Apple vs. Microsoft - Part 1: The Companies

OK, as a techie in general, and a pretty rabid Mac user specifically, I often get asked about which is better - Apple or Microsoft. This is of course a pretty loaded question, so I thought I'd separate this into at least two parts - the companies and then Macintosh OS X vs. Windows. Maybe after that I'll do something about the consumer electronic products as well.

So biases up front. I formerly actively worked at Microsoft as a Software Design Engineer in Test writing test tools for a variety of products, most the reader probably never heard of. Microsoft considers me to be a full-time employee on military leave, and I do hold Microsoft stock. I have never had any association with Apple, and do not own Apple stock.

My personal view is that there are many similarities between the two companies, although some significant differences. In particular, both companies tend to be proprietary when it suits them, make SKU choices that are annoying and limiting to customers (although I think Microsoft is worse in this), and have little interest in promoting competition, often through pretty heavy handed methods. Both companies also have highly visible patriarchs, i.e. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. The companies differ primarily in two ways: Microsoft takes a generalist approach of attempting to create products applicable to anyone and everyone and Apple focuses on a very specific set of products (their own) to ensure a positive and stable experience. The other major difference is in marketing - Microsoft is relatively open, announcing new products early and promoting active feedback from a larger community where Apple primarily maintains a heavy amount of secrecy, surprising both their supporters and competitors with new products. This second difference in particular greatly affects the corporate culture.

Similarities

So first the things the companies have in common. Throughout the history of both companies, there have been existing capable standards that have been changed or ignored to create proprietary systems with no real obvious benefit. A good modern example of this is in digital rights management. MP3 files for audio have good compression, excellent audio quality, and are playable by nearly any music player in existence. The two companies of course have proprietary standards (Windows Media and iTunes), which with DRM enabled (both formats don't require DRM, just support it) limits the options legal customers have for playing their own music by invoking a licensing mechanism.

Microsoft makes serious distinctions between versions of Windows... Why must servers run only on server operating systems? Technological reasons? I'm convinced not really. Apple makes iPods inaccessible as a USB mass storage device. Why? Because then they would lose control of making it accessible in iTunes only.

But that's a business model. Where it gets irksome to me are the occasional heavy handed means both companies use to enforce their proprietary standards. Although I'll give a recent black eye to Apple for its handling of the iPhone 4 leak to Gizmodo, Microsoft's past actions to "encourage" their customers to promote IE over Netscape are little different.

The moral of the story is that both companies are large. Both are for-profit, so both have an interest in promoting their own products over others.

Differences

Probably the biggest single distinction between the two companies is generalist vs. specific focus. In other words, Microsoft produces no PC's but does produce an operating system to run on all PC's. Apple produces PC's and produces an operating system that runs only on those PC's. This necessarily means that Windows works across a plethora of systems, configurations and costs, but Microsoft can guarantee and support little; but that Apple systems are few and cost (much) more, but Apple can guarantee and support much.

I'll talk about this significantly more in the next part, but this focus really is critical in understanding the real cultural differences in the companies. Since Apple produces a small number of different models (the Apple Store currently lists 21 models in 6 different types) they must clearly differentiate themselves from the hundreds if not thousands of competing PC models. Microsoft on the other hand has the daunting challenge of continuously producing operating systems and software that work well on thousands of different kinds of machines, few of which the company can directly test against.

Microsoft, therefore, both internally and externally is a very social company. I remember even as a relatively young child of my father beta testing Windows -- not primarily as a developer, but as a user. Microsoft's frequent beta's and release candidates may be much maligned (even by me) for instability, but shows a strong commitment to letting many people be involved at all levels of development. Internally, I found Microsoft continually preaches about diversity, highly promoting a multi-cultural environment. On the downside, the company so promotes diversity that people (like me) who hold religiously conservative positions may feel very lmited in expressing those positions at the workplace.

Apple may have some of this in common, but as an outsider it doesn't feel like it. Returning to the iPhone 4 leak, I read about Apple's security practices, and needless to say, I can't imagine working there. The idea of constantly being watched by a camera, or not being able to share projects that I'm working on with my friends would drive me nuts. Microsoft wants to show off their nifty products, Apple wants Steve to show off their nifty products.

Conclusion

So how do I feel about the companies? Both companies do things I don't like. I am not a fan of DRM in particular, and I wish that both companies would be more open and less proprietary. But they have different focuses and hence there are signficant differences.

Although I haven't mentioned before now the obvious other alternative, Linux, I have in the past gone through "Microsoft hating days" where I would switch to Linux (I've used Red Hat, Unbuntu, and OpenSUSE). Although I appreciate the truly community focus and open standards, what's always brought me back was consistency and compatibility with a commercial base that only comes from commercial operating systems. And to that I tip my hat off to Apple, who has to date brought out the only consumer-oriented commercially successful Unix-like operating system. Which is an excellent segue to my part 2... Operating systems. Please comment!

Murray vs. Rossi

OK, so case in point about national politics... The friendly neighborhood case of Senator Patty Murray vs. Dino Rossi.

On the one hand, Senator Murray is a known entity... a liberal. She's been a Senator for 18 years now, coming in on a platform of a "Mom in tennis shoes." I don't personally know much about her other than that she attended that school that MUST NOT BE NAMED in Pullman, but her voting record makes her solidly to the left. So the health care law that 60% of Americans believe should be repealed [1]? Of course she voted for it. Partial birth abortion and other abortion issues? Solidly pro-choice [2][3]. So for being consistent, she's great.

So on the other side is Dino Rossi. Dino is unfortunately best known for losing twice in his bid to be Washington's governor, including the closest gubernatorial election in U.S. history in 2004[4]. My experience with Mr. Rossi is earlier. He was my state senator when I was living in Renton, and when I was looking into his record, he struck me as the "real deal." I have a natural skepticism especially when it involves politicians, but he seemed (and seems) to me to be a family man, fiscally conservative, and a man of faith. I have no false illusions about my impact, but I was one (of I'm sure very many) people that sent him an email and asked him to enter the Senate race. I do believe he's the only man with ANY chance of winning against Senator Murray.

For the Democrats, in Washington you have a serious standard bearer. But her ideas? In the state the economy is in, do we really need someone running on a platform of bringing home the pork for Washington? I'll go ahead and say it... No we don't. What about a party that circumvents standard rules to push through health care "reform" not wanted by the majority of Americans. Shall we allow that to continue to happen? No. Senator Murray's ideas, and those she supported are not (in my opinion) what's best for America.

Now that I've laid it on the Democrats, how about Republicans? Well, some have stated that Mr. Rossi is part of the "establishment" I can only guess because he's supported by the national Republican party. Clint Didier, for example, had this quote:

"I don't know Dino Rossi personally. But I do know he is part of the Republican establishment – all you have to do is look at those he surrounds himself with. I don't believe he's the conservative people think he is. If people want more of the same, the McCain or Bush type of governing, then they can support Dino. If they want the change they missed the last time, then they can support me"[5]

Other people accuse him of not being pro-life enough (interestingly some democrats are portraying him as too pro-life) [6] or not conservative enough. All I can say is angry Republicans.

I think Jennifer Hammonds Heffernan said it well on Dino's Facebook page [7] when she wrote:

"I respect Clint for sticking to his principles and asking Rossi to consider a very large portion of conservatives who see themselves first as upholders of the Constitution and Republicans second. If Clint doesn't wish to endorse Rossi, I don't see how it matters because every individual still has the freedom to vote for Rossi if they wish. They don't need Clint's permission to do so. Many Clint supporters will vote for Rossi as a vote against Patty, but some will choose to abstain because to vote for someone who isn't 100% in line with Constitutional principles goes against their conscience. The wonderful thing about America is that we each have a vote and the freedom to use it without coercion. "

To me, the big issue is not who does or does not vote for Dino Rossi or Senator Murray. I really would like to see Dino go to Washington DC in January. I believe he's the best guy for the job and his ideas are better than Senator Murray's. But when the arena changes from ideas to attacks and anger, that's the "reality on the ground" but doesn't stop me from wishing it was different. I have nothing against Clint Didier, or Sarah Palin (I even financially contributed to John McCain's campaign BECAUSE he selected her for VP), or for that matter Senator Murray. But must politics always come down to bickering?

Am I alone in this?
-----------------------------------
[1] http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
[2] http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53358
[3] http://www.ontheissues.org/social/Patty_Murray_Abortion.htm
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_election,_2004
[5] http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/204413.asp
[6] http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/08/clint_didiers_last_ditch_attac.php
[7] http://www.facebook.com/DinoRossiWA

So why a blog?

So here I am, writing my first blog post ever. I guess the question someone (but maybe I'm being overly optimistic) is asking is why?

Caveat emptor: I am an Army officer. Although I don't plan on discussing a lot about the military (mostly because I think Army things are very well blogged and I can't add much to the discussion), my affiliation limits to an extent the type of things I can say. Fortunately, I'm a big believer in courtesy and respect to everyone, and especially to those with whom I may disagree.

Mostly I wanted to start a blog because I haven't seen much written from an apolitical perspective...

Don't get me wrong. I am an almost stereotypical "religious right" conservative. I am a proud Presbyterian (even if my denomination has for the most part forgotten what that means). I believe that homosexuality is a sin, that big government is bad, that judicial activism has changed our government to something our founding fathers wouldn't recognize. I believe that people do not have the right to kill babies, even if they happen to be inside their mother's body. If you take a checklist from any of the popular conservative pundits, I can probably check off on nearly any issue on them.

But here's what I see in at least the national stage - on the one side, you have liberals that really do largely control the government or the media, or the universities, or any number of other things, that have truly wigged out ideas that many Americans, including myself, just don't believe in. On the other side, you have conservatives that come across as angry, being forever "against" this thing or the other thing. In all cases, whatever truly changes? How many times have you seen a politician make a speech thusly "It's the (opposing party)'s fault that (pet issue) is this way?"

That's why I'm here... I'm a Christian, and an American, and a Conservative, and I'm pretty happy anyway. If you're a Democrat or a social liberal, I think your party or ideological system is pretty wigged out, but I can talk with you about it anyway, and not be rude. If you're an angry Republican, I think you're right more than you're wrong, but you can be nicer about it. I'm not so convinced that politicians at the national level are so different regardless of party anyway.

So I'll try to write on a regular basis on whatever - hope you stay along for the ride!

God bless you all,

Dion