Has Apple turned Open Source on its head?

A friend sent me a comment from a nationally know columnist.  It basically said Apple really was a very proprietary company and could not in any way be considered connected to Open Source.

I thought about that for a while since I spent a lot of time giving presentations to Apple customers talking about Apple's commitment to the Open Source movement.

I asked someone still at Apple to comment on the issue and got the typical tap dancing Apple answer, but I did get a couple of links which I was happy to see still alive and well.

The first was Open at the Source and the second was Mac OS Forge.

Yet when I start thinking about it, just maybe creating software that has an Open Source "heritage" and requiring that it be run on proprietary hardware is turning what Open Source is all about upside down.

I can understand taking Open Source code, extending it, putting a shell on top of it, and even giving code back to the community while charging users for your enhanced code.

That sort of makes sense to me.  However, saying that if I spend my $129 that I cannot take the software and run it on something which is for all practical purposes the same internally as my Mac is a little weird.

It does almost seem to turn Open Source on its head, but maybe I am missing something?

We live in a world where manufacturers spend a lot of time trying to tie us to them for life.  Our government isn't exactly a place to turn for protection.

I know Apple hasn't made life easy for Linux with the iPod and Quicktime, but I can understand them not helping a competitor.  Still they have been selling Filemaker for Windows for ages, and of course giving away Safari and iTunes for Windows.

I have heard all the arguments about why Apple won't release OS X for other hardware.  Yet I know software has far higher margins than hardware.

It seems so funny that some of the very same people who will swear that Mac hardware is so wonderful (and most of the time I am one of those people) will fret over Apple's hardware competing with the other Intel hardware which they are so quick to classify as junk.

My question is this, if Apple hardware is the best that there is around, and if OS X is the best OS around, why do they need each other for a crutch?

It is not like Apple is in danger of going out of business.  If the hardware is great, people will continue to buy.  They might even buy more of it if they found that a really good operating system ran even better on the Macs.

I am in no way advocating that Apple provide any support for their OS on other manufacturers machines.

They could leave if up to the other vendors to provide support or let that be a business opportunity for a VAR.

Given the lackluster response to Vista, I bet Apple could write almost any kind of OS X contract for Dell and they would sign it. It could require training and support along with X number of  OS X support people per X copies of OS X shipped.

About the only viable argument is that Apple could be worried that users would have a "bad experience" with OS X on another vendor's hardware.

Given that most Vista users are getting an experience bad enough to want to downgrade to XP, I would guess that a bad day with OS X would still be better than any day with Vista.

After all, there is little evidence that Apple even really cares about computer hardware these days.

Of course being an old guy, perhaps I have it all wrong.

On another note, I sure almost every computer person could use a little sunshine before they hole up for the winter.  Check out my new travel guide to the beaches of Emerald Isle, NC.  The water is still very warm and the weather is great.

Comments

[Sebastian Lewis]

It's not that Apple is an oddball for selling the hardware and software together, Atari and Commodore had the same business model. A computer without an Operating System is just hardware, and an Operating System without a computer is just code, but if you sell them both together you're selling a system.

HP only makes the hardware, and Microsoft provides the software (this is oversimplified since I'm ignoring anything HP installs on Windows) and they don't make the entire system. Software is only a shallow layer in a computer, but it does dictate how that hardware is going to be used and Apple has done a good enough job maintaining that system that they don't need to license OS X to OEMs, it's OEMs that need to stop licensing Windows and it's Windows that is more than enough reason for me to never buy their hardware for my main computer!

As for Open Source being turned up it's head? Open Source does not mean free, and it does not refer to hardware. There is no source code in hardware so the hardware can be as proprietary as you want it to be, and if you want to run the open source part of Mac OS X on another PC you can (Darwin), but the only common ground among Open Source is that the source code is available no matter what or it's not Open Source, and you can offer that source code under any condition you want as long as the source code is provided or it's not Open Source.

Sebastian

[Nicholas]

I think the thing is that OS X is designed with specific hardware in mind - it doesn't have to fight the Linux and Windows battle to support every single revision of every single piece of hardware in every possible comination.

In a sense, of course, it is cheating. But it enables Apple to sell an experience that I, for the moment, enjoy more than the Linux and Windows one.

[Tycho]

I don't mind Apple's closed ecosystem at all. For me it's not that Apple hardware is better than PC and it's not that MAC OS X is better than XP. It's that MAC OS X on Apple hardware is about as pleasant and painfree and experience as I've ever had with computers. Half the problems I have with XP are issues of compatibility with the underlying hardware, and half are issues of unnecessary complexity in both the hardware and the software.

This complexity stems from Microsoft's belief that more features equal more benefit. Of course that's wrong, but the hardware vendors follow Microsoft. The result is that PC's have become (for this old guy) too complicated for my purposes.

Apple's focus is on ease of use. It's easier to tend to that if you ship well integrated systems.

[Mike]

Nicholas has a good point. Apple's SQA (SW quality assurance) group had a huge task testing just the Apple-made models and configurations (those that were in the internal new product pipeline plus the legacy machines already in the field).

Adding outside vendor configurations (which could change at any time) would create a testing matrix that couldn't be controlled. It's hard enough to test to a known matrix with a known deadline (like a MacWorld), and testing always has a schedule to keep.

The other vendor products would probably differ somewhat from what's in the Mac motherboards, and that could introduce incompatibilities. (You can bet Apple would not want to be in the business of letting other vendors buy any of their motherboards or custom ASICs; there are several, good, business reasons for that, plus some religious ones).

That said, I think there are other reasons that keep Apple from releasing full Open Source to allow other vendors to run a clone of OS X. In the end, Apple is comfortable controlling the entire platform (hardware and software).

[JS]

Why? Most linux distros don't run on OSX without some sort of intervention or third party solution. Following your logic if linux is open then why doesn't it run on any system?

[ReginaldW]

Apple is a BUSINESS, not a cause, not a religion, not a movement. It exists to benefit its shareholders. To do so, it creates products, competes against others and tries to deliver its products in the best way to benefit from those products. To make them the best, to make them 'just work' makes them useful and different enough from its Windows and Linux competitors that they sell.

The reason that the Linux and Windows people want OSX to work on their hardware is that they want to buy only those things that they can get at the cheapest price, but want the highest quality of software/operating system that they currently can not get (legally). Wanting the best of everything and bitching when they can't get it.

Apple makes good, solid product. It is not the least expensive as Apple feels they have a quality product and charges accordingly. They are not always the fastest product, for Apple tries to sell to more than the niche of people wanting to run their games the fastest. Apple doesn't have the largest production run that would give them economy of scale, compared to some of the PC makers.

What it does have is the ability to control the whole experience of hardware and software, which makes for a (usually) better computing experience over Windows and Linux.

Windows tries to be everything to everybody and the worst part is that it treats you like a moron, telling you every little thing that it does to the point you want to tell it to shut the frig up. I just plugged a device in, yes I know, why do I have to click to close the damn announcement? Yes I now unplugged it, I know, I unplugged that damn thing. Shut up and just let me do my work without nagging me to death, damn Windows!

Linux is the ultimate tinkertool, allowing anyone to build it in an infinite number of combinations. If you don't like this way of doing it, create another way of doing it. No one is in charge and everyone is in charge. You have a million columns and multiple options in each column and you have to pick your way through the million items to create your OS. Yes, it can be wonderful to choose, but painful to do and of course certain selections become incompatible, creating a PITA to make work reliably.

Apple selects the most obvious items, gives you a system that just works without getting in your way and is still powerful without adding a ton of complexity. That is Apple's advantage and it risks its advantage and its shareholders value by giving it up and allowing OSX to run on any hardware.

For all the idiots who can't realize this and keep nattering on about how Apple can sell a zillion copies of OSX, Apple can also have a zillion copies of OSX pirated. Part of the OSX experience (at least on the desktop, I've not run OSX Server) is no activation codes, no Genuine Windows Advantage connecting to prove you are not a thief to Microsoft.

It is not rocket science on what Apple does, what it does right or wrong. It is a mind-set, a way of thinking and doing and creating. It is neither better or worse than what others do, but it is different and the results are what you get. Frustration with Windows and Linux is what is driving increased OSX/Macintosh sales, along with the improvements to OSX/Macintosh that have been developed.

As to turning Open Source on its head, Open Source is just that, Open. You can twist it any way you want, provided you give it back to let others continue to twist. Apple, to my understanding, has done that, making the software that it touches better for everyone. That it ties it into its own hardware and software is understandable.

[ocracokewaves]

"For all the idiots who can't realize this and keep nattering on about how Apple can sell a zillion copies of OSX"

Aren't we kind to the people who disagree with us?

Well I guess you didn't learn how to "Think Different?"

I don't think there is any proof out there that Apple wouldn't be a more influential and profitable company if they sold OS X for other hardware.