Comments

• gadget00 on August 5th, 2008 2:39 pm

  couldn’t agree more.

• Tom on August 5th, 2008 2:44 pm

  The reality is that the PC market is moving primarily toward a 64-bit platform. Adobe knows it, and that’s why CS4 is 64-bit only. Complaining about it is like complaining about the weather. It’s pointless.

  Regarding iPhone being a closed ecosystem, the issue is a bit more complicated than you think. I DO believe that you have it right that Apple prefers to own the entire product infrastructure (platform, apps, etc) and, given a choice, they will almost always opt toward locking out competitors. That is certainly true in the case of iTunes, and Apple can get away with it because they own the entire product pipeline, from hardware to OS to the iTunes store.

  However, with the iPhone, Apple needed to partner with a mobile carrier, and AT&T reportedly INSISTED that iPhone be locked down as much as possible, according to some of my sources. I have little doubt that Apple would have done the same thing, if it had owned the mobile spectrum, as well.

  Nonetheless, there is something to be said about SIMPLY NOT CARING what Apple and AT&T and other locked-down vendors want. Unauthorized apps will be written for the iPhone. Apple will undoubtedly get into an arms race with ISVs (like it did with FairPlay), pushing updates which break unauthorized apps, and the real question remains: Is it worth the trouble trying to write apps for a platform owned by a vendor that doesn’t want your apps? Or, put another way, is it worth paying an Apple Toll to deploy your apps to the iPhone? I think the answer is … it depends on your needs, the benefits, etc.

  Microsoft has actually been a lot more open than Apple in this regard, and it shows. Sure, the Xbox 360 is locked down tighter than a tick on a hound dog, but not Windows Mobile. Microsoft goes out of its way to promote application development, provides excellent dev tools, and provides ways to market 3rd party products (see http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/catalog/cataloghome.aspx).

• micr0c0sm on August 5th, 2008 2:46 pm

  OpenMoko Freerunner?

• Ed Hartz on August 5th, 2008 2:47 pm

  Great Blog. I am with you. I cannot wait till Android is available. I hope the big companies suffer the way we have. I want to choose what I have on my phone. I also have a Palm TX and ready to give it up with no new operating system on the horizon.

• Shivanand on August 5th, 2008 3:58 pm

  Very true. Over the years, I have realized that although I appreciate Apple’s engineering, I hate, truly despise their business policies. I must confess, that I bought a MacBook (which I kept)and an Ipod touch (which I returned) for precisely the reasons that you have stated.

  What we really need is some company, that does exactly what Apple does, aka make closed systems, but be more developer friendly and stop policing the users. If today, some company releases a device that does nothing more than what the iPhone does, but allows for more open developer environment, I can bet that they would take a significant chunk of developers and users from Apple.

  Until that happens, Apple is not going to change the way it does business.

• Rocket on August 5th, 2008 4:45 pm

  Sad, boring argument. But more power to you, I guess.

• Paul Ellis on August 5th, 2008 5:07 pm

  @Tom,

  It sounds like you aren’t familiar with the Adobe 64-bit Mac problem. Apple surprised Adobe by not telling them that they weren’t going to make Carbon 64-bit as they had announced at the previous year’s WWDC. Consequently CS4 is going to be 32-bit on Mac only but 32 or 64-bit on Windows. Adobe has to migrate a ton of code over to Cocoa.

  For the official Adobe answer check this link out. Especially number two and three.

• Diego Viola on August 5th, 2008 6:46 pm

  I couldn’t agree more.

  Apple sucks, I will never buy any of their products.

  Here is another reason of why I will never buy, recommend or support anything of Apple:

  http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/14/1831236

• Olli on August 5th, 2008 8:53 pm

  Now I don’t agree with you. Would you explain why CS4 64-bit only for windows is Apple’s business decision?
  Now I know that Photoshop for the mac is written in carbon (hence the OS 9 legacy and so on) and Apple dropped 64-bit support from Carbon, but for a very good reason. And porting such a big application from carbon to coco will be a big work. Adobe has had time to make such a move for almost 10 years now and they haven’t still done it.

  And I can’t see what all the fuss is about App store being closed and no one can submit their apps in there.
  The Local bar is closed as well, you have to be 18 or over to get there and they can throw you out if they see that necessary.
  In the same way Apple is gate keeping app store out of harmful apps. (Well, they should be – There is an App called “I am rich”, which is $1000 and does nothing.)

  Looks like many has this obsession that everything apple makes is somehow bad – The company makes very risky decisions and mostly succeed and sometimes does not (like say, G4 Cube or iPod Hi-Fi).

• Paul Ellis on August 5th, 2008 9:09 pm

  @Olli,
  Maybe I need to reword my part on 64-bit CS4, but what I’m saying is that Windows will be the only platform with 64-bit. My problem with Apple on this is that they obviously didn’t communicate their decision to drop 64-bit Carbon (which had been publicly planned for some time) to Adobe in a reasonable way or time frame. It is ridiculous that Adobe found out about it the same day that I did.

  Consequently, Apple’s users pay the price since they’ll have to wait until CS5 for 64-bit. Meanwhile, I’ll be enjoying the advantages of 64-bit Photoshop on my Vista machine.

• Olli on August 5th, 2008 9:27 pm

  @Paul Ellis

  And how do you know that there wasn’t any discussion between Apple and Adobe about this topic? We can only assume that there have been none since the CS4 isn’t going to be 64-bit for the mac.

  And anyway the 64-bit advantages in speed wise are still very little.

  Apple has two major app collection still on the carbon: Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Suite (and even iTunes and Finder are still carbon). Though this decision about dropping 64-bit support from carbon was a big one, I still don’t think that was a wrong one.

• Paul Ellis on August 5th, 2008 10:08 pm

  @Olli
  We know there wasn’t because of the facts that were reported about this, and Apple didn’t deny it.

  Is it possible that Apple has ever done anything wrong?

• Bob Caswell on August 5th, 2008 11:26 pm

  Paul, you’re asking too much for Apple to be analyzed in the same way as any other company. It gets away with stuff for reasons that don’t work for other companies. Didn’t you get the memo?

• Byron on August 6th, 2008 3:11 am

  Paul, I guarentee you Apple asked Adobe more than once to port to Cocoa. Adobe doesn’t have the right to know anymore about Apple’s technology decisioons, which are important competitive strategic information than any other developer gets to know. Especially since Adobe has been working enimically against Apple for sometime. They are not a friend to Apple. They are a frenemy, much like Microsoft.

  In any case, Adobe didn’t listen to the Cocoa preaching. So, screw them! I’d rather have a stable 64 bit in Cocoa than keep dragging the Carbon legacy dinosaur.

• Chris Lees on August 6th, 2008 4:01 am

  Apple asked Adobe to port to Cocoa? Okay then, what are the business advantages to Adobe? None. Why should they do it? Especially since Adobe has had to port from m68k to PPC then to OS X (Carbon) then to ia32… and now they want them to port to both Carbon AND ia64 simultaneously! What platform jump is Apple going to do next, and how much will it cost Adobe to follow them? How much will it cost production houses to upgrade to new versions of CS Suite to get support for the latest and greatest arch?

  And it’s not just a case of “They have to port Photoshop to two new platforms”. You’ll probably find that most of their other software is full of Carbon too.

  @Byron: Photoshop is stable in Carbon, so it’s not a case of “I’d rather have a stable 64-bit in Cocoa”.

• sheamus on August 6th, 2008 5:55 am

  I recently bought a Centro. Why? Cheap. Build quality is good, but it is cheaper than a blackberry or a iphone. But the number one reason I chose a palm device, is that it is not crippled without a data plan. I too thought about waiting for android, but I know that Android will have the same issue of being crippled, without a data plan.

  I have no problem with the way UI of Palm OS. I find in very functional, and easier to use and navigate than Symbian, and I wouldn’t touch WM with a 10ft pole.

  ~S

• Blad_Rnr on August 6th, 2008 6:28 am

  Paul,
  You can dislike Apple all you want. But your arguments are a little limp, IMHO.

  Apple did approach Verizon about the iPhone. This is public knowledge. They didn’t want to go with it because Apple wanted to dictate the terms. Unlike Verizon who wants to dictate to the phone manufacturers all the time. Verizon (like ATT, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc) decides what features work and don’t work on the phones they put on their network. ATT decided to take a chance. And it looks like a great one. Do you think, knowing what they know now, that Verizon wouldn’t have wanted a 2nd chance at the iPhone? Verizon dissed Apple. Plain and simple.

  The Adobe issue is their problem. Yes, Apple changes things quite often in order to stay competitive. Apple is the small player in the OS market, They have to change. I understand Adobe’s position. But I have read many articles on Ars Technica about 64-bit, and the bottom-line is that 64-bit does not increase speed as much as it takes advantage of more memory. So 16 GBs on a Mac Pro isn’t enough for you?

  Lastly, the MobileMe issue has been addressed publicly. Companies aren’t perfect. If you don’t or didn’t have a .Mac account then what is it to you? Do you think Apple purposely dropped the ball on MobileMe?

  I hear these kind of comments all the time by a tiny percentage of the tech community. They have to have everything their way or it sucks. NO company can make things freely available AND control the quality of the experience. Linux is the best platform for people like you, but obviously it isn’t for everyone. I don’t have time to write the software for a driver for a video card that I want to use (if one did not exist). Most Mac users would rather give up the “open platform” you speak of in order to have greater ease of use and functionality. So that makes Apple a bad company?

  Apple makes a great phone (I have one) and it looks like many millions of others agree. Sorry you don’t think 1000 apps (and growing; many of which are free) is enough for you.

• eugene on August 6th, 2008 6:32 am

  ”
  In the same way Apple is gate keeping app store out of harmful apps. (Well, they should be – There is an App called “I am rich”, which is $1000 and does nothing.)”

  Which means they are legally responsible for copyright infringements or damage to the iPhone caused by a third party. Apple is better off, legally, only allowing certain application on the iPhone and allowed freetards get their hands on any application from somewhere else. An unsigned and untested application can cause any amount of damage on the iPhone, of course, ( since it runs as root) so there would be even more fretard whining then. So I suppose they should stay where they are now – jail the phone at your own risk, fretards. They might say.

  “has had to port from m68k to PPC then to OS X (Carbon) then to ia32… ”

  Most of that is recompiling. Unless adobe writes shite code. Which they do. The port to Cocoa is far more significant, of course, but there are other ways besides Carbon to write a C based application in OS X and have been for a long time – core foundation ( which includes graphic libraries). In many cases Carbons just sits on top of these libraries. The old school Adobe programmers couldnt be assed.

  Anyw linux-heads, this has to said: no one is really gunning for your custom. No business model ever suceeds on giving away free stuff to funny looking bearded chaps ( well, maybe the bead industry).

  You want free software, and to bang around making your own computers from straw and carrots so be it, but your voice – as shrill as it is on the interwab – is justly ignored in the boardroom.

• Brando on August 6th, 2008 6:45 am

  @Paul Ellis: you say that iPhone is a locked platform. Why? You can still rip a cd or buy an iTunes plus track. And here in Italy (but in other countries too) you can buy an unlocked iPhone.
  And if you don’t like the App.Store, be prepared to see Microsoft and Nokia to follow Apple in this way of distribution.

  For the Adobe Carbon vs. Cocoa.
  Carbon was an API set to simplify the porting of existing applications to OS X, as Objective C (Cocoa) is different from C – C++.
  It was clear from the beginning that Carbon would be dropped sooner or later. Now Apple decided to drop 64 bit support and Adobe is not ready for the switch. Of course, Apple could have say before to Adobe that it would drop 64 bit support in Carbon but at the same time Adobe would have better switch to Cocoa long time ago.
  So, the next OS X will be Intel only, Cocoa 64bit and Adobe will release CS4 Carbon 32bit ppc and intel and later CS5 64bit Cocoa, probably Intel only.
  It’s not so bad in my opinion.

• Brad on August 6th, 2008 6:54 am

  Open is not necessarily better. You folks always leave out capitalism. Capitalism is the driving force behind innovation and once you remove that you get… for the most part… crap. Apple has done a fantastic Job of making my daily experience better on the computer and better on the phone than on any other device that I have tried. I did the linux thing for a while and quickly learned that the Applications don’t all work together correctly. There was not a single suite of Applications that worked like the ilife suite… just one example… Apple really seems to get it. The iPhone is another great example and BTW when android hits you who are waiting will be greatly disappointed. They too will have an app store and you will need to put up with each hardware manufacturer running android on their platform. Pretty much what we get from Microsoft today. I switched to Apple a little over a year ago and am not planning on looking back.

• ardaz on August 6th, 2008 7:26 am

  pseudosavant is about right for you Paul with this piece and some of the posts above. ‘Understanding why’ in the real world is hard I know but it’s mostly down to economic reasons and a bit of lateral thinking would offer food for thought and some healthy realism. You might not like what you find out but it might at least give you pause for thought.
  Apple is not Microsoft where they can spend some $$ and be assured of their OEMs taking up the offering and bringing products to market. New ventures for Apple are all risky, in a way that MS has never had to experience in the last 25 years. For an Apple product to be a runaway success, it not only has to do the job intended, it has to do it better than anything else on the market else the countless applebashing naysayers will have a field day. Even with a huge success – say, the iPod, critics will strive to bring it down by one means or another, with lies, disinformation and plain ‘ole prejudice. Sometimes it’s just plain sloppy reporting but mainly it’s straight anti-Apple. As though the world as we know it is constantly threatened by this upstart company. Apple, of course, knows that ‘there’s no such thing as bad publicity when you are a minnow’ – it all helps to keep the name up front. But to read the comments on many blogs and from forum posters, you would think Apple deliberately plotted the demise of the rest of the universe!!.
  C’mon, they are just doing what any responsible company does for it’s employers and investors; they are increasing the value of said company. Ask any industry leader how to ensure success when the rest of the world is gunning for your demise… you control as much of the product, it’s manufacture, distribution and marketing as you can to ensure that it works as planned. The less you control, the more problems there will be and more bad press you will have to spend time and money overcoming.
  Another real world example:
  I work for a pan EU manufacturer of commercial vehicles. We produce a reference design chassis and drivetrain complete with a range of engines that we license to several other companies. They can build anything on those ‘beds’ so long as it falls within very strict structural, dimensional and weight limits. Even the equipment fitted inside the vehicles is similarly controlled. That way, we know we are relatively safe from getting our asses chewed off in court, should accidents occur and that our price advantage is maintained. We control the whole platform if you like. In essence, we can only be sure of the reliability that the consumers need, if we control the whole process and sales are the bottom line.
  I can’t imagine any advantage to the consumer if we or Apple were to lose that control. To bitch about ‘closed’ or ‘proprietary’ is to not understand the immense financial risks that a company has to take when bringing any new product to market in terms of investment, manpower and company reputation.
  Just where those complaining that Apple is ‘stopping them from doing this or that’ and Apple doesn’t ‘support this or that’ seem to have problems dealing with the real world. If that is your only criteria for success then linux and cobbling-together’ solutions will forever be your reward.
  … and do tell me – where is the innovation in that sphere? Android? not likely any time soon without ANY major carrier’s support. Will they be likely to provide all the ‘I wants’ of this world… not a chance. The carriers are as likely to give up their jealously controlled revenue streams as Elvis will invade the moon.

• Mark Kent on August 7th, 2008 3:05 am

  ardaz,
  Take a very close look at the iPhone deal, and you’ll see that Apple has already grabbed an extremely large chunk of the carrier’s revenue stream.

  Elvis isn’t on the moon yet, but I’m checking…

  Ta,

  Mark

• sparrow on August 13th, 2008 3:47 pm

  Ardaz, what the heck are you talking about “Apple is not Microsoft where they can spend some $$ and be assured of their OEMs taking up the offering and bringing products to market.”

  The iPhone and all the other Apple products that this post is referring to are end user product not OEMs, which totally invalidates your argument. Also, Apple is no longer the underdog startup that you fantasize about. That’s right.. it’s now a big evil money making corporation that lights cigars with billion dollar bills. Most of the people who buy Apple do so primarily because it has the name Apple on it. From your bitter post I assume that last statement also applies to you.

  I am not arguing with Apples way of doing business, it has it’s place for geeks who still want to pretend that they’re cool. It just doesn’t appeal to most geeks who have accepted themselves for who they are.

Leave a Reply