still keep their river of
money flowing in.

------
kevinchen
Woz was never very good with the user experience / selling things to non-
experts side of things.

------
bitwize
Not gonna happen.

Apple devices are abstractions with well-defined interfaces (sets of
operations you can perform on them). Not only should the implementation not
matter, it is anathema that anyone should know the implementation because that
would break the abstraction at a fundamental level.

It's absurd for a bunch of hackers to think about, but this is what has made
Apple billions of dollars, and it's what made them the best technology company
on the planet: the construction of devices completely defined by their simple
interfaces, with all else hidden from the end user.

~~~
primecommenter
This is nonsense. It's absurd for you to argue that the difficulty of writing
"Hello world" on an Apple device is somehow a good thing for Apple or anyone
else on the basis of a wishy-washy concept like "abstraction".

~~~
bitwize
It used to be effectively impossible for anyone outside Apple to develop
anything for the iPhone.

The device was still a zillion seller.

