6 ms·

Here it is 14 years later. The thing about that meeting, that strikes me, is that this is what Apple always was. Steve wasn't bringing a purpose to Apple, he

by nirvana 15y ago

Here it is 14 years later. The thing about that meeting, that strikes me, is that this is what Apple always was. Steve wasn't bringing a purpose to Apple, he was reminding Apple employees of Apple's purpose. Apple still has that purpose. Every product cycle you see the blogs and the pundits speculating on what Apple will do, and exclaiming what Apple should do. Just today I saw an article along the lines of "now that Steve's dead, here's the four things that Apple MUST DO!" None of these people get it, and that's why they are always wrong.. and then after the fact, rather than learn from their errors, they start spinning why the iPhone 5 wasn't announced. Anyone paying attention knows the tick-tock pattern Apple is following. People seem to think that apple has become microsoft-- some monolithic entity, focused on having a monopoly and controlling everything. I can assure you, controlling everything is the last thing Apple wants. Apple is not proprietary. Hell, Mac OS X is the most popular open sourced operating system on the planet. The Safari web browser is just a thin shell around webkit. Apple could have kept both closed and innovated on them, instead they innovate on them and give them away (and yet so called "open source" fans actually complain about this.) What Apple does care about-- the singular purpose that drives them to make the decisions they make-- is the best user experience for their customers. IF you ever wonder why Apple did or didn't do something, that's why. And that didn't go away with Steve's passing. Even in the years when Steve wasn't there, and the company suffered from bad management, they still operated in the Apple way, just not so effectively. Now they have great management, and though Steve is no longer there, it's a lot easier to keep to their purpose... Maybe this is the real reason Apple accumulated so much cash. It will be a long time, and likely never, in a situation where outside investors and wall street can dictate the CEO position, and so Apple can operate without fear that people who don't get it can undermine its mission. The real question, though, is why do so few people get it? There's nothing really secret about all this... but I'm unaware of a single other company that operates in this manner.

voodoomagicman 15y ago
"Apple could have kept both closed and innovated on them" Webkit is based on GPL code from KDE, so Apple had no choice but to release the source.
- thought_alarm 15y ago
  They didn't have to start http://webkit.org http://webkit.org and run it as a public open source project. They did far more than simply comply with the GPL.
  - Peaker 15y ago
    After a big PR scandal. Originally they just threw useless code patches back at KHTML to minimally comply with the license (LGPL, iirc).
    - nirvana 15y ago
      There was no scandal and only GPL "enthusiasts" would be mad at someone for complying with the license... only not in the style they might want. Reality is, they're just bigots who hate Apple and are looking for any excuse to bash them. Really, you're not fooling anyone.
- silvestrov 15y ago
  When you look at how much effort and time Apple has put into WebKit, I think Apple could have written WebKit from scratch without spending too much time on it. Remember, Apple had experience web engine developers on the team from day 1. They knew exactly what was needed and how it should be done.
- alastairpat 15y ago
  There's also the work that Apple did on LLVM/Clang, as well as Grand Central Dispatch. They weren't obliged to release that.
  - edge17 15y ago
    They kinda were. I don't know all the in's and outs, but as it was explained to me, GPL v3 is not very attractive for them since they're shipping devices that are closed ecosystems. The specific issue has to do with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
todojunkie 15y ago
> Here it is 14 years later. Indeed. Also telling is a lot of the stories on folklore.org - You see a lot of what was described in this article, from yet another unique perspective.
hollerith 15y ago
>Apple is not proprietary. Hell, Mac OS X is the most popular open sourced operating system on the planet. Let's not let our enthusiasm blind us to reality.
- pilsetnieks 15y ago
  He is almost true in the pragmatic sense that a lot of the OS is open sourced and it certainly lends itself well to running and developing open source. Of course it isn't open in the Stallman sense of "if you don't melt the ore yourself, it's not open" but then again Linuxes and others aren't, too.
  - kamaal 15y ago
    Pardon my ignorance, Or may be I'm just out uninformed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X - mentions, its under a proprietary EULA.
    - arthurschreiber 15y ago
      Mac OS X as a whole package might not be open source, but many of its individual components (Darwin, Webkit, ...) are open. (See http://opensource.apple.com/ http://opensource.apple.com/)
  - hollerith 15y ago
    The problem with your argument is that you appeal to the idea that open source is more virtuous than proprietary software, and you want that virtue to rub off on Apple, but unless you explain why open source is virtuous, nobody can refute your implication that Mac OS X has almost as much of this virtue as Linux does. I would almost certainly be running OS X even if none of it were open source, and I tend to believe that that is true of most OS X users (even those users like me who can program). In contrast, the fact that parts of OS X are open source does not seem to help OS X gain traction in markets where completely open-source software stacks are vastly more popular than OS X, like embedded systems, supercomputing and internet servers. I am not an expert on all of the reasons developers and admins of embedded systems, supercomputers and internet servers prefer completely open-source ecosystems to OS X, but I tend to believe a lot of it has to do with not wanting Apple to be able to jerk them around and has to do with the fact that if they started to use OS X, Apple would be able to jerk them around almost as much as they would be able to if Darwin, Webkit, LLVM and TextEdit were not open source.
ibisum 15y ago
> Hell, Mac OS X is the most popular open sourced operating system on the planet. No. Linux.
- rimantas 15y ago
  OTOH iOS has bigger market share in web browsing than desktop linux…
- narcissus 15y ago
  I would be surprised if Linux had it over the TRON Project ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRON_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRON_Project ), but then again, TRON and Linux are in different 'leagues' as far as 'operating systems' go.
- nirvana 15y ago
  %23 of personal computers sold these days are Macs. What percentage are running Linux? (combining those that ship with Linux and those that ship with Windows but are reformatted.)
tjogin 15y ago
I agree, and it has puzzled me also why so many people just doesn't get it. Apple operates as dependently as a clock. You can see from a mile away what their intentions are when they've done something (or haven't done something), and they are often honest and upfront about it. And yet, people think Apple have some sort of unlikely agenda of world domination. Jesus christ. They just want to make the best products possible, what is so hard to understand about that?
- nirvana 15y ago
  For the last decade, I've been wondering why people "just don't get it", not only about Apple, but about politics, economics, history, etc. I've been forced to reach the conclusion that they don't get it because they don't want to. They are driven by ideology. Notice I was called a "fanboy" for defending Apple. The person who called me that name has substituted an ideology for their decision making, and thus, because I said something that pokes holes in the ideology, they must attack me personally. Further, in the case of Apple, the fact that they are so good at being good, inflames the of people who are jealous or upset, because Apple isn't following their ideology. Richard Stallman, for instance, has been kicking Apple since they were down, and doing so while giving bigger companies like IBM, Google and Microsoft a complete pass. They don't get it because reality disagrees with their ideology.
efsavage 15y ago
> I can assure you, controlling everything is the last thing Apple wants. Apple is not proprietary. Hell, Mac OS X is the most popular open sourced operating system on the planet. The Safari web browser is just a thin shell around webkit. Apple could have kept both closed and innovated on them, instead they innovate on them and give them away (and yet so called "open source" fans actually complain about this.) Wow! This is great news. I've been waiting for this to happen so that I can go ahead an run OS X on any computer I choose. Kindly point me to the link? I would have guessed it was at http://opensource.apple.com http://opensource.apple.com but alas, that's just a random assortment of parts which I'm limited to using for "internal research and development".
- danilocampos 15y ago
  Gotta be careful with sarcasm. Done right, everyone grins with wry amusement. Sadly, it's much easier to do wrong, and you end up dancing around your point instead of making it persuasively and directly. Brevity helps.
  - efsavage 15y ago
    Not trying to be persuasive, I was just entertained by seeing Apple fanboyism raised to the point where people think OS X is now open source, and figured I'd have some fun and spend a few points on the inevitable downvotes.
    - danilocampos 15y ago
      > Not trying to be persuasive Ah, in that case, bravo!
- Terretta 15y ago
  > Wow! This is great news. I've been waiting for this to happen so that I can go ahead an run OS X on any computer I choose. Kindly point me to the link? I would have guessed it was at http://opensource.apple.com http://opensource.apple.com ... You have the URL wrong. I will kindly point you to a link: http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page It's not "any computer you choose", but any desktop or laptop with hardware components that are supported. Did you know Windows Server 2008 doesn't have drivers for early Intel Gigabit Server NICs, so you can't run that OS on an unsupported computer? Just as you can't run Windows on "any computer you choose", only on ones with supported hardware, it's the same thing with OS X. Another link, laptops this time: http://www.mymacnetbook.com/compatibility-chart/ http://www.mymacnetbook.com/compatibility-chart/ The following listings of Hackintosh compatible computers, parts, motherboards and drivers (kexts) should be helpful in your endeavor: http://www.hackintosh.com/#hackintosh_compatible http://www.hackintosh.com/#hackintosh_compatible Happy hacking! // Yes, I realize your request for a link was rhetorical.

by nirvana 15y ago

voodoomagicman 15y ago

"Apple could have kept both closed and innovated on them" Webkit is based on GPL code from KDE, so Apple had no choice but to release the source.

thought_alarm 15y ago
They didn't have to start http://webkit.org http://webkit.org and run it as a public open source project. They did far more than simply comply with the GPL.
- Peaker 15y ago
  After a big PR scandal. Originally they just threw useless code patches back at KHTML to minimally comply with the license (LGPL, iirc).
  - nirvana 15y ago
    There was no scandal and only GPL "enthusiasts" would be mad at someone for complying with the license... only not in the style they might want. Reality is, they're just bigots who hate Apple and are looking for any excuse to bash them. Really, you're not fooling anyone.
silvestrov 15y ago
When you look at how much effort and time Apple has put into WebKit, I think Apple could have written WebKit from scratch without spending too much time on it. Remember, Apple had experience web engine developers on the team from day 1. They knew exactly what was needed and how it should be done.
alastairpat 15y ago
There's also the work that Apple did on LLVM/Clang, as well as Grand Central Dispatch. They weren't obliged to release that.
- edge17 15y ago
  They kinda were. I don't know all the in's and outs, but as it was explained to me, GPL v3 is not very attractive for them since they're shipping devices that are closed ecosystems. The specific issue has to do with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

todojunkie 15y ago

> Here it is 14 years later. Indeed. Also telling is a lot of the stories on folklore.org - You see a lot of what was described in this article, from yet another unique perspective.

hollerith 15y ago

>Apple is not proprietary. Hell, Mac OS X is the most popular open sourced operating system on the planet. Let's not let our enthusiasm blind us to reality.

pilsetnieks 15y ago
He is almost true in the pragmatic sense that a lot of the OS is open sourced and it certainly lends itself well to running and developing open source. Of course it isn't open in the Stallman sense of "if you don't melt the ore yourself, it's not open" but then again Linuxes and others aren't, too.
- kamaal 15y ago
  Pardon my ignorance, Or may be I'm just out uninformed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X - mentions, its under a proprietary EULA.
  - arthurschreiber 15y ago
    Mac OS X as a whole package might not be open source, but many of its individual components (Darwin, Webkit, ...) are open. (See http://opensource.apple.com/ http://opensource.apple.com/)
- hollerith 15y ago
  The problem with your argument is that you appeal to the idea that open source is more virtuous than proprietary software, and you want that virtue to rub off on Apple, but unless you explain why open source is virtuous, nobody can refute your implication that Mac OS X has almost as much of this virtue as Linux does. I would almost certainly be running OS X even if none of it were open source, and I tend to believe that that is true of most OS X users (even those users like me who can program). In contrast, the fact that parts of OS X are open source does not seem to help OS X gain traction in markets where completely open-source software stacks are vastly more popular than OS X, like embedded systems, supercomputing and internet servers. I am not an expert on all of the reasons developers and admins of embedded systems, supercomputers and internet servers prefer completely open-source ecosystems to OS X, but I tend to believe a lot of it has to do with not wanting Apple to be able to jerk them around and has to do with the fact that if they started to use OS X, Apple would be able to jerk them around almost as much as they would be able to if Darwin, Webkit, LLVM and TextEdit were not open source.

ibisum 15y ago

> Hell, Mac OS X is the most popular open sourced operating system on the planet. No. Linux.

rimantas 15y ago
OTOH iOS has bigger market share in web browsing than desktop linux…
narcissus 15y ago
I would be surprised if Linux had it over the TRON Project ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRON_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRON_Project ), but then again, TRON and Linux are in different 'leagues' as far as 'operating systems' go.
nirvana 15y ago
%23 of personal computers sold these days are Macs. What percentage are running Linux? (combining those that ship with Linux and those that ship with Windows but are reformatted.)

tjogin 15y ago

I agree, and it has puzzled me also why so many people just doesn't get it. Apple operates as dependently as a clock. You can see from a mile away what their intentions are when they've done something (or haven't done something), and they are often honest and upfront about it. And yet, people think Apple have some sort of unlikely agenda of world domination. Jesus christ. They just want to make the best products possible, what is so hard to understand about that?

nirvana 15y ago
For the last decade, I've been wondering why people "just don't get it", not only about Apple, but about politics, economics, history, etc. I've been forced to reach the conclusion that they don't get it because they don't want to. They are driven by ideology. Notice I was called a "fanboy" for defending Apple. The person who called me that name has substituted an ideology for their decision making, and thus, because I said something that pokes holes in the ideology, they must attack me personally. Further, in the case of Apple, the fact that they are so good at being good, inflames the of people who are jealous or upset, because Apple isn't following their ideology. Richard Stallman, for instance, has been kicking Apple since they were down, and doing so while giving bigger companies like IBM, Google and Microsoft a complete pass. They don't get it because reality disagrees with their ideology.

efsavage 15y ago

> I can assure you, controlling everything is the last thing Apple wants. Apple is not proprietary. Hell, Mac OS X is the most popular open sourced operating system on the planet. The Safari web browser is just a thin shell around webkit. Apple could have kept both closed and innovated on them, instead they innovate on them and give them away (and yet so called "open source" fans actually complain about this.) Wow! This is great news. I've been waiting for this to happen so that I can go ahead an run OS X on any computer I choose. Kindly point me to the link? I would have guessed it was at http://opensource.apple.com http://opensource.apple.com but alas, that's just a random assortment of parts which I'm limited to using for "internal research and development".

danilocampos 15y ago
Gotta be careful with sarcasm. Done right, everyone grins with wry amusement. Sadly, it's much easier to do wrong, and you end up dancing around your point instead of making it persuasively and directly. Brevity helps.
- efsavage 15y ago
  Not trying to be persuasive, I was just entertained by seeing Apple fanboyism raised to the point where people think OS X is now open source, and figured I'd have some fun and spend a few points on the inevitable downvotes.
  - danilocampos 15y ago
    > Not trying to be persuasive Ah, in that case, bravo!
Terretta 15y ago
> Wow! This is great news. I've been waiting for this to happen so that I can go ahead an run OS X on any computer I choose. Kindly point me to the link? I would have guessed it was at http://opensource.apple.com http://opensource.apple.com ... You have the URL wrong. I will kindly point you to a link: http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page It's not "any computer you choose", but any desktop or laptop with hardware components that are supported. Did you know Windows Server 2008 doesn't have drivers for early Intel Gigabit Server NICs, so you can't run that OS on an unsupported computer? Just as you can't run Windows on "any computer you choose", only on ones with supported hardware, it's the same thing with OS X. Another link, laptops this time: http://www.mymacnetbook.com/compatibility-chart/ http://www.mymacnetbook.com/compatibility-chart/ The following listings of Hackintosh compatible computers, parts, motherboards and drivers (kexts) should be helpful in your endeavor: http://www.hackintosh.com/#hackintosh_compatible http://www.hackintosh.com/#hackintosh_compatible Happy hacking! // Yes, I realize your request for a link was rhetorical.