For Apple fans, it’s time to "Get the Facts", it seems.
In a recent interview, Joe Biden, the U.S. Vice-Presidential candidate for the Democrats equated paying more taxes with patriotism, saying that it was time for wealthier Americans to "jump in" and "help get America out of the rut".
Well, I’m glad to say there may be hope for the good ol’ U.S. of A., since it seems that many Apple customers are just the sort of patriots that Mr. Biden was looking for. According to a recent interview with Microsoft’s Brad Brooks over on the "Beyond Binary" blog – Apple customers are repeatedly, and willingly it seems as their market share grows, being "taxed" when they choose a Mac.
There really is a tax around there for people that are evaluating their choices going into this holiday season and going forward. There’s a choice tax that we talked about, which is, hey, you want to buy a machine that’s other than black, white, or silver, and if you want to get it in multiple different configurations or price points, you’re going to be paying a tax if you go the Apple way.
There’s going to be an application tax, which is if you want choice around applications, or if you want the same type of application experience on your Mac versus Windows, you’re going to be purchasing a lot of software. And even at that you’re not going to get the same experience. You’re not going to get things like Microsoft Outlook, you’re not going to get the games that you’re used to playing. There’s a technology tax–Apple still doesn’t have HDMI, doesn’t have Blu-ray offerings, doesn’t have e-SATA external disk drives that work at twice the speed of FireWire. And so you’ve got all of these things that are truly taxes.
You’ve also got an upgrade tax. The only machine, as far as I know, within the Apple lineup that’s actually upgradeable is the Mac Pro, the $2,800 version, which is (more expensive than) just about any PC configuration that you get from any one of our manufacturers.
The part I found interesting was when Mr. Brooks pointed out that products such as Outlook, Visio and Project are all unavailable on the Mac, as well as characterizing Mac Office as "stripped down". I mean, these are Microsoft products – no?
The only reason that these features and applications are unavailable on the Mac is because Microsoft doesn’t offer them – intentionally, it would seem – in order to prevent or at least slow a mass exodus from their platform by keeping competing platform versions lagging technologically. Unfortunately, this behavior is nothing new for our friends from Redmond, just I can’t recall them ever being so blunt about it.
Interoperability the Microsoft way: one-way, that is.
Send this to a friend
As many people might aware by now, the official site is down due to heavy demand. The high volume of requests was probably intended to overwhelm mirrors, as opposed to the domain which serves as a pointer to them. Anyway, it’s rather unfortunate as The Register reports.
Eager beavers keen to get their hands on the long-awaited arrival of version 3.0 of OpenOffice.org are currently unable to download the free, open source-flavoured suite of office apps because demand has broken the website.
You can get it directly from the mirrors though. Here is one such mirror:
There is also an extensive review for those who are interested.
After a lengthy development cycle, we have a shiny new version of OpenOffice.org to play around with. But has it been worth the wait? Neil Bothwick rolls up his sleeves and picks apart OOo 3.0′s new features, finding out whether it deserves a major version number bump and finally sorts out the performance woes…
After the well-received release of Firefox 3, it’s time for another major update in the FOSS world – and this time it’s OpenOffice.org. OOo 3.0 has arrived and there are three key questions to be answered here: what new features does it introduce, it is any faster and is it worth of the full version number jump?
Happy downloading. █
From the Campaign for Document Freedom
Update: here is a better short overview/review.
Send this to a friend
[Note: some of the claims made here may be out of date, but the principles remain valid.]
“Interoperability” has become a weasel word. The word is regularly used to insinuate that two (or more) computer systems should work very well, but they usually work well for the wrong reasons. The method adopted to make these systems work is flawed. This approach monetizes something that should be free and something which typically requires no research and development whatsoever. It is an unfortunate case where the role of standards is being ignored and replaced.
When discussing interoperability between products, restrictive conditions such as patents and licensing agreements are often kept out of sight. In a similar fashion, when discussing software patents, their controversial nature is typically concealed under an ‘umbrella’ called “intellectual property”. This leads to unnecessary confusion and has software patents honored in countries where such patents are fundamentally against the law.
Eyes on Europe
A couple of months ago in Europe, an agreement was announced between the European Commission, spearheaded by Commissioner for Competition Neelie Kroes, and Microsoft, which had just lost its antitrust appeal. The agreement embraced a route to further saturation in the server market, but rather than insisting on the use of standards, it seems to have drifted in another direction, which involved interoperability rather than open standards.
But Wait! What About Samba and the GNU GPL?
The agreement in Europe might stifle competition rather than spur any. It does not appeal to Free software developers and it is intrinsically incompatible with the most widely used software license in the world (GNU General Public License). This essentially leaves out in the cold what Microsoft has considered its #1 threat for many years.
“With the European Commission’s agreement, a great concern arises.”
The Samba project, which is GPL-licensed, enables several operating systems to interact with Microsoft Windows. Windows is ubiquitous, so this is essential. Protocols for file and printer sharing, for instance, are very prevalent in a form that designed by Microsoft many years ago. None of this design was standardized or published openly, so reverse-engineering work was needed to bridge a critical gap. This made Free software, such as GNU/Linux, more viable in the enterprise.
With the European Commission’s agreement, a great concern arises. Suddenly, reverse-engineering endeavours that so many people rely on can be made subjected to the wrath of software patents (and thus royalties). Ironically enough, Europe itself does not honor software patents, yet it seems to have blindly accepted what Microsoft insists on. There is a great danger here — the danger of letting standards be neglected and crucial consensus be decentralized.
Let us look at the importance of standards and then return to the issue at hand. This issue is unlikely to go away unless the European Commission changes its mind and its decision, thereby acknowledging its misunderstandings.
Why Are Standards Important?
In a world where diverse mixtures of technologies exist, products need to communicate. They need to interact with one another in order to handle complex tasks and for users to achieve their goals. The consensus has usually been that in order for products to communicate, industry leaders and field experts should convene and agree on a set of rules. They should agree on a single uniform method (or a set thereof) that will enable products to cooperate with one another. This is what standards are all about.
“By adhering to standards, communication with other products can be assured. ”Companies have plenty or reasons to like standards. Universal standards make development much easier and they facilitate integration with other technologies. By adhering to standards, communication with other products can be assured. Rather than test and design ‘bridges’ (or ‘translators’, or lossy ‘converters’) for each pair or products, design can be matched to a written, publically-available and static standard. It makes life easier for both software development companies and companies that consume technology, i.e. those that actually use the products and whose requirements matter the most.
What happens, however, when one company deviates from the standard in pursuit of more control? Capitalization is dependent upon the ability to show that something unique is being offered. Standards, nevertheless, are about uniformity, not about being unique. Therefore, companies that want a greater level of control over customers are more likely to ignore standards, but the situation is not quite so simple.
In order to ignore a standard, it takes a lot of aggression. It also requires a market share large enough to abolish or at least fight against the standard, which is backed by many parties, not one. With monopoly control, standards are pretty much defined by the monopolist. They can be changed and extended at any time without causing much interference. However, such use of power can also push rival companies off the cliff. At the end of the day, this hurts consumers who are left without choice and have little control over pricing and upgrade pace.
The Symbiotic Relationship Between Standards and Openness
Free open source software enjoys a good resemblance to the notion of free and open standards. Both are available for viewing and they encourage participation. Free open source software tends to embrace standards for a plethora or reasons. Proprietary software, on the other hand, does not expose its underlying behaviour. Quite often, its value lies in behaviour that is hidden. The software protects (in the ownership sense) certain knowledge, so transparency is neither an option nor a priority.
Standards play a role in prevention of vendor lock-in. They facilitate choice and they encourage greater diversity in the market. Adversity to standards is not only motivated by financial value that can be found in restriction on choice, i.e. imprisoning the customer. It is also motivated by the ability to extract revenue directly from competitors. That is where software patents and so-called “intellectual monopolies” serve as a dangerous new element to keep on eye on. They have become a curious phenomenon in the software world because they are fearsome to many and beneficial to very few.
Patents Meet Free Standards and Free Software
In Europe, Microsoft has essentially managed to collect a trophy for snubbing standards all these years. Its lawyers turned a loss in the court into a small victory. In an antitrust exhibit extracted from the previous decade, Microsoft revealed its intent to ignore standardization bodies at all costs.
“In an antitrust exhibit extracted from the previous decade, Microsoft revealed its intent to ignore standardization bodies at all costs.”
“We are large enough that this can work,” an internal document from Microsoft stated. This was said after the following eye-opening statement: “We [Microsoft] want to own these standards, so we should not participate in standards groups.” From the Halloween Documents, whose existence and authenticity was confirmed last year, it is revealed that Microsoft planned to “innovate above standard protocols” to deny entry of Free open source software projects into the market.
Having made a de facto standard so common and having defended its existence, all Microsoft needed was a reservation of rights to demand payments from competitors. Samba distributors and users are arguably bound by a promise which the European Commission specifies in its agreement with Microsoft. Other than the cost of obtaining documentation, there are patent royalties to be considered.
Reflections and Ways to Proceed
The decision which was made by the European Commission seems to have been a poor one. For starters, interoperability was chosen as the route to compliance, all at the expense of open standards. Moreover, based on the Commission’s own assessment, an interoperability route was needed merely because “trivial and pointless” extensions were added on top of existing standards, in order to stifle adoption of competing products. The Commission’s accusations and blame align poorly with its decision, which is discriminatory — if not exclusionary at best — towards Free open source software.
In conclusion, one must remember that open standards must never be conceded and replaced by a void promise of interoperability, which is incompatible with everything that standards and Free open source software stand for. Numerous parties have therefore protested and have already urged the European Commission to reconsider and revise its decision. █
Originally published in Datamation in 2007
Send this to a friend
The English-speaking press appears not to have caught this one yet, so we publicise a quick headsup on a wonderful development from Sweden. Here is the report in Swedish and — using automated translation — in English. The gist of it is that a parliamentary representative from the far right is proposing to require the use of Free/open source software (FOSS) in the public sector. This is similar to things which have happened in other neighbouring nations, including the United Kingdom (Tories promote FOSS).
“As readers may recall, a year ago Microsoft was caught bribing for OOXML support in Sweden.”Free software is not new to the Swedish public sector. The police has already adopted a great deal of it, a very large pharmacy chain adopted GNU/Linux, and ODF is already the national standard.
As readers may recall, a year ago Microsoft was caught bribing for OOXML support in Sweden. The vote got invalidated as a result and this said a lot about Microsoft’s fear of change and repellent reaction to competition.
Also noteworthy from Europe is this short report from EPO, which some of its own employees claim to be corrupted by monetary interests. It turns out now that the EPO is lobbying the EU. This seems like the type of thing the BSA would do and it probably promotes more patents under a broader permissible scope. The EPO is, after all, in the business of granting patents, not denying most of them. █
Send this to a friend