I think your statement that Apple's coolness puts them above reproach is close to the truth. Plus it also benefits from not being Windows.

Apple does still have their proprietary moments and they should. There is no reason for their GUI on Mac OS X (not OS/X) to be free for everyone to use. It's there to sell hardware.

However, Apple have given back to KHTML through their work for Safari and Zeroconf, the no fuss network device discovery tools.

iTunes is convenient because it's there to sell iPods. They put a lot of money into the application, which is supported by sales of the iPods and iPhone.

How long would Apple survive giving away everything? They wouldn't last long, I believe.

Zack:

It's a combination of factors. One, Apple is more open than it sometimes gets credit for, as I've written: blogs.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9782950-16.html. This is, in part, Apple's own fault: it is super-secretive and so doesn't talk a lot about the good it does regarding open source (both in development and in the open source it buys - it's a customer of several open-source companies).

The Mac is also an exceptionally open platform for open-source development in many ways. I've commented on this as well: blogs.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9752463-16.html. You're never far from a terminal in OS X and some of my favorite open source programs are Mac-based.

Of course, it's also exceptionally cool hardware and the software isn't bad, either. Long hair will only get you so far, Zack. You need a Mac to round out your coolness factor.

Apple is not monopolistic. Windows associated with Microsoft is always seen as the anti open source company. I completely agree with your statement that Apple's coolness Apple puts it beyond reproach.

You would be hard pressed to find a link to Microsoft similar to http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html , but I guess the question isn't "is Apple as open as Microsoft," it's "why Apple instead of Linux," right?

I used Linux as my primary desktop for 5 years before moving to OSX and from my perspective OSX is basically a polished desktop environment on top of BSD with the added benefit of having a large collection of polished 3rd party tools available (TextMate, Omni*, etc) for purchase.

Besides, in recent history Apple has shown little concern for those who wish to hack their products. Both the Apple TV and the iPhone have numerous hacks out on in the wild allowing their owners to do much more with the systems than Apple officially supports and Apple hasn't really done anything to counter them. There is no doubt that similar hacks for the Zune or XBox would have been met with prompt sofware updates, if at all possible.

Apple really isn't as closed as people say it is, they just don't want people mucking up their brand.

Your premise that open source sees Apple is a friend is a case og generalisation (depends on what you mean by "Open Source"). Sez who? Apple only aligns with us in the sense that they are POSIX and that their enemy or our enemy, making us a 'friends'. They help bring diversity that weakens a monopoly.

I hope to see Apple increasing its presence and market share, but a world of Apple monopoly would be even worse than Microsoft's abuse.

Also, Apple are now stewards of CUPS which is pretty important.

Update to my last comment: in this new interview, watch how Apple's co-founder attacks Open source.

http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/09/25/wozniak-hates-open-sauce

Also in the news:

http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/09/25/apple-promises-to-kill-unlocked-iphones

Nice move, Apple, esp. after snubbing other programs that use the iPod.

Time for a reality check at Apple. They only consume open source as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks everyone for the good comments. I keep thinking I should use a Mac for an extended period of time, just to test it out. But I use a very small Sony Vaio TX and I can't see lugging a 15" or 17" laptop around anymore with the amount of travel I do. Still, for some of my spare time activities (digital photos, music) I suspect the Mac would be a better platform. (And for years I tried to convince my wife of this!)

Also agree, having some kind of Unix kernel at the heart of things appears to be part of what makes Mac OS/X so strong with developers.

--Zack

OK - I don't get this. If you are the Zack Urlocker that I know about [there cannot be 2 guys with that name in the tech biz] you are the VP of Sales for MySQL. So you are not giving away your product - and you should not.

"They [Apple] use some open source in Safari and OS/X . . ." "Some"? Apple credits more than 100 Open Source projects for contributions to OS X alone. Some projects are adopted in full; e.g., X11, Apache, gimp-print, etc. I don't know of any other company that is that committed. Do you?

". . . but as far as I can tell, they don't give that much back". You should do more research. Not only does Apple support projects they send engineers and programmers to conferences and propose initiatives. And, as Darren Bell has pointed out, Apple has taken responsibility for the CUPS project.

". . .having some kind of Unix kernel. .." Some king of Unix kernel??? What's the matter? You never heard of BSD?

My conclusion - you posted this because you had nothing else to do.

Thanks for your comments.

Actually, I'm not the VP of Sales, I'm the VP of Products at MySQL. And yes, I should have been more clear, it's the BSD kernel. But my point was that because there *is* a Unix kernel in there, it has appeal to many developers. But I don't think most people care that Apple selected the BSD kernel over any other Unix or Unix-like kernel.

--Zack

It the AIM effect ... Apple Isn't Microsoft.

That's all, when you consider the fact that OpenSource people are so focused on their adversary relationship with Microsoft that nothing else matters to them. Apple is the true monopoly, but what has it got them -- nothing more but the need to drop "Computer" from their coorporate identity.

Don't read anything more into that the obvious. Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is the best.

You tell me Zack. Apple bundles MySQL with their developer tools. I'm guessing they have no partnership with MySQL and have not directly contributed to MySQL (same as their treatment of JBoss). Is that a good thing or a bad thing for MySQL? You would be the guy to ask.

James Dixon