12 ms·

Wozniak calls for open Apple

188 points by jacobr 14y ago

RandallBrown 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.
- rbanffy 14y ago
  > I don't think they can be as open as Wozniak wants and still be successful. I don't think they could make the existing product lines more open, but they could explore the idea of a developer version of the iPad. Sure someone would find a way to download music or copying installed software without paying, but I don't think that would be even measurable. I'd love if it came in beige, with a rainbow logo ;-)
- gaelian 14y ago
  > 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. Kind of the similar to what happened with their implementation of the mouse and the MP3 player, they didn't invent these things, but they improved upon them or made them more accessible to consumers at the right time. But I am really keen to see if Apple can continue this pattern without Jobs at the helm.
loverobots 14y ago
"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 14y ago
  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.
swedenborg 14y ago
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 14y ago
  At the momenent, Apple is even worse than Microsoft.
  - fjarlq 14y ago
    How?
    - technomancy 14y ago
      Because some people still trust Apple.
    - cooldeal 14y ago
      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 14y ago
        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.
jacquesm 14y ago
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.
- swedenborg 14y ago
  true Q: is that human nature or indoctrination of democracy at play ...
- rbanffy 14y ago
  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.
- alecco 14y ago
  Apple can try with something small. They use a lot of open source. On the other hand, they can learn from others. Android/Google is catching on Apple due in part to a mostly open platform.
swedenborg 14y ago
call to arms : Woz a new "next" ... maybe start back where http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS left !
- treetrouble 14y ago
  Haiku http://haiku-os.org http://haiku-os.org
  - swedenborg 14y ago
    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 ...
oldschooltaper 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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?
  - sukuriant 14y ago
    Don't kid yourself. Some of the high price of an Apple computer includes the real price of the operating system, which is far more than $30. It also includes the majority of the price for upgrades. Apple computers are not worth $2000 in parts. A lot of that money is R&D.
  - userdeveloper 14y ago
    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.
maz29 14y ago
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.
- swedenborg 14y ago
  it is not only source code . its moral & ethics at play ...
- sbuk 14y ago
  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 http://opensource.apple.com and http://www.puredarwin.org/ http://www.puredarwin.org/
rogerbinns 14y ago
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.
- Rudism 14y ago
  The Apple song and dance involves creating developer certificates, project-specific code-signing certs, installing them all on your Mac and your device, and then setting up XCode to use the correct certificate combinations for the correct projects in the correct environments when signing the code (I can't say for certain how this all works because I basically trial-and-errored it until it miraculously started working). It is free (with your account) as long as you don't want to distribute your application on the app store, or even use it on your own device without having to renew your code-signing certificates every few months. Otherwise it's $100/year.
  - rogerbinns 14y ago
    I still haven't figured out how to do the song and dance. (All I want to do is run hello world on "my" device.) You eventually end up at this technical note, which of course leaves out any links: http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#technotes/tn2250/_index.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/DTS40009933-CH1-REQUIREMENTS_FOR_CODE_SIGNING http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#technotes/tn2250/_in... How I become a team (of one) admin, or where to find this "iOS Provisioning Portal" are of course left out.
    - 14y ago
swedenborg 14y ago
Apple is the Finder upon a os ... one man TOG : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Tognazzini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Tognazzini another : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Norman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Norman se the finder has a redundancy slowness to mimic human perception built in ...
- freehunter 14y ago
  I literally have no idea what you just said.
vegas 14y ago
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-reflects-on-jobs-legacy-and-the/4004384 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-10/apple-co-founder-refle...
bitwize 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    It used to be effectively impossible for anyone outside Apple to develop anything for the iPhone. The device was still a zillion seller.
- mrpsbrk 14y ago
  Alas, not gonna happen indeed. I once believed that BSD with an Apple interface was the Utopia of computing, but no. And it took me a couple of years to understand why. I came up with a different way to say the same thing: Apple is about productizing computing ideas. But it does mean closing them down. A product is not a platform. And Xcode is just a nuisance to Apple, a requisite rather than a goal. Sometimes productizing means making the same thing much cheaper, like their first mouse. Sometimes it is making the same thing much more expensive than necessary, like present Macs. But the common thread is to upsell your costumer. To make him come back. This is all Apple is about. It has the advantage of pampering a prized costumer, but it has the disadvantage of locking you. To the people saying Apple is the new MicroSoft, at first Apple was the one and only personal computer company. It used to be king of the hill. It was busted when the open-ness of the IBM PC turned out to incur cluster effects. For all we know, this post-PC era can also witness a similar disruption. esr really thinks Android is already doing it. Lets hope. But Apple can't do open. It is not that it would "diminish returns". It is that it goes against the very company strategy. It is cute that Woz prefers not to acknowledge it, but that is all.
kevinchen 14y ago
Woz was never very good with the user experience / selling things to non-experts side of things.
Derbasti 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    No, but then I don't think that Google is a basket of goodwill. Quite the contrary, actually.
chj 14y ago
We need a young Woz to deliver a new "Apple II" tablet. No need to beg for Big Brother's mercy.
Loic 14y ago
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.
ezolotko 14y ago
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.
bobsy 14y ago
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.
xutopia 14y ago
He's so naive it is adorable.
roc 14y ago
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.

188 points by jacobr 14y ago

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 14y ago
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.
rbanffy 14y ago
> I don't think they can be as open as Wozniak wants and still be successful. I don't think they could make the existing product lines more open, but they could explore the idea of a developer version of the iPad. Sure someone would find a way to download music or copying installed software without paying, but I don't think that would be even measurable. I'd love if it came in beige, with a rainbow logo ;-)
gaelian 14y ago
> 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. Kind of the similar to what happened with their implementation of the mouse and the MP3 player, they didn't invent these things, but they improved upon them or made them more accessible to consumers at the right time. But I am really keen to see if Apple can continue this pattern without Jobs at the helm.

loverobots 14y ago

"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 14y ago
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.

swedenborg 14y ago

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 14y ago
At the momenent, Apple is even worse than Microsoft.
- fjarlq 14y ago
  How?
  - technomancy 14y ago
    Because some people still trust Apple.
  - cooldeal 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      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.

jacquesm 14y ago

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.

swedenborg 14y ago
true Q: is that human nature or indoctrination of democracy at play ...
rbanffy 14y ago
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.
alecco 14y ago
Apple can try with something small. They use a lot of open source. On the other hand, they can learn from others. Android/Google is catching on Apple due in part to a mostly open platform.

swedenborg 14y ago

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

treetrouble 14y ago
Haiku http://haiku-os.org http://haiku-os.org
- swedenborg 14y ago
  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 ...

oldschooltaper 14y ago

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 14y ago
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?
- sukuriant 14y ago
  Don't kid yourself. Some of the high price of an Apple computer includes the real price of the operating system, which is far more than $30. It also includes the majority of the price for upgrades. Apple computers are not worth $2000 in parts. A lot of that money is R&D.
- userdeveloper 14y ago
  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.

maz29 14y ago

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.

swedenborg 14y ago
it is not only source code . its moral & ethics at play ...
sbuk 14y ago
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 http://opensource.apple.com and http://www.puredarwin.org/ http://www.puredarwin.org/

rogerbinns 14y ago

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.

Rudism 14y ago
The Apple song and dance involves creating developer certificates, project-specific code-signing certs, installing them all on your Mac and your device, and then setting up XCode to use the correct certificate combinations for the correct projects in the correct environments when signing the code (I can't say for certain how this all works because I basically trial-and-errored it until it miraculously started working). It is free (with your account) as long as you don't want to distribute your application on the app store, or even use it on your own device without having to renew your code-signing certificates every few months. Otherwise it's $100/year.
- rogerbinns 14y ago
  I still haven't figured out how to do the song and dance. (All I want to do is run hello world on "my" device.) You eventually end up at this technical note, which of course leaves out any links: http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#technotes/tn2250/_index.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/DTS40009933-CH1-REQUIREMENTS_FOR_CODE_SIGNING http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#technotes/tn2250/_in... How I become a team (of one) admin, or where to find this "iOS Provisioning Portal" are of course left out.
  - 14y ago

swedenborg 14y ago

Apple is the Finder upon a os ... one man TOG : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Tognazzini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Tognazzini another : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Norman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Norman se the finder has a redundancy slowness to mimic human perception built in ...

freehunter 14y ago
I literally have no idea what you just said.

vegas 14y ago

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-reflects-on-jobs-legacy-and-the/4004384 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-10/apple-co-founder-refle...

bitwize 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  It used to be effectively impossible for anyone outside Apple to develop anything for the iPhone. The device was still a zillion seller.
mrpsbrk 14y ago
Alas, not gonna happen indeed. I once believed that BSD with an Apple interface was the Utopia of computing, but no. And it took me a couple of years to understand why. I came up with a different way to say the same thing: Apple is about productizing computing ideas. But it does mean closing them down. A product is not a platform. And Xcode is just a nuisance to Apple, a requisite rather than a goal. Sometimes productizing means making the same thing much cheaper, like their first mouse. Sometimes it is making the same thing much more expensive than necessary, like present Macs. But the common thread is to upsell your costumer. To make him come back. This is all Apple is about. It has the advantage of pampering a prized costumer, but it has the disadvantage of locking you. To the people saying Apple is the new MicroSoft, at first Apple was the one and only personal computer company. It used to be king of the hill. It was busted when the open-ness of the IBM PC turned out to incur cluster effects. For all we know, this post-PC era can also witness a similar disruption. esr really thinks Android is already doing it. Lets hope. But Apple can't do open. It is not that it would "diminish returns". It is that it goes against the very company strategy. It is cute that Woz prefers not to acknowledge it, but that is all.

kevinchen 14y ago

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

Derbasti 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  No, but then I don't think that Google is a basket of goodwill. Quite the contrary, actually.

chj 14y ago

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

Loic 14y ago

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.

ezolotko 14y ago

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.

bobsy 14y ago

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.

xutopia 14y ago

He's so naive it is adorable.

roc 14y ago

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.