5 ms·

It's possible Apple and Microsoft are pursuing the same goal. But I don't think Apple has that in mind. iOS devices are jailed. OS X devices are relatively ope

by sounds 14y ago

It's possible Apple and Microsoft are pursuing the same goal. But I don't think Apple has that in mind. iOS devices are jailed. OS X devices are relatively open. When Microsoft announced UEFI Secure Boot, the first articles were about desktops. A "surprise" announcement later about ARM devices being locked and not unlockable should be the proof of what Microsoft wants. When Apple introduced locked software on the iPod Nano, it was ostensibly to prevent clone makers. Apple can of course always betray their user base, but they haven't done it yet. Cut them some slack.

drats 14y ago
Why should we cut a publicly traded legal entity notorious for lying about their inventions and being extremely litigious any slack? Have you seen how ridiculous their lawsuits over the Samsung stuff are? It's quite obvious they are prepared to resort to any filthy tricks to stop competitors. They also have a long history of screwing people who develop software for their "ecosystem", most recently in the myriad app store horror stories. Why should anyone believe a single word Apple says?
- sounds 14y ago
  I'll try to respond logically, but I'm not motivated to engage in a debate with you. This will, therefore, be my last response to you after which I plan on ignoring anything you post. My post doesn't quote anything Apple said. I am reasoning solely from their actions. I don't use a Mac - I think they're overpriced and the latest OS versions haven't introduced anything of interest to me. I admit, their hardware is beautiful, but I am frustrated by the lack of high-resolution screens anywhere else in the industry and I intend to vote with my wallet. In the meantime, feel free to review my comment history. I have tried to contribute links to http://coreboot.org http://coreboot.org as often as possible. I'm never going to give up the ability to compile my OS from source, which means I won't need an apple laptop. You can pry the kernel source code from my hands when I'm dead. The only "slack" I propose we give apple is to not claim they are backing Microsoft's Trusted Computing initiative without evidence. Essentially, my argument is exactly the same as yours: why should we claim something about apple that is not backed by evidence?
ralfn 14y ago
Microsoft and Apple have the same plan to push their walled gardens: Make "open" into an expensive niche for professionals. The low-end and mid-range of the market will be running iOS or WinRT, on ARM hardware. The professionals and, in the case of MS, corperate users will run OSX and Win8PRo, on X86 based chipsets. The ability to side-load will cost you at least 999 dollars for Apple ( price of cheapest OSX device ), and something around 800 dollars for a win8pro/x86 device. The result will be, that those configurations wont be targetted for consumer stuff. This effectively kills of alternative marketplaces for consumer oriented products. Like, say, Steam!
orangecat 14y ago
iOS devices are jailed. OS X devices are relatively open. Yes, and Apple has publicly said that iOS is for the general public, while full-featured PCs will become "trucks" only for specialized usages. When Apple introduced locked software on the iPod Nano, it was ostensibly to prevent clone makers. What does forbidding users from running software of their choice have to do with preventing clone makers?

by sounds 14y ago

drats 14y ago

Why should we cut a publicly traded legal entity notorious for lying about their inventions and being extremely litigious any slack? Have you seen how ridiculous their lawsuits over the Samsung stuff are? It's quite obvious they are prepared to resort to any filthy tricks to stop competitors. They also have a long history of screwing people who develop software for their "ecosystem", most recently in the myriad app store horror stories. Why should anyone believe a single word Apple says?

sounds 14y ago
I'll try to respond logically, but I'm not motivated to engage in a debate with you. This will, therefore, be my last response to you after which I plan on ignoring anything you post. My post doesn't quote anything Apple said. I am reasoning solely from their actions. I don't use a Mac - I think they're overpriced and the latest OS versions haven't introduced anything of interest to me. I admit, their hardware is beautiful, but I am frustrated by the lack of high-resolution screens anywhere else in the industry and I intend to vote with my wallet. In the meantime, feel free to review my comment history. I have tried to contribute links to http://coreboot.org http://coreboot.org as often as possible. I'm never going to give up the ability to compile my OS from source, which means I won't need an apple laptop. You can pry the kernel source code from my hands when I'm dead. The only "slack" I propose we give apple is to not claim they are backing Microsoft's Trusted Computing initiative without evidence. Essentially, my argument is exactly the same as yours: why should we claim something about apple that is not backed by evidence?

ralfn 14y ago

Microsoft and Apple have the same plan to push their walled gardens: Make "open" into an expensive niche for professionals. The low-end and mid-range of the market will be running iOS or WinRT, on ARM hardware. The professionals and, in the case of MS, corperate users will run OSX and Win8PRo, on X86 based chipsets. The ability to side-load will cost you at least 999 dollars for Apple ( price of cheapest OSX device ), and something around 800 dollars for a win8pro/x86 device. The result will be, that those configurations wont be targetted for consumer stuff. This effectively kills of alternative marketplaces for consumer oriented products. Like, say, Steam!

orangecat 14y ago

iOS devices are jailed. OS X devices are relatively open. Yes, and Apple has publicly said that iOS is for the general public, while full-featured PCs will become "trucks" only for specialized usages. When Apple introduced locked software on the iPod Nano, it was ostensibly to prevent clone makers. What does forbidding users from running software of their choice have to do with preventing clone makers?