Tor and Carl, I appreciate your point about the fact that MS has a history of ethically questionable business practices, and I totally agree that, as far as people that are interested in free (as in speech) and open software are concerned, they're on parole.
But my main point is that the fact that Microsoft has done *worse* things in the past doesn't mean that we should give other companies a pass because they do bad things today. The ethical standard which we employ for open software and development shouldn't use Microsoft's behaviour as a baseline, and the fact that Redmond has, historically at least, been the biggest sinner, doesn't mean the standard shouldn't apply to other companies. And as for Apple being much better or in a different league than Microsoft: in terms of historical record, yes, definitely, but I have severe doubts as to whether Apple would have behaved differently than Microsoft if it had been faced with some of the choices MS faced from the position they were in. In fact, I have good reason to believe it would have acted very similarly, as it has on several occasions already. A lot of the bullying and shady deals that MS engaged in were only possible because of their position as near (or actual) monopolists. Once upon a time, MS was a fledgling company trying to make it in world that was dominated by IBM. Somehow, they got from that point to a position where they were market leader for PC operating systems and office productivity software. To claim that this was solely based on shady deals and subterfuge is, I think you'll agree, ridiculous. The software market isn't, and has never been, that broken. MS had to actually build a position of dominance in the traditional manner (have people and companies voluntarily buy your stuff), and then went on to abuse that position in several ways. Much like Apple has done with the Iphone. If Apple has not engaged in the blatant FUD and anticompetitive behaviour that MS has, it's only because, historically, they haven't been in a position to do so as effectively (with the exception of some instances, like Steve Jobs killing off the Apple clone business). And now that they are in such a position, with the Iphone for instance, they come up with things like the newest Iphone OS SDK license (see http://theflashblog.com/?p=1888 for a taste of some the reactions). For my money, that license written in as much bad faith as anything Redmond has ever done. And while it is legal, it should send shivers down the spine of every body who believes that open software and open platforms are the best way to move this industry forward. And it's true that licenses aren't very exciting, until they become a very serious detriment to innovation and openness, as is now clearly the case with the Iphone SDK language. Regards, Maarten On Apr 9, 7:42 pm, carl <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm still in the camp with Tor. > > I think historically Microsoft has built its business on questionable > ethics, going back almost 30 years. Selling mediocre products in > monopoly-controlled markets. Forcing OEMs to bundle Windows. etc. > Maybe they are getting better, but they now have the burden to prove > that they can "play nice". At least to me I am once or more bitten. > > Apple on the other hand has mostly tried to compete by making > innovative products with excellent user experience. They gained large > market share with the iPod and iPhone with good products, not with > shady deals. But I do agree now that they are on a slippery slope with > some of their aggressive lock-in tactics. I'll keep using their > products as long as they make my life easier. But, who knows, I may > end up with an Android phone next, and use it along side my MacBook > Pro and iPad :) > > On Apr 9, 5:07 am, zeevb <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Apr 9, 1:44 am, Tor Norbye <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I know that Apple is very unpopular right now for having a closed > > > garden, and I think we all wish things were more open. But that's not > > > the same as the things we've seen from Microsoft in the past > > > You may be right but it seems that Apple is heading in that direction > > and their "closed garden" is full of thorns. > > The first one, which I think the Posse mentioned in the past > > (regarding the iPhone) is the banning of Java from the iPhone OS. I > > recall that in the early days of the iPhone you had some hopes > > (especially Dick) that Java support will arrive - but it didn't. Then > > you mentioned that it may arrive by cross compilation but now with the > > release of the iPhone OS 4 SDK Apple is banning any cross compilation > > so there will be no Java (or any other language besides Objective-C, C > > and C++). I expected that the JAVA Posse will show a bit more > > criticism for a company banning the use of the Java language on its > > platform. > > > Second - the app store approval process - Dick mentioned the ban of > > Google Voice which was clearly done for non-technical reasons. As I > > mantioned before in this group, Paul Graham has a well written blog > > post on this -http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html > > > Third - it seems that their HTC patent suite is part of FUD tactics > > against Android. Wil Shipley, in an open letter to Steve Jobs > > regarding the HTC litigation wrote: > > "You’ve famously taken and built on ideas from your competitors, > > as have I, as we should, as great artists do. Why is what HTC has done > > worse? Whether an idea was patented doesn’t change the morality of > > copying it, it only changes the ability to sue. […] > > If Apple becomes a company that uses its might to quash > > competition instead of using its brains, it’s going to find the > > brainiest people will slowly stop working there. You know this, you > > watched it happen at Microsoft." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
