Not the 1984 that we want

Imagine a world where where:

  • You can only use M$-approved software on your computer.
  • You can only write in a M$-approved software-language.
  • You can only install software on your computer that you purchased at M$’s store, and doing otherwise voids your warranty.
  • If you are creating a program that “ridicules public figures”, then M$ will censor it.
  • If you are a programmer, then M$ will take a cut of all of your software sales, except for the software that is installed on a computer that has already been altered in a warranty-violating-way.
  • Programmers are not allowed to use any “cross-platform” tools. Your program will only run on M$’s computers, or you will have to write it again from scratch.
  • M$ will dictate your mobile phone carrier.

Now replace “M$” with “Apple” and “computer” with “device” and you have exactly where Apple started-out with the iPhone. This behavior would be illegal if Apple dominated a market: they don’t. Microsoft got in trouble for giving volume discounts to computer-manufacturers, and bundling IE with Windows. Compare that to Apple’s list above. (Still not sure about the above? Read Daniel Lyons’ article for more information.)

Vic Gundotra: “If we did not act, we faced a draconian future where one man, one company, one carrier would be our future.”

Vic Gundotra: "If we did not act, we faced a draconian future where one man, one company, one carrier would be our future."
I don’t know where this image comes from, but it says Gizmodo on it, so it is linked to Hopefully Gizmodo won’t mind.”

For-sure my problem here is 100% with the actions of the company, and not with the product itself. My friend brought an iPod with him when he came to visit us a few years ago. We watched TV shows on it, and it was really cool. I asked my manager (at my-last-position) for an Apple OSX box if one was available, because putting that UI on a *NIX machine is really cool, and I worked at a Mac lab while in college, and I ran a Mac emulator on my Amiga, and, I think that the iPad is a good choice for non-technical folks. My problem is not with the product itself.

But Apple’s choices are an attack on computer programmers. In some cases programmers spent incredible time-and-money creating products, only to have Apple say, “no you cannot sell your product for use on our handheld computer.”

In the video below, the folks from, a site that is associated with The Wall Street Journal, interview Andy Rubin, the father of Android, about Apple, sort-of. Would they expect Steve Jobs to defend Android? Of course not.

It’s otherwise a great video, that shows-off some of Google’s future products, including:

  • A future Motorola tablet with the Nvidia Tegra 2 T20 dual-core processor and Android 3.0 Honeycomb.
  • Near Field Communication (NFC) via Samsung Nexus S handheld computer (smart phone)
  • A vector-based version of Google Maps with caching on the Android computer.


Loading Facebook Comments ...

Leave a Reply