I have to think that, for the last 10 years, they have been open and closed in just the right places.

If you look at it objectively, Apple use far more open standards than Microsoft, and rarely resort to inventing standards to implement the closed systems that they want to.

Look at their open source releases: http://www.opensource.apple.com/

That's because Microsoft has the resources (both the money and the talent) to reinvent everything ... how many other companies can claim to have developed an OS (mostly) from scratch, or a VM + a language + an IDE + an ecosystem (mostly) from scratch, or a Flash-competitor or something like Bing, again, mostly from scratch.

Yeah, they clone or buy ideas and are known to beat their competition through illegal practices ... but no other company I know can be so infected with the NIH syndrome and get away with it.

"far more open standards" is really subjective. Microsoft invented Ajax. And before IE 6, when they've stopped caring, IExplorer kicked Netscape's ass.

And to me, standards are also relevant for hardware ... Microsoft is know to favor standards and openness in hardware. That's how they've beat both IBM and Apple.

So in the grander scheme of things, we don't know which company served a greater good. From my perspective computing wouldn't be as ubiquitous as it is today without someone like Microsoft.

Microsoft have money, they had talent but they no longer have vision nor talent.They can keep reinventing whatever they want, but gone are the days when they can use their OS monopoly to take over other markets(word processor, browser,...), because two future platforms of computing: mobile computing and web, they don't control.Between Google and Apple, Microsoft is getting beat on both vision and talent side.

Your description of Microsoft might be true for recent years but their dominance in the Market was through business practices not through superior technology. I think back to DOS and windows3.1 and the PC software was terrible. I'm not just thinking about apple here, there were a number of good microcomputer operating systems in the late 1980s.

Getting the best software developed on your platform is half the battle and history of Microsoft is to develop to market trends not to enter the market first.

Computing would not have been so ubiquitous without IBM, credit where credit's due.

Apple supports standards in hardware (USB, PCI, SDRAM, Ethernet, Firewire [debatable], DVI, DisplayPort, 802.11, EFI, CD/DVD-R). Most of their systems are made up of standards-based pieces... it's just the glue that holds them together that's proprietary.

Apple's non-compliance with USB standard example:

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/electronics/2010/04/chargin...

That's why I'm confused - I agree with you, Apple is way out of line on this. So why are they doing this, when they're not a monopoly? Do they think that having a walled garden of approved apps and the best UI will work forever?

It didn't work for their desktop business 20 years ago, why should it work now?

The thing is that at least temporarily and at least in certain niche markets they come close to being a monopoly. There is no credible competitor to the Ipad in the tablet market. In the smartphone arena, the Iphone is a run away success with more marketshare than any other by far.

Also, remember there are a lot of people that want a walled garden. It makes them feel safe and shields them from needing to really understand any of the details. I am certainly not one of those people, but that market segment will exist even as new tablets come out and the competing smartphones gain marketshare.

Their desktop business was never a walled garden, was it?

A monopoly exists when a customer has no alternative then to do business with the monopolizer. Microsoft was/is a monopoly because Dell, HP, etc have no recourse then to agree to MCSFT's terms or look elsewhere for their OS. And considering the general public hasn't embraced Linux, that pretty much locks those manufacturers in place.

Apple on the other hand develops its own hardware and software. I think they have every right to control their environment, even if I don't agree with it.

Developers are not locked into developing for the iPad, iPhone, etc. Don't like Apple? Develop for Android. Apple doesn't owe you a living. If you want to sell on their marketplace, you need to abide by their rules.

I don't disagree that it would nice if Apple was more open, but comparing them to MCSFT is somewhat of a red herring.

so replace MS with apple and Dell with app store developer and Linux with WebOS or Android. The exact same argument applies.

Same applies to the other Devs aren't locked in to windows, IE, etc. MS doesn't owe them a living. Develop for Linux.

Entity(MS, Apple) has vast majority of sales in the market place(os, phone applications) sets rules that favor themselves and you can either go along or die in a corner(develop for Linux, develop for WebOS.) Personally I prefer die in the corner with freedom than happy subjugation.

So you're implying that something like 80-90% of smartphones in use are iPhones? Because that's pretty much what the situation was with Windows in the 90s.

I am saying that 80-90% of apps sold market share is on iPhone. No one really cares how many devices are in the wild if people who have those handsets refuse to buy software.

Probably 80-90% of general-purpose mobile computing devices are iPhones.

it won't

Controlling what though? To what end? Microsoft wants to be everything to everyone and is willing to use force to get there. Apple doesn't care what you want. They want a product they would buy; if you buy it too -- all the better.

That's the "sell", not a business model.

Then why no arrow keys on the first Mac?

Only on their "app consoles" (iPhones/iPads/iPod Touches).

The Mac hardware remains as open as Windows.

There's a huge difference, and their behavior with the app consoles is entirely defensible.

The app consoles are not general-purpose computers, and that's a better "experience" for great majority of their users.

I would agree if Apple had an uncrippled "iPad Pro", but they don't. The future of computing is mobile, and Apple's position is that if you want that, you have to sacrifice control of your own hardware. If that becomes the norm from all hardware providers, it will be very bad for freedom and innovation.

Interesting argument. Perhaps developers should be more critical of Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft for their closed gaming platforms.