Closed = Bad... Says who?
I am going to begin this comment by totally ignoring all of the comments by other people and addressing the article written by Dale Vile, after my brilliant commentary on his article I will allow myself to descend into the mosh pits of the Apple vs. Windows geeks and give the most thoughtful and intelligent opinion ever bestowed on mankind.
Dear Mr Vile,
in your article you state, "Meanwhile, those of us making a more objective assessment of what’s going on look at how Apple’s business is evolving and see a lot of similar traits to those that were apparent as Microsoft was gaining power."
After you make this statement you proceed with as slimy a hack-job of an anti-Apple attack piece as I have seen for many a day. Please, if you are going to write an anti-Apple add, be honest about your affiliations.
You seem to think that you are justified in your diatribe because, "21% said Microsoft was more closed, and 24% said there wasn’t anything to choose between the two, the majority, 55%, gave the prize for lack of openness to Apple." This poll is a amateurishly biased (which you even admit!) attempt at leading the public into giving you ammunition to attack apple. Why did you not give us the results of the obvious next question: "Is it a bad for a company to be closed?" Did you even think to ask the question?
Now, in your article you make several feeble attempts to explain why being closed is a bad thing. For example you make the shocking revelation that Apple is, "...trying to exploit its brand strength and the dependencies between its offerings as much as it can to extract money from us. "
Really?!?!? Apple is trying to earn money?! How evil!
Mr. Vile, I have a shocking bit of information for you, companies are almost ALWAYS set up for the sole purpose of earning money. The fact that Apple is successfully trying to earn as much money as it can, does not make it a bad company, it only makes it a successful company.
But I digress, your premiss that Apple is bad because it is a "closed company" (and be honest, that was the point of your whole article) simply does not stand up to any type of scrutiny. Being a closed company is not a bad thing. Let me draw you an analogy that, though not perfect, will explain what I mean.
Let us say that a computer's operating system = A high rise building.
and that computer programs = businesses inside the high rise.
In the Microsoft tower if a business comes in and wants to set up shop it just knocks down a few walls, and makes room for itself without regard to whether it is affecting all of the buildings around it. And, if the Microsoft tower does not have the right space configuration, the company just knocks down a few support columns and makes room. This means that the businesses (which remember represent programs) do not work well together, and that the overall structure of the tower is weak.
Now, across the street we have the Apple tower. In this building businesses must conform to building codes, and must configure their requirements to fit the structure of the tower. If the business is not willing to meet these obviously necessary requirements than it is not allowed to even enter. The result is a stable building, with businesses that work well together.
The analogy is not perfect, but it does get my point across. A closed system of business makes sense. It allows Apple to ensure that its users have a stable machine that just works. And, while it does give bad programmers headaches (or good programers who make a bad program) it is actually one of the single biggest factors in Apple's success.
Well, that is all the time I have for this topic. I must now return to my blissfully closed Apple life.
- - -
Dear Mosh-Pit Members,
Get a life!
P.S. Since my comments complete the discussion on this article, I will not be responding to your petty arguments and insults. :P
*Ah, the bliss that the anonymity of the internet brings!*