Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Jul 2009 21:11 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Earlier this year, it became known that the Palm Pre, engineered by a number of ex-Apple engineers, could interface with Apple's iTunes as if it was an iPod. Everybody more or less expected Apple to block the Pre from syncing with iTunes, but I don't think any of us had anticipated just how forthright Apple would be about it.
Permalink for comment 373697
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Is it just me or...
by itanic on Thu 16th Jul 2009 15:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Is it just me or..."
Member since:

I used them as examples of them embracing open standards but hate seems to blind you of that fact.

By embracing, you mean (with the exception of quicktime) using technologies that were developed by other companies to their own benefit? Sure. You honestly think they deserve kudos from the open source community for that? What, realistically (as in financially feasible), would they have done as an alternative?

What the bloody hell are you going on about; Apple single handily turned KHTML from virtually an unknown into something that is now used by not only Apple but Google, Adobe, Nokia and numerous other small opensource projects. That alone is worth its weight in gold.

KHTML was a working, usable part of the KDE project before Apple had any involvement with it. It's not as if it wouldn't exist today if Apple had never decided to base Safari on it. If Apple were really interested in contributing back, they wouldn't have forked it. Also, in case you don't recall, Apple's contributions back were virtually unusable, and KDE had to call them out for them to start playing ball.

KHTML has seen improvements due to Apple's involvement, but there's no question that it would still exist today in a similar form without Apple.

That doesn't include the massive contributions made back to GNU GCC project including the work done with Objective-C++, PowerPC improvements, Objective-C 2.0 improvements, the embracing and investment in LLVM/Clang, SQLite, Xorg, Freetype, libxml, libxsl, opencl, samba, python, ruby, expat, then there are improvements provided by compatibility between Mac and Windows under the BSD licence.

I'm sure there are a lot more things they have contributed back to which I can't remember - what ever the case maybe, you're on a damn unstable turf when you start complaining about things with little to back up your accusations.

The bulk of the GCC work was for PowerPC support. Since they distributed GCC, they were legally compelled to give the changes back. Teeny bit of kudos there.

As for LLVM/Clang, they hired one of the project's main developers. There are also several other developers working on the project that aren't in Apple's employ.
As with KHTML, the project existed long beforehand. They are the main sponsor, and contribute a significant amount of code, so they do get kudos. I don't believe their contributions sum up to anywhere near the majority of the code however.

As for the other projects, a handful of minor patches doesn't make them a major contributor.

So, out of all the projects mentioned, only for three can they really be considered major contributors, and for two of those three they are under legal obligation (*GPL). Frankly, given the amount of open source Apple uses, this is marginally above bare minimum.

The fact remains that Apple has opened up maybe 1 project (Quicktime), and started 0 of the others. Compare this to Sun, who have contributed OpenSolaris, OpenOffice, VirtualBox, MySQL, and finally Java. These are whole projects, which are still almost entirely developed by Sun.

In terms of open source contributions, can you honestly say Apple is more like Sun than Microsoft?

Reply Parent Score: 0