8 ms·

> "I simply wish to direct your attention at how utterly different the two companies are." >"Me? I’d be appalled if Apple were to unveil something in the half-

> "I simply wish to direct your attention at how utterly different the two companies are." >"Me? I’d be appalled if Apple were to unveil something in the half- (if that) finished state of Windows 8 for tablets. I enjoy writing about what’s real" What Gruber claims to understand, but actually doesn't, is that the Microsoft ecosystem is a very different beast than the Apple ecosystem. Microsoft, unlike Apple, does not control the entire vertical stack. They don't really have direct control over hardware or retail distribution (some notable exceptions - Xbox, Microsoft stores etc., but you know what I mean - it's nothing like Apple's top-down approach) There are OEM's, partners, developers that need to get their hands on this technology - to test it, to ensure compatibility with existing platforms. There are IT admins that need to figure out how to start deploying this to their orgs. Windows can't just launch a new OS 'when its done'. Secrecy is a very Apple approach, and it doesn't work for other companies that are reliant on many 3rd parties to complete their ecosystem. Yes, Apple is reliant on devs to write apps, but its not the same as needing hardware partners ot manufacture devices. Not saying that either approach is better, you just need to acknowledge in some cases, secrecy will work against you. Just look at the fallout over the whole Silverlight / HTML5 issue after All Things D There's a reason that Windows initially won the application development battle with Mac OS, its because the company's commitment to backward compat, partners & developers is solid. Windows is built on a legacy of backward compatibility - Joel Spolsky has a fascinating article about this that explains things more eloquently than I can - http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html >"Show me something real, I say. Look at Amazon. Everyone knows they’re building a tablet. What have they said, though? Nothing. What have they shown? Nothing. When will they say something? When it’s done. What will they show? Something real." Amazon can afford to launch a new Kindle tablet in secrecy, because the 3rd party ecosystem is not a main part of the kindle. How many authors need to upgrade their books to support the new Kindle? Zero. Amazon will make sure of that. Content creators & publishers need to do nothing to support the new kindle. Amazon can afford to be secret, and is better off being secretive until it launches. It works for them in this case. [Disclaimer: MSFT employee]

ethank 15y ago
Not to defend Gruber here (since for some reason he is unpopular on HN), but I think that he does understand what you claim he doesn't. The point of his polemic is not that Microsoft is fundamentally different than Apple in approach and execution. Anyone can see that plain as day. It's not obfuscated in the least. The question is: which approach is right? Removing for a minute the preconceptions of "that's just how they are," which produces better products? I don't think its cut and dry really. Apple currently has some MS type approaches with iOS because of their third party dependencies on software, and Microsoft has Apple approaches (i.e., XBox) because of their lack of such.
- varunsrin 15y ago
  > "The question is: which approach is right?" The problem is asking that question. It is irrelevant when they products are fundamentally different. Its like comparing, well, apples & oranges. You cannot compare the methodology of a hardware launch (iPad) to a software launch (Windows 8). You do not launch major pieces software without a beta / dev preview release. No one does. Even Apple doesn't do it - Lion, iCloud & iOS5 were released in 'unfinished states', which Gruber claims to abhor. So instead of comparing above mentioned software launches (in an unfinished state) to Windows 8 (also in an unfinished state), Gruber chooses hardware. Compare the Xbox & iPad release schedules, and iOS5/Lion & Windows 8 schedules. I doubt you'll find that the hardware ships with a public beta. And I doubt that you'll find that software ships without a beta.Gruber is twisting examples to suit his arguments, and this is fundamentally flawed logic.
  - ethank 15y ago
    Again, "the question is: which approach is right?" assumes that either company COULD change their approach. Should they? Don't conflate what is reality with what could be. If that was the case there wouldn't be an iPad (or X-Box, or Metro).
    - varunsrin 15y ago
      Microsoft does not launch unfinished Xboxes (hardware + software product). Apple does not launch unfinished iPads (hardware + software product) Microsoft launches unfinished Windows builds (software). Apple launches unfinished Lion builds (software). The question is flawed in that it assumes that they companies have different release methodologies for the same class of products. Both Microsoft & Apple are making similar choices for similar classes of products. What Gruber is doing is comparing release methodologies of different classes of products that are in the same market space. What drives the choice of release method is not the market space, but the nature of the product being released.

ethank 15y ago

Not to defend Gruber here (since for some reason he is unpopular on HN), but I think that he does understand what you claim he doesn't. The point of his polemic is not that Microsoft is fundamentally different than Apple in approach and execution. Anyone can see that plain as day. It's not obfuscated in the least. The question is: which approach is right? Removing for a minute the preconceptions of "that's just how they are," which produces better products? I don't think its cut and dry really. Apple currently has some MS type approaches with iOS because of their third party dependencies on software, and Microsoft has Apple approaches (i.e., XBox) because of their lack of such.

varunsrin 15y ago
> "The question is: which approach is right?" The problem is asking that question. It is irrelevant when they products are fundamentally different. Its like comparing, well, apples & oranges. You cannot compare the methodology of a hardware launch (iPad) to a software launch (Windows 8). You do not launch major pieces software without a beta / dev preview release. No one does. Even Apple doesn't do it - Lion, iCloud & iOS5 were released in 'unfinished states', which Gruber claims to abhor. So instead of comparing above mentioned software launches (in an unfinished state) to Windows 8 (also in an unfinished state), Gruber chooses hardware. Compare the Xbox & iPad release schedules, and iOS5/Lion & Windows 8 schedules. I doubt you'll find that the hardware ships with a public beta. And I doubt that you'll find that software ships without a beta.Gruber is twisting examples to suit his arguments, and this is fundamentally flawed logic.
- ethank 15y ago
  Again, "the question is: which approach is right?" assumes that either company COULD change their approach. Should they? Don't conflate what is reality with what could be. If that was the case there wouldn't be an iPad (or X-Box, or Metro).
  - varunsrin 15y ago
    Microsoft does not launch unfinished Xboxes (hardware + software product). Apple does not launch unfinished iPads (hardware + software product) Microsoft launches unfinished Windows builds (software). Apple launches unfinished Lion builds (software). The question is flawed in that it assumes that they companies have different release methodologies for the same class of products. Both Microsoft & Apple are making similar choices for similar classes of products. What Gruber is doing is comparing release methodologies of different classes of products that are in the same market space. What drives the choice of release method is not the market space, but the nature of the product being released.