Some of us don't cut Apple any more slack. I am rather tired of the free pass they seem to get from others. They are probably worse than MS in terms of vendor lock-in but just don't have a large enough market share to bully people around.
?
In the past couple years they created a cross platform multi-vendor open standard for GPU computing, they took a big risk by launching the iPhone without support for flash and have continued to be basically the only major company giving adobe any pressure to improve its shit-tastic platform, they have (granted extremely slowly) improved their iPhone development program from basically non-existant to acceptable in a sadistic way (and if the trend continues it might actually be good within a year or two), they mostly got rid of DRM from iTunes, and most recently they opened up their SDK for making the iTunes LP things (which will likely be of importance when (if ever) the iTablet/iSlate comes out).
The only two (somewhat related) things Apple does that I would classify as vendor lock-in are 1: XCode, and therefore OS X, is required for iPhone development, and 2: You need a Mac to run OS X. I would consider these to be more of an issue if Apple preemptively put a stop to #2 through activation checks or some WGA-esque program, but they don't. As long as you aren't going around selling preinstalled copies of OS X on non-Apple hardware, Apple could seemingly care less.
Microsoft in recent history hasn't been bad either, they still have WGA, and there was the whole OOXML thing, but other than those two things I can't think of anything they have done that has caused an e-uproar. Personally I would put the two (Apple and MS) roughly equal to each other in terms of Evil.
What about the fact that they actively sabotage efforts to make the iPod work with music library managers other than iTunes, or to make iTunes work with MP3 players other than the iPod?
Frankly, I would be very surprised if Apple cared at all about things like gtkpod working or not. There is some simplification of effort involved when Apple assumes that iTunes and iPod are an integrated system that doesn't need to talk to anything else, and if you don't want to buy into that ecosystem there are tons of viable competitors. Deliberately positioning your products as a closed system is fine. Apple has better things to do than worry about backwards compatibility with iTunes/iPod external API's.
No, it isn't. "Good user experience" is a just a fancy way of saying "people enjoy using it". Even if you can't fully articulate a rationale, you probably have a concrete idea about whether you enjoy or don't enjoy using a thing. A sharp knife has a better user experience than a dull knife. A cardboard box has a better user experience than plastic clamshells. It may not a thing you can point to, but the meaning is pretty easy to nail down, unlike "Freedom".
* to each his own, I say.*
You're not actually saying anything though. Of course people value different things, but unless you have some idea of what those things are, you may as well be talking nonsense, because you can't draw any sensible judgement on the value of an abstract concept over something concrete.
I think this is important--and not just something to dismiss with "to each his own"--because nebulous terms like "Freedom" are often used to mask actual concrete demands like the legal right to modify and distribute someone else's work. "Freedom" is an idea I can get behind, but when it's code for something that I'm not so sure I agree with, then there's a problem with people using the two interchangeably.
the winner is the guy who serves both A^B not AxorB
But that guy competes with the guy who serves A^C, and the guy who serves B^C, etc. You cannot possibly appeal to every possible demand, which is why we have competition.
But user experience is nebulous. The examples you give are obvious in the choice in which is better or worse, but, for example, I can't stand the blackberry interface because the fonts are ugly. now, someone who isn't a typography snob won't care. For me it has a poor user experience, but for others it does not.
> You're not actually saying anything though. Of course people value different things, but unless you have some idea of what those things are, you may as well be talking nonsense, because you can't draw any sensible judgement on the value of an abstract concept over something concrete.
What I am saying is that there is no accounting for taste. That a universal one-size-fits all judgment cannot be made.
> But that guy competes with the guy who serves A^C, and the guy who serves B^C, etc. You cannot possibly appeal to every possible demand, which is why we have competition.
I don't understand your point here. Clearly the winner is he who can satisfy A^B^C, and while perfection is an impossible goal, as entrepreneurs, we should strive to make as many happy customers as possible, given our constraints.
My point boils down to two things:
1) as users of phones, we shouldn't get all bent out of shape in determining which is the best phone. It's fun & we tend to want to justify our own purchases & there is a sort of rooting-for-our-team aspect to it, but in the end it's pointless. some people like the nebulous concept of "freedom", while others like the nebulous concept of "slick".
2) as entrepreneurs, it's silly to pick sides based on what we want out of a phone as a user. instead, things like whether or not a market exists so that you can make money or whether or not the device has the necessary capabilities to support your idea should drive the decision. Our own biases and preferences as users should be secondary.
That is a concrete thing. You can (and did) actually point to that as a reason for not liking the thing. You cannot point to "Freedom."
That a universal one-size-fits all judgment cannot be made.
Yes, and? That's obvious, and I said the same thing myself. What isn't obvious is what you mean with a term like "Freedom", which is why I bothered to point out that it was nebulous. Clearly you're not making a judgement based on "Freedom", which is abstract, but some actual thing or things which that codes for. So why speak in code?
Clearly the winner is he who can satisfy A^B^C
...I give up.
some people like the nebulous concept of "freedom", while others like the nebulous concept of "slick".
This is intellectual laziness in action. I hope that you will realize that someday, and I'm sorry to have wasted your time and mine on this thread.
Whether the user experience is worth giving up the ability to mix and match components can be measured easily: consider the value of each possible combination of components, and if the Apple combination has more value than other possible combinations, then it's worth it.
What I want as a creator is the freedom to design and build things the way I want to, and what I want as a customer is the freedom to buy and use products that are built from any number of design philosophies. If your design philosophy is so much better, let's see a combination of products built by that philosophy by as many vendors as you'd like that I'd prefer to my MacBook and iPhone. As it stands, Apple's design philosophy has made available to me a better product than I'd be able to buy otherwise. I'm not going to complain. They seem to know what they're doing better than their competitors, and I'm not fucking with that based on some damned ideology. Whether you brand that ideology with the name "Freedom" or "Puppies and Rainbows" or even "Eternal Bliss", it's just demagoguery.
Monopolies are the real problem. Apple can go have it's little slice of the cellphone market for all I care. Google is getting monopolistically scary though.
Aren't monopolies the logical conclusion of vendor lock-in that is allowed to flourish? By your logic, monopolies are even better for developers because they they REALLY never have to worry about interoperability.