Clearly Microsoft and Apple are different. I have been watching just how "different" Apple has been with iPhoneOS and surrounding ecosystem over the last 3 years, and I don't like it one bit. Apple's desire to have complete 100% control over iPhone ecosystem.. including the application content and the types of applications and services that developers can put out.. Well, that goes too far in my book. As a consumer, I just don't want to be a part of that.. I do not need a control freak corporation with a control freak CEO tell me what I can or can't do with the mobile devices that I own. So I will happily continue using Apple's MacOS based products (as long as MacOS remains open), but I am done with iPhoneOS based products.
Yet this model has not only been the most successful of its kind, the envy of the rest of the industry, it's also the most consumer-centric model. People actually *like* Apple's "walled garden" approach. Developers are flocking to it, major players in the industry have gotten behind it (and gotten quite a profit from it), and publishers seem to like it as well.
If you're going to have an opinion, have it, but when it's clearly separate from reality, then acknowledge that as well. This "tight control" that Apple exercises is and has been the cornerstone of their entire operation for years now. It's just being applied to more and more products as Apple branches out.
The App Store is wildly successful. The "Apple Way" has changed the mobile landscape, consumers and developers alike can't get enough of it.
As long as the products are great and we have a good time with them - with something in it for consumers and developers alike, Apple's CEO can be as much of a "control freak" as he likes. In fact, given the User Experience of Apple products,
I fully support his "control freak" behaviour. It works like a charm. If consumers and developers don't like it, there are other choices and they can leave. Not many have left. If anything, more are joining the ranks, either developing for Apple devices or opening up their wallets to buy them. Apple is the runaway success story of or generation, bar none. It didn't happen by accident.
A company that is selling more of everything, and breaking their own records quarter after quarter (in a recession!) is clearly doing something right, especially in the presence of lower-cost alternatives that are being promoted heavily.
Absolutely, vote with your wallet. Just don't moan around here when Apple yet again posts record sales for nearly all of its products for another successive quarter.
As for 1984 . . . Ballmer's face would fit perfectly on the screen, even with such a bulbous head. Over 90% of the world's PCs run some version Winblows (often one of the more awful ones) on generic boxes. And MS doesn't care what fly-by-night box-assmbler takes it. How very IBM.
The only "Big Brother" here is your government. They are a far greater cause for concern than a tech company. And last I checked, most of that government is powered by Wintel. Enjoy.
Speaking of which, here's the latest from "Big Brother" Microsoft:
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent...rney_suggests_net_tax_to_clean_computers.html
Microsoft's Charney Suggests 'Net Tax to Clean Computers
"I actually think the health care model ... might be an interesting way to think about the problem," Charney said. With medical diseases, there are education programs, but there are also social programs to inspect people and quarantine the sick.
This model could work to fight computer viruses too, he said. When a computer user allows malware to run on his computer, "you're not just accepting it for yourself, you're contaminating everyone around you," he said.
The idea that Internet service providers might somehow step up in the fight against malware is not new. The problem, however, is cost.
Customer calls already eat into service provider profits. Adding quarantine and malware-fixing costs to that would be prohibitive, said Danny McPherson, chief research officer with Arbor Networks, via instant message. "They have no incentive to do anything today."
So who would foot the bill? "Maybe markets will make it work," Charney said. But an Internet usage tax might be the way to go. "You could say it's a public safety issue and do it with general taxation," he said.
According to Microsoft, there are 3.8 million infected botnet computers worldwide, 1 million of which are in the U.S. They are used to steal sensitive information and send spam, and were a launching point for 190,000 distributed denial-of-service attacks in 2008.
's?
