Might = Not Right?
My two-weeks-back writeup on OS 10.4 (Tiger) included the following zinger:
"Quick aside; why do folks whine so vehemently every time Microsoft rolls a function into its O/S that previously was serviced by third parties, but look the other way when Apple does it? Can you say "double standard"?"
I was specifically speaking about Tiger's Dashboard, which rips off Pixoria's excellent Konfabulator. Heck, Apple can't even come up with an original name for the mini-applications that run under Dashboard; it recycle's Konfabulator's 'widget' nomenclature! In the same spirit of, and further elaborating on, my April 29 jab, I encourage you to peruse Dave Kearn's excellent editorial, Apple: Predator or Protagonist?, in NetworkWorld's May 2nd issue.
Dave observes, and I concur, that there's little or nothing blatantly revolutionary about Tiger (in spite of what Apple's marketing machine would lead you to believe); it's a predictable, evolutionary upgrade that refines features already present in prior OS X revisions and incrementally replicates capabilities both previously offered by third parties and already available on the Windows platform. He concludes with this thought:
"When Microsoft does this, it's denounced as a predator and a monopolist. When Apple does it, it's praised as an innovator."
So why the double standard? Is it Microsoft's convicted monopolist stigma? Is it Microsoft's estimated 90% client O/S market share, versus Apple's low single-digit share? I mean, I'm a long-time Chicago Cubs and Sacramento Kings fan, so I can relate to rooting for the underdog, but this is a bit ridiculous….