4 ms·

Apple was never really open to other platforms though. I don't think they traded positions then, Microsoft evolved a bit while Apple continues with the same app

Apple was never really open to other platforms though. I don't think they traded positions then, Microsoft evolved a bit while Apple continues with the same approach.

davidw 10y ago
Yep. Apple has always wanted to control both the hardware and software, whereas Microsoft 'settled' for controlling the software on a fairly open hardware platform.
- Someone 10y ago
  Not always. Steve wanted to, but Steve disagreed. For the Apple 2, the net effect was that it shipped with hardware schematics (everything, including the power supply) and commented ROM listings. Even the original Mac still had fairly comprehensive documentation of parts of its hardware, if you bought the phone book edition of Inside Macintosh. And of course, IBM didn't 'settle' for opening up the platform. Compaq and Phoenix Technologies opened it for them.
  - richardwhiuk 10y ago
    That's Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs respectively for those who struggled to parse that.
bluejekyll 10y ago
I feel like Apple was more open to alternate distribution options at the beginning of OSX, but I might be wrong in this. tvOS and watchOS have made their software distribution completely Apple lock-in, i.e. you can only do it with Apple tools, see bitcode requirements.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  They had to, as they were about to close shop. Apple was the last surviving company of home computers, from the likes of Acorn, Atari, Commodore, MSX,..... All of them controlled the whole experience, both hardware and software. By the time Apple bought NeXT (which in practice was actually the other way around), they need to attract developers back to their platform, so they played nice. Nowadays they have plenty of money on the bank and can be back to being as they always were.
  - Someone 10y ago
    MSX wasn't a company; it was a platform promoted by multiple companies, many of them Japanese. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSX#Manufacturers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSX#Manufacturers lists, for the original MSX: "Spectravideo, Philips, Al Alamiah, Sony, Sanyo, Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Hitachi, National, Panasonic, Canon, Casio, Pioneer, Fujitsu General, Yamaha, JVC, Yashica-Kyocera, GoldStar, Samsung/Fenner, Daewoo/Yeno, Gradiente, Sharp/Epcom, Talent, Frael." AGE Labs
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      I know, but on the phone it is easier to write MSX than search and type that list you posted.

Apple was never really open to other platforms though. I don't think they traded positions then, Microsoft evolved a bit while Apple continues with the same approach.

davidw 10y ago

Yep. Apple has always wanted to control both the hardware and software, whereas Microsoft 'settled' for controlling the software on a fairly open hardware platform.

Someone 10y ago
Not always. Steve wanted to, but Steve disagreed. For the Apple 2, the net effect was that it shipped with hardware schematics (everything, including the power supply) and commented ROM listings. Even the original Mac still had fairly comprehensive documentation of parts of its hardware, if you bought the phone book edition of Inside Macintosh. And of course, IBM didn't 'settle' for opening up the platform. Compaq and Phoenix Technologies opened it for them.
- richardwhiuk 10y ago
  That's Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs respectively for those who struggled to parse that.

bluejekyll 10y ago

I feel like Apple was more open to alternate distribution options at the beginning of OSX, but I might be wrong in this. tvOS and watchOS have made their software distribution completely Apple lock-in, i.e. you can only do it with Apple tools, see bitcode requirements.

pjmlp 10y ago
They had to, as they were about to close shop. Apple was the last surviving company of home computers, from the likes of Acorn, Atari, Commodore, MSX,..... All of them controlled the whole experience, both hardware and software. By the time Apple bought NeXT (which in practice was actually the other way around), they need to attract developers back to their platform, so they played nice. Nowadays they have plenty of money on the bank and can be back to being as they always were.
- Someone 10y ago
  MSX wasn't a company; it was a platform promoted by multiple companies, many of them Japanese. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSX#Manufacturers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSX#Manufacturers lists, for the original MSX: "Spectravideo, Philips, Al Alamiah, Sony, Sanyo, Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Hitachi, National, Panasonic, Canon, Casio, Pioneer, Fujitsu General, Yamaha, JVC, Yashica-Kyocera, GoldStar, Samsung/Fenner, Daewoo/Yeno, Gradiente, Sharp/Epcom, Talent, Frael." AGE Labs
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    I know, but on the phone it is easier to write MSX than search and type that list you posted.