Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 31st Jul 2009 12:13 UTC
Microsoft With Apple doing really, really well, and with Microsoft having its first sets of negative figures since the company's founding, Microsoft CEO points his arrows towards Cupertino. In a talk to members of the press and analyst community, Ballmer talked about Microsoft vs. Apple.
Thread beginning with comment 376337
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
middleware
Member since:
2006-05-11

There is no such thing as "OS X market". If you look backward, the degree how Apple lock down users by OS X is much less how Sun locked down users by Solaris. And what would happen? Solaris is replaced by Linux. It is nonsense to let Sun open its Solaris market because 1) it is not a market by single product, 2) no one was actually locked down and people move to Linux easily. To defeat Solaris or to defeat OS X, you just choose another product or make a better alternative. If there is still no better alternative, that's it! If there is still no better alternative and you can't prove it is Apple's any conspiracy to prevent it from appearing, that's it! Nothing to complain. You can't ask for a product to be open or invite competition by simple say "oh, there still no better alternative".

If Apple one day make Mac poor in user experience, user will be just ten times easier to move to other OS than how easy Solaris users moved to Linux. People just choose their product by quality and no one have right to enforce a good product to be open, though I think a product is both open and good is really attractive.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

I think you're wrong.

I think sbergman27 meant competitors to Apple who can build OSX systems when he said the OSX market.

Also, how did Sun lock down Solaris customers more than Apple? By limiting their choice in hardware?
There are still a number of system vendors that ship Sparc-based systems. Fujitsu has made servers for a while. Tadpole still makes laptops. Other companies sell competing hardware (though, many use Sun's own chips). Solaris has also run on x86 for a while. That means several different vendors to choose from to run Solaris.

Or, did you mean tying customers to Solaris by making it hard for software to be ported to competing architectures? It's no different from any other Unix, with variations on mostly standard APIs.

This type of lock-in seems less so with Apple, but mostly because it's easy to build generic Unix stuff on OSX. Apple does use a lot of popular free software instead of rolling their own (Which the Unix vendors were already doing before the free versions were good). That does make porting easier. However, OSX lock-in is nearly at the Windows level if you don't want to use X-Windows to provide GUI.

Reply Parent Score: 1

middleware Member since:
2006-05-11

I think sbergman27 meant competitors to Apple who can build OSX systems when he said the OSX market.


I knew what sbergman27 meant and I just think it is an unnecessary requirement for competition. As long as a vendor does not prevent other vendor's shipping better alternative to its product, it should not be forced to split its product apart and invite its competitor to replace any part freely.

If AutoDesk ships a great 3D rendering software, and you think its UI is not-so-good, do you think AutoDesk must release its interface between the 3D engine and the UI and invite other competitor to build UI on top of it?

Also, how did Sun lock down Solaris customers more than Apple? By limiting their choice in hardware?
There are still a number of system vendors that ship Sparc-based systems. Fujitsu has made servers for a while. Tadpole still makes laptops. Other companies sell competing hardware (though, many use Sun's own chips). Solaris has also run on x86 for a while. That means several different vendors to choose from to run Solaris.


The support to x86 is a result from its user moving to Linux. I didn't find using Solaris on any non-Sun platform. Maybe using a non-Sun Sparc system is legal only nominally, according to my experience in Telecom for 6 years.

Or, did you mean tying customers to Solaris by making it hard for software to be ported to competing architectures? It's no different from any other Unix, with variations on mostly standard APIs.

This type of lock-in seems less so with Apple, but mostly because it's easy to build generic Unix stuff on OSX. Apple does use a lot of popular free software instead of rolling their own (Which the Unix vendors were already doing before the free versions were good). That does make porting easier. However, OSX lock-in is nearly at the Windows level if you don't want to use X-Windows to provide GUI.


Maybe it's easy to porting from Solaris. But, 1) it's as easy to port non-UI product on Mac as other UNIX system. 2) Many Mac applications have already been cross-platform. So at this point, the degree of how porting is easy or difficult is irrelevant to how easy user can migrate to or away from OS X.

Actually, I have been lock-in to using Windows, but never by Windows itself. I was locked by .doc file format, and IE-only Web site, and Windows-only Active Directory protocol. If there was not those things, the binding of IE to Windows would have been a non-problem because people could replace the whole at any time instead of cry and shout Microsoft to cut off the binding. And the reason why it is much easier people nowadays to move away from Windows than it was 3 years before is the use of more open standard (HTML, PDF, .doc support become better on OS X). I see nothing on OS X similar to that by which people be locked on Windows. I can move away from OS X at any time I want, and I don't want now because it still the best to me.

Reply Parent Score: 1