Apple is the New Microsoft(herlein.com)
herlein.com
Apple is the New Microsoft
http://www.herlein.com/index.php?entry=entry090811-070238
39 comments
Gotta give you some solidarity here even though it's the unpopular opinion. As someone who's been Mac-centric for the past few years I have to say: anyone who claims that Apple supports devs as well as MS is on something.
Apple's documentation cannot begin to hold a candle to MSDN, their direct developer support even worse. Developing on MS platforms is a joy - it's straightforward with copious amounts of documentation provided directly by Microsoft.
Developing on iPhone/OSX is a pain. Much of the "documentation" resembles a Obj-C header file, important details hide in gigantic tomes of text with zero sample code to bring it out. Unexpected/weird behavior is rarely documented... the whole thing is a gigantic labyrinth that breeds tribal knowledge instead of documentation.
Ugh.
Apple's documentation cannot begin to hold a candle to MSDN, their direct developer support even worse. Developing on MS platforms is a joy - it's straightforward with copious amounts of documentation provided directly by Microsoft.
Developing on iPhone/OSX is a pain. Much of the "documentation" resembles a Obj-C header file, important details hide in gigantic tomes of text with zero sample code to bring it out. Unexpected/weird behavior is rarely documented... the whole thing is a gigantic labyrinth that breeds tribal knowledge instead of documentation.
Ugh.
My experience with MSDN is one of the biggest reasons why I avoid Microsoft tools. Now you're telling me that Apple's documentation is much worse, and that depresses me.
The problem with straight-up documentation is that much of it is unreadable technobabble that makes no sense until you, say, throw in a diagram or a chunk of sample code. Then you go "oohhhhhh" and are enlightened.
Apple's documentation is "complete" insofar as all the major bits are written down somewhere, but it's very opaque and hard to read. Their ridiculous lack of diagrams, visualizations, and sample code also makes your life much more difficult than it must be.
In fact, I do not think there's ANY sample code anywhere that isn't a "sample project". As in, when Apple does decide to grace your presence with sample code, it's a large, integrated thing that really doesn't help you learn a specific API or component.
Apple's documentation is "complete" insofar as all the major bits are written down somewhere, but it's very opaque and hard to read. Their ridiculous lack of diagrams, visualizations, and sample code also makes your life much more difficult than it must be.
In fact, I do not think there's ANY sample code anywhere that isn't a "sample project". As in, when Apple does decide to grace your presence with sample code, it's a large, integrated thing that really doesn't help you learn a specific API or component.
I will surely be downvoted into oblivion for saying this, but just about any comment that starts out with the claim that it is being posted with the expectation that people will downvote it is instant karma gold, whether there's any genuine merit to the comment or not.
Apple has always been oriented toward consumers, and Microsoft has always been oriented toward developers. I don't think there's anything new about this phenomenon. In Apple's early days, the consumers were hobbyists, and when they released the Macintosh, they made the transition to serving a non-technical market. Ever since then, I think they've essentially pursued the vision of releasing sealed, polished, all-in-one products. I think in Apple's ideal vision of the world, there would be little or no role for third-party developers.
I still prefer Macs (post-OS X) because I prefer Unix, and I like my iPhone because, well, it is a nice product. But I also hope the FCC delivers a healthy smackdown.
Apple has always been oriented toward consumers, and Microsoft has always been oriented toward developers. I don't think there's anything new about this phenomenon. In Apple's early days, the consumers were hobbyists, and when they released the Macintosh, they made the transition to serving a non-technical market. Ever since then, I think they've essentially pursued the vision of releasing sealed, polished, all-in-one products. I think in Apple's ideal vision of the world, there would be little or no role for third-party developers.
I still prefer Macs (post-OS X) because I prefer Unix, and I like my iPhone because, well, it is a nice product. But I also hope the FCC delivers a healthy smackdown.
I love my apple products, but I agree, pretty much, with what you're saying. The million dollar question is why nobody with a better outlook seems capable of coming up with competitive products - is it something to do with Apple's approach, or not?*
* No, the assertion that people only buy apple for looks or status is not acceptable. I am fundamentally uncool, have long since lost the desire to become so, and yet I love a lot of apple's products for their usability and attention to detail.
* No, the assertion that people only buy apple for looks or status is not acceptable. I am fundamentally uncool, have long since lost the desire to become so, and yet I love a lot of apple's products for their usability and attention to detail.
Amen, good to hear this sort of thing coming from a fellow Apple user. Microsoft's 'ecosystem' is far more open than Apple's, so Apple is hardly becoming Microsoft -- they're becoming less and less like Microsoft. In terms of developer and community support, that's bad. In terms of high-quality easy-to-use products that I will love to use, that's very good.
Honestly, I stopped reading after the first few paragraphs. "The iPhone has taken the world by storm." We know. "The Apple AppStore is not an ecosystem and it's not a new market where companies can participate freely." We know. "So why do I think Apple has created the modern equivalent of the La Brea Tar Pits?" Let me guess... because of the App store gatekeeping? "So Apple controls the gateway to even offer an application to the market." Bingo!
I'm not trying to be condescending, but these points have been beaten to death on HN already, right down to barking "Just open the iPhone for third-party developers and allow other application stores," which, while it gives me warm fuzzies, is just clearly not something Apple is willing to do without serious forethought. Why not add something novel to the debate?
I'm not trying to be condescending, but these points have been beaten to death on HN already, right down to barking "Just open the iPhone for third-party developers and allow other application stores," which, while it gives me warm fuzzies, is just clearly not something Apple is willing to do without serious forethought. Why not add something novel to the debate?
Apple is the new Apple. This is the way Apple has always been. Apple is the original closed box consumer platform. It's part of the company's DNA, if there is such a thing. The only difference is that now they also control the distribution channel, not just the hardware/OS.
I think that's stretching the point. The Apple II was certainly not closed. Literally the whole design of the thing was cleanly documented, right down the IC selection and the (hand assembled!) firmware. The original Mac was likewise an open book (albeit one without an expansion bus). Take a look at the first edition of Inside Macintosh. Even modern macs aren't "closed" in any meaningful sense. You can develop and deploy software for them using most or all of the tools Apple has internally.
And in any case, it's not the "closedness" that people are complaining about with regard to the iPhone; that's just the practical tool Apple is using. The complaint is about Apple's attempts to use dominance in one sector (smartphones in this case, though I think a similar argument can be made about media players and iTunes) as leverage against competitors or to favor its own products, or those of its allies.
And it is that behavior that seems very Microsoft-like to those of us who remember the 90's.
And in any case, it's not the "closedness" that people are complaining about with regard to the iPhone; that's just the practical tool Apple is using. The complaint is about Apple's attempts to use dominance in one sector (smartphones in this case, though I think a similar argument can be made about media players and iTunes) as leverage against competitors or to favor its own products, or those of its allies.
And it is that behavior that seems very Microsoft-like to those of us who remember the 90's.
I think that's stretching the point. The Apple II was certainly not closed.
How many decades ago was that??
How many decades ago was that??
"Apple is the new Microsoft" is just more easily sold way of saying "Apple is the new Evil(TM)".
Microsoft has been a horizontal monopoly. Apple has large horizontal and vertical reach but has cleverly avoided being a monopoly of either sort. This doesn't mean Apple hasn't been evil but at least when Apple is evil, there's an alternative...
Microsoft has been a horizontal monopoly. Apple has large horizontal and vertical reach but has cleverly avoided being a monopoly of either sort. This doesn't mean Apple hasn't been evil but at least when Apple is evil, there's an alternative...
Just so someone says it I hope everyone remembers Microsoft had a monopoly with Windows. Apple doesn't with the iPhone. The most optimistic estimate puts the number of iPhones sold by the end of 2009 at 45 million. Compare that to an estimated 4.3 billion cell phone users worldwide and 260 million U.S. users alone.
They have a monopoly on non-horrible smartphones.
Including the iPhone in the 4.3 billion worldwide phones is like including PCs in electric typewriter sales; sure they can do some of the same things, but they're clearly different products.
Including the iPhone in the 4.3 billion worldwide phones is like including PCs in electric typewriter sales; sure they can do some of the same things, but they're clearly different products.
> They have a monopoly on non-horrible smartphones
That's like saying, "Arby's has a monopoly on good-tasting fastfood." You can't have a monopoly on being the best at something. Just because you think that the iPhone is the best phone on the market doesn't mean that you can claim that Apple has a monopoly just because you don't like their competitor's products. (Well, you can -- freedom of speech and all -- but you're wrong)
That's like saying, "Arby's has a monopoly on good-tasting fastfood." You can't have a monopoly on being the best at something. Just because you think that the iPhone is the best phone on the market doesn't mean that you can claim that Apple has a monopoly just because you don't like their competitor's products. (Well, you can -- freedom of speech and all -- but you're wrong)
There's nothing, certainly not any behavior by Apple, preventing anyone from coming up with an equally non-horrible smartphone. The closest they've come is by buying the quantity of flash memory they have.
People writing tired, repetitive, biased articles ad-nauseum while over-emphasising the negative qualities of the company while under-emphasising the positives?
Apple really are the new Microsoft.
Apple really are the new Microsoft.
Forbes, 2005: Is Apple the new Microsoft?
http://www.forbes.com/2005/03/04/cx_ld_0304aapl.html
SitePoint, 2006: If I had my doubts before, I stand corrected: Apple is the new Microsoft.
http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/01/17/apple-photocasting...
Macworld, 2007: It's official: Apple is the new Microsoft.
http://www.macworld.com/article/59914/2007/09/newms.html
So is it a seasonal thing? Like brown becoming the new black in Autumn?
http://www.forbes.com/2005/03/04/cx_ld_0304aapl.html
SitePoint, 2006: If I had my doubts before, I stand corrected: Apple is the new Microsoft.
http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/01/17/apple-photocasting...
Macworld, 2007: It's official: Apple is the new Microsoft.
http://www.macworld.com/article/59914/2007/09/newms.html
So is it a seasonal thing? Like brown becoming the new black in Autumn?
Since those articles are throughout the year (March, January, & September respectively) then no, it's not seasonal :)
It might be the new "Apple is dead" FUD... :-)
http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/
http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/
It doesn't even make any sense. Microsoft doesn't care what applications I run on Windows, sometimes to a fault.
"First of all, to be an ecosystem there has to be an open marketplace."
I know we're speaking in analogies, but Wikipedia defines ecosystem as:
"An ecosystem is a unit of interdependent organisms which share the same habitat."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem
...I fail to see what disqualifies the App Store as an ecosystem, analogy-wise.
I've had enough self-described "rebels" (in this case, "heretic") who think they are going out on a limb criticizing Apple and making broad statements such as "Apple is the new 'X'". The author doesn't appear to know much about how Microsoft operates or how it attained it's current (perilous) position, otherwise the flaws of this comparison would have been obvious during the first edit.
"...comparisons are odious, Smith."
Has Apple done some questionable, uncharacteristic things lately? Sure. Does it make life difficult for Developers? You bet. Is this something they've never done before? Absolutely not.
So instead of trying to draw attention to yourself by invoking dramatic characterizations (I once heard someone say that anytime someone compares something to Hitler in an argument, they automatically lose) how about "sticking it to the man" by building something better yourself. If you're right, maybe someday someone like you will come along and write a rambling diatribe about your creation (and then you'll know you've really made it).
I know we're speaking in analogies, but Wikipedia defines ecosystem as:
"An ecosystem is a unit of interdependent organisms which share the same habitat."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem
...I fail to see what disqualifies the App Store as an ecosystem, analogy-wise.
I've had enough self-described "rebels" (in this case, "heretic") who think they are going out on a limb criticizing Apple and making broad statements such as "Apple is the new 'X'". The author doesn't appear to know much about how Microsoft operates or how it attained it's current (perilous) position, otherwise the flaws of this comparison would have been obvious during the first edit.
"...comparisons are odious, Smith."
Has Apple done some questionable, uncharacteristic things lately? Sure. Does it make life difficult for Developers? You bet. Is this something they've never done before? Absolutely not.
So instead of trying to draw attention to yourself by invoking dramatic characterizations (I once heard someone say that anytime someone compares something to Hitler in an argument, they automatically lose) how about "sticking it to the man" by building something better yourself. If you're right, maybe someday someone like you will come along and write a rambling diatribe about your creation (and then you'll know you've really made it).
"Is the new" is the new "fucking annoying".
if flagging a post like a down vote ? I don't feel that the 'community' based filtering of news is working too well here..
But I thought Google was the new Microsoft?
How many New Microsofts can we have? :)
How many New Microsofts can we have? :)
Every article I've seen on this topic (and there have been many) confounds what it means by "the new Microsoft." Most use the term to mean "plays hardball and engages in appalling practices that alienate certain groups of people," which, while arguably true, are not against the law. The discussion then gets defined by a group of folks pointing out the problems with this behavior, opposed by libertarians who claim that they should be allowed to do whatever they like. In turn, this leads to an uninformed, boring discussion: I'm not interested in discussing what other people believe Apple "should" do from an ethical/moral perspective -- Apple clearly knows its own interests better than any johnny-come-lately blogger, and they have decided that screwing around with their developers is good for their bottom line.
The proper point to focus on is a simple one: is Apple using its monopoly power in one application area (e.g. the App Store), to gain a monopoly in another (e.g. voice applications)? For to do so _is_ illegal. Our lawmakers have already pondered this issue and deemed it unacceptable. They have stated the illegal behavior precisely. A proper DA should have no difficulty prosecuting this behavior.
P.S. I also don't understand the level of whining among the iphone devs. The Android is an open platform, move over already - you can't choose to be punished and then whine about it.
The proper point to focus on is a simple one: is Apple using its monopoly power in one application area (e.g. the App Store), to gain a monopoly in another (e.g. voice applications)? For to do so _is_ illegal. Our lawmakers have already pondered this issue and deemed it unacceptable. They have stated the illegal behavior precisely. A proper DA should have no difficulty prosecuting this behavior.
P.S. I also don't understand the level of whining among the iphone devs. The Android is an open platform, move over already - you can't choose to be punished and then whine about it.
[I did a quick search, didn't see anyone mention games yet, so I thought I should]
People bitch and moan about this, but the fact is that for a lot of developers this won't be an issue. Why? Because the game market for the iPhone is HUGE and you can bet there will almost never be an issue with duplicate functionality or explicit content because a game can incidentally download the Karma Sutra.
Games account for about half of the top selling apps (12/25 last I checked), and some games are getting so many downloads they are getting installed on almost a third of all devices (Tap-tap revolution got to 30%).
The game market is huge and will continue to thrive. The video game industry is entirely accustomed to this! It's just another console to them, albeit one with LESS restrictive rules. No price restrictions, no strict content or style guidelines, and no content requirements. Apple is hands-off compared to Sony and Nintendo.
People bitch and moan about this, but the fact is that for a lot of developers this won't be an issue. Why? Because the game market for the iPhone is HUGE and you can bet there will almost never be an issue with duplicate functionality or explicit content because a game can incidentally download the Karma Sutra.
Games account for about half of the top selling apps (12/25 last I checked), and some games are getting so many downloads they are getting installed on almost a third of all devices (Tap-tap revolution got to 30%).
The game market is huge and will continue to thrive. The video game industry is entirely accustomed to this! It's just another console to them, albeit one with LESS restrictive rules. No price restrictions, no strict content or style guidelines, and no content requirements. Apple is hands-off compared to Sony and Nintendo.
HN is the new tabloid. :(
From The Dark Knight:
Harvey Dent: You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain
Harvey Dent: You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain
Why? (Article doesn't seem to clarify the title)
Because this is what his colleague and friend says.
And because it gets him traffic when he posts it on HN
I feel like Microsoft has gone through many stages as a company throughout time. Any software company could be matched to be just like microsoft at some point in microsoft's timeline. Same with google...
Hahaha, what a joke.
This is what happens when you let propaganda factories take over news outlets.
This is what happens when you let propaganda factories take over news outlets.
hah. Apple can be the new Microsoft when they have as much cash as them. Apple is a strong company, but they have a while to go...
Apple was comparable to Microsoft in "on hand" cash in 2008 - http://venturebeat.com/2008/10/23/microsoft-closes-the-quart...
Apple is hardly the new Microsoft. Microsoft's developer relations are bar none the best for any commercial entity or platform I've ever developed for. That's not saying their API's or SDK's are well designed, what it is saying is their developer support simply cannot be beaten.
Now, I've been entirely Apple based for the last three years and - in terms of hand holding tool chain support - it's a relative ghetto in contrast to what MS provides.
MS is definitely more open than Apple is, specifically when it comes to the iPhone, so I'm not sure how Apple is the new Microsoft in the slightest sense. Now, I don't mean open in terms of open source and all that, but I mean open in terms of what, when, where you develop and deploy.
In many ways, I wish they were the new Microsoft. That would mean that iPhone is an open landscape with API's that aren't encumbered with a "father knows best" mentality, which, as a developer, is frightening if it's a picture of what's to come. Can you imagine a future where Apple dictates what you install on your laptop or desktop? Why is the iPhone/iPod Touch any different? Because it has a GSM chip?
The problem is that if consumers accept this scenario, which they've readily done with the App Store, then the next logical conclusion is that the next device from Cupertino that isn't a laptop or desktop will come with the same closed, crippled, handicapped (from a developer's perspective) ecosystem. Then the next iteration after that will move it closer to the reality that your desktop will be locked down in the same fashion.
No, Apple is not the next Microsoft. They've become their own brand of monster.