Apple Proprietary

[jbcohen]

I am of two minds about this issue and would like to see what Apple users think of this issue. I have heard many of my friends in the IT industry that they consider apple products to be based on proprietary technology. I can believe some of that however there are facets of apple technology that are open to competition: anyone can write an app for the iphone and ipad, however the approval needed is an element of proprietary, other companies such as Microsoft often sell software for apple hardware. So I am of two minds about the apple being proprietary issue. There appears to be elements of both in apple products. In the IT industry proprietary is curse word, you just don't do that.

[Jessica Lares]

I'm okay with it. It has done more good for the consumer, then it has hurt them. People need to remember that there are more cons than pros when you give 100% freedom to companies/developers to do what they want. When anyone could release a game for the Atari, it destroyed the gaming industry, and now that anyone can publish a book, it has also lead to a lot of unreadable junk and spam. Same thing with Google Play, junk and malware.

There are also so many different Android devices with different specifications. And only the known brand ones are any good. It hurts Android as a whole because people see these, and buy them as if they were any other phone or tablet, and expect them to be similar. They're just garbage. But because it's open source software, there's nothing they can do to stop it.

I'd like to think that Apple themselves are behind the success of so many developers by enforcing so many guidelines. If you don't meet their standards, you pretty much get buried, and that's how it should be. If your app sucks, it sucks, and you should either work hard to fix it, or not publish it at all. Apple wants 100,000 apps of quality, not 100,000 of quantity.

You also have to have money to make money, so it makes more sense that Apple would rather have developers who have already at least invested into a $1,000+ Macintosh computer already, an iOS device, and then pay for the developer program every year.

As for Macs, there are no limits on what you can do. I don't get why people make such a big deal about the software.

[pdurrant]

Proprietary just means owned and/or controlled by a single entity, usually a commercial company.

Apple's operating system is based on some open source software, but includes proprietary code too. Microsoft products are all proprietary.

The main problem with proprietary software is proprietary file formats, especially undocumented file formats.

Apple is very bad in this area, with no information being publicly available on many of their file formats for current user-level software (e.g. Pages, Numbers).

Originally Posted by Jessica Lares

I'm okay with it. It has done more good for the consumer, then it has hurt them. People need to remember that there are more cons than pros when you give 100% freedom to companies/developers to do what they want. When anyone could release a game for the Atari, it destroyed the gaming industry, and now that anyone can publish a book, it has also lead to a lot of unreadable junk and spam. Same thing with Google Play, junk and malware.

Well said @Jessica.

@jbcohen, I consider the iOS on bigger lock down than Mac OS X. I recently returned to using a Mac after nearly a two decade period in which I used only Windows PCs. That was partly due to my work and partly due to the overly high cost of Mac computers and partly because I never liked the Power PC chips (or whatever they were called). I bought a Mac Mini earlier this year and so far absolutely love it. But now a days Macs use Intel chips and they play nice with non-Apple peripherals. For example, my mouse is a Logitech model made for PCs and my monitor is a Samsung. As far as software, Apple does not force you to only install apps through their Mac OS X app store. You can download software from 3rd party sources and directly install it, unlike the iOS app store which is mandatory for iOS devices. So to me it indeed seems like iOS devices are more locked down than Mac OS X devices.

What do I think about the iOS lock down? Well I tried several Android devices including the Kindle Fire original and 2, other tablets, and my phone is a Motorola Atrix. I hate them all because of the Android slop that is called software. They all eat battery life, and so many of the Android apps are just total crap. It is true that Android is much more configurable, but its openness has generated apps that do nasty things and/or that just don't work that well. I like the idea of the openness, but in reality, at least as far as Android goes, it means suckier apps than those for iOS. The iOS apps just seem better overall, more intuitive, they work, and they look terrific. With Android you never know what quality you will get nor how intuitive it will be to operate the app. Long story short, I have gotten rid of all the Android crap with the exception of my phone. I keep the phone only because it is locked in to my AT&T contract for a few more months. As soon as it turns 2 years old it is going to be replaced with an iPhone.

As far as Mac computers, I'm completely happy with them. I keep an older Windows 7 laptop for things I need to do that are easier done on a Windows PC. Mac OS X has very few amateur radio apps so I use Windows to program my radios. But otherwise the PC now collects dust on a shelf.

EDIT: Another reason I stayed away from Macs was my investment in photography software bought for the PCs. I own the latest versions of Photoshop and Lightroom. Then I discovered that Adobe allows you to transfer licensing from the Windows platform to the Mac, and they don't charge for that either. I just called them and they made the switch in licensing and rendered the PC versions inoperable. That was the last hold out, so I then switched over to Macs.

[Penforhire]

I'm okay with it. I know I can jailbreak my iOS devices if I want to do more with them but I enjoy their "walled garden" sufficiently for me to sit back and enjoy what they offer. If I was less happy I would be a candidate for, say, Android devices.

The thing is I mostly want to have a smooth user experience. So far nobody does that as well as Apple. They are not perfect and someone (Samsung?) can take away their crown. Another high point is because Apple sells just a few devices in such high volumes the 3rd party market (accessories) blows away anyone else's.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by jbcohen

In the IT industry proprietary is curse word, you just don't do that.

Rubbish.
Windows OS.
Oracle databases.
Cisco switches.

[forsooth]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Proprietary just means owned and/or controlled by a single entity, usually a commercial company.

Apple's operating system is based on some open source software, but includes proprietary code too. Microsoft products are all proprietary.

The main problem with proprietary software is proprietary file formats, especially undocumented file formats.

Apple is very bad in this area, with no information being publicly available on many of their file formats for current user-level software (e.g. Pages, Numbers).

think: 400 KB floppy!

hard to share

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by zintel

There are also so many different Android operating system gadgets with different requirements. And only the known product ones are any excellent. It affects Android operating system as a whole because individuals see these, and buy them.

I would agree. And there is a real problem getting updates for any of these versions of the Android OS. There are also marketing restrictions on app stores. You are never sure you can get what you want running on any particular device. If you buy it once and never look ahead for any additional features then Android is a good choice. Some vendors may keep their products up to date but they are few and far between.

Dale

[Graham]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

I would agree. And there is a real problem getting updates for any of these versions of the Android OS. There are also marketing restrictions on app stores. You are never sure you can get what you want running on any particular device. If you buy it once and never look ahead for any additional features then Android is a good choice. Some vendors may keep their products up to date but they are few and far between.

Dale

The quoted post seems to have disappeared. But FUD like this needs to be stamped on. I've been using the same Android phone for two and a half years. It's not been updated beyond v2.3. In all that time I've not come across a single app that wouldn't run on it.

Over 94% of all Android devices now run v2.3 or later.

Sure, if I went seeking out an app that needed NFC it wouldn't work as my particular device doesn't have that feature, but that would be true of any platform.

I think you can be increasingly "sure that you can get what you want running on any particular device", unless you're trying to use an advanced hardware feature that the device lacks - but those are rare.

Graham

[DaleDe]

Well I am glad you can find any app you want. For me google won't even let me use their app store on my device. I have to search out other sources.

[Jessica Lares]

I have a 2.3 device and stuff like Google Keep or Snapseed won't work on it.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Well I am glad you can find any app you want. For me google won't even let me use their app store on my device. I have to search out other sources.

Your contention wasn't that all apps were available to the device, but that you couldn't be sure that the apps that were would run. There's a difference. You made it yourself in your other point that there were app store restrictions which were confusing, and I didn't refute that.

Originally Posted by Jessica Lares

I have a 2.3 device and stuff like Google Keep or Snapseed won't work on it.

True. I imagine that the landscape is starting to change now for v2.3 devices. Google Keep has only just come out, and there will be increasing amounts of software that relies on the features of v4 and up. However these are still a small minority of the apps out there. The situation is still that most apps will run on your 2.3 device.

Graham

[kyteflyer]

Originally Posted by Graham

Your contention wasn't that all apps were available to the device, but that you couldn't be sure that the apps that were would run. There's a difference. You made it yourself in your other point that there were app store restrictions which were confusing, and I didn't refute that.



True. I imagine that the landscape is starting to change now for v2.3 devices. Google Keep has only just come out, and there will be increasing amounts of software that relies on the features of v4 and up. However these are still a small minority of the apps out there. The situation is still that most apps will run on your 2.3 device.

Graham

This also happens with iOS. If apps are not updated for the newer OS, they may cease to work (eg Stanza) and then, sometimes apps are released which only work with newer versions of the OS. And then again, some updated apps stop supporting older OSes (which is why I finally bought a new iPhone). In most cases (with the exception of Stanza because Amazon just didnt care enough to bother updating the description) the app developer will specify which OS version is required.

If you have Android, the best option I have found is to use the Google Play web store to check for the apps you want. If you've registered your devices, the web store (NOT the onboard store) will tell you if the app is compatible with your device. I am beginning to see things which are not compatible with my Huawei Sonic, even though it runs 2.3 as does my Acer Liquid Metal. The LMT remains compatible with everything I have wanted so far. So its not even just the Android version, but also the phone itself, and its hardware, which affect what works. (And google keep doesnt work with either of them )

[SteveEisenberg]

Proprietary is a matter of degree. And Apple is highly proprietary. Consider the hardware side:

The Apple software license does not allow Mac OS X to be used on a computer that is not "Apple-branded."

I'm writing this on perfectly legal Windows PC that, like millions of others, is home-built.

Microsoft's Surface line is a baby step in Apple's proprietary direction. Hopefully, it won't succeed too well.

[David Munch]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Proprietary is a matter of degree. And Apple is highly proprietary. Consider the hardware side:

The Apple software license does not allow Mac OS X to be used on a computer that is not "Apple-branded."

That is not the hardware but the software. You are free to install any other OS on your Mac hardware.