Halloween Special - Which is scariest - Apple or Microsoft?

Halloween Special - Which is scariest - Apple or Microsoft?

Summary: OK, a little bit for fun for Halloween. Which is the scariest company - Apple or Microsoft?

SHARE:

OK, here's a little bit for fun for Halloween.  Which is the scariest company - Apple or Microsoft?

Halloween Special - Which is scariest - Apple or Microsoft?Let's take a look at some of the evidence before voting ...

Microsoft:

  • Enthusiastically pushing anti-piracy technologies such as WGA with no regard for who was caught in the net
  • Sending stealth Windows Updates to users
  • Unclear Vista Ready/Vista Capable marketing

Apple:

  • Bricking unlocked iPhones
  • Attempting to lock out Linux users from using the latest iPods
  • Promising secret new Leopard features and then not delivering anything

You decide!

[poll id=188]

Thoughts?!  Oh, and Happy Halloween everybody!

Topics: Microsoft, Apple, Enterprise Software, Linux, Open Source, Operating Systems, Piracy, Security, Software

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

83 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • You failed to mention...

    Microsoft:
    Failing to deliver on new features Windows Vista Ultimate.
    Failing to deliver updates in time for Software Assurance to be cost effective.
    Still fighting the EU over fines.

    Apple:
    Having an OS that will supposedly only run on Apple Hardware
    Disavowing credit to various bugs
    Threatening to sue a child if he sends another complement on his iPod.

    I think I have been fair on both
    nucrash
    • Binding SW to HW

      [i]Apple:
      Having an OS that will supposedly only run on Apple Hardware[/i]

      Annoying as it is, there's very little wrong with this. Apple has been doing this
      since the ProDOS days. On the other hand, there are no technical measures in
      Apple computer hardware to keep anyone from running a non-Apple OS on it.
      They even provide support (in a way) for that.

      Embedded devices, such as the iPhone, are a different ball of wax. If you modify
      the software load on an embedded device in such a way as to interfere with the
      update mechanism, you should not be too surprised when the next official update
      fails, nor that the failure resulted in a non-operational system (flash erased but not
      fully programmed, etc.)
      Filker0_z
    • And you BOTH forgot to mention

      Apple:

      Leopard shipping with more security holes than Alpine Lace cheese.
      Wolfie2K3
  • Must be Adrian wanted to leave early today..

    otherwise, why would he write this drivel? Bricking iPhones? When you buy a product and the manufacturer tells you that taking certain actions will damage your device and you do them anyway, how is that the responsibility of the manufacturer? If you pour water into your gas tank, is the auto manufacturer responsible for your not reachin work on time?

    "Promising secret new Leopard features and then not delivering anything." Can you provide example?
    Jeremy W
    • Lets seee

      1) Where did Apple mention damaging the phone before purchasing said phone, they have a record of not doing this sort of behavior.

      2) Steve Jobs stated there were secret features in the Leopard release, well it does not appear there are any features that were not known about before the release in the current release, now they may add them later.
      mrOSX
      • As to secret features...

        I kind of wish the current Java was in fact secretly in Leopard just waiting to be found.
        ego.sum.stig
      • Top Secret features are there

        Top Secret features? They don't have to be in front of the user and it
        appears that they aren't. Good article on the hidden features, starting
        around page 5 under "Kernel" and lasting for several pages"

        http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/mac-os-x-10-5.ars/5

        As for the iPhone bricking - Apple is going to develop the platform based
        on their roadmap, not as a response to what some developers have done.
        When the SDK is released then users should feel safe loading 3rd party
        apps designed with the SDK. Until then users know not to upgrade their
        iPhone until the developers provide a way to safely upgrade. That's not
        really rocket science.
        Ken_z
      • Here Are The Secret Leopard Features!

        1. It crashes iMovie HD early & often

        2. When you call Apple Tech Support, they wouldn't honor the 90-day OS warranty
        because the AppleCare warranty was up on my 6-month-old MacBook Pro! Since
        when has Apple been doing this!?!?! I could not get passed on to the appropriate
        tech support people unless I submitted to this extortion (which I didn't).

        Do yourself a favor! Don't alpha-test Leopard for Apple... stick with Tiger!

        And if you bricked your iPhone by unlocking it, too bad! You knew you were
        expected to use AT&T when you bought it! If I'm stuck with AT&T, so should you
        be!
        SpillChucker
        • Actually...

          The AppleCare on my MacBook Pro was a full YEAR.

          So there may be a miscommunication somewhere.

          As for getting AppleCare on Leopard, I wondered about that but I don't think so.
          AppleCare is for hardware, IIRC.
          Jkirk3279
    • You're no fun

      Where's your sense of humor? Of all holidays, this is the right one to let it shine through (save perhaps April Fools....).

      Not a life-threatening issue, here buddy.

      Don't pooh-pooh on other's laughs.

      But if you must be serious, at least concede that they are both frightening - frighteningly big, frighteningly controlling, their followers can be frighteningly zealous...

      But, again, it's all in good fun. Lighten up. Even if someone did pee in your Cheerios, it's nearly 10 am, so, get over it already.

      And have a Happy Halloween! :)
      laura.b
      • agreed (nt)

        .
        Badgered
      • "laura.b?"

        As in "Laura <b>B</b>ush?"

        (pssst... Is the rumour true that you're planning to take on Hilary in 2012?)
        Henry Miller
        • LOL

          Funny.

          Not quite, but...thank you?
          laura.b
    • Thank you.

      Easily the most relevant and intelligent post on this thread.

      Although I enjoy the humor of the all big companies are evil posts, I'd expect more from the ZDNet staff. Apparently my expectations for ZDNet are a bit too high.
      arod69
  • Microsoft of course ...

    Apple doesn't have the power to stifle competition and drive competitors out of business using illegal tactics. Also if Apple decides to play the role of dictator you can easily leave the ecosystem since the hardware is now pretty much commodity. ;)
    MisterMiester
    • Really?

      [i]Apple doesn't have the power to stifle competition and drive competitors out of business using illegal tactics[/i]

      Have you heard of the iPod? Not to say they would use illegal tactics, but that has nothing to do with power and everything to do with ethics, so it's not withstanding.

      Just saying, there have more than one product to consider here.

      But, as I said before...they're both frightening.
      laura.b
      • Market

        You seem to think that there is a problem with companies trying to gain and maintain market share for profit. It's called capitalism and its investors who ultimately benefit. The only thing scary about this whole conversation is the fact that so many people seem to fear a free capitalistic market.
        Tiggster
        • Then why do they blame Microsoft

          as being a company trying to gain and maintain market share for profit?

          Itunes for iPod only, bundling features in each new OS release, adding IC's and code so as OSX works only on an Apple product, many of the reasons that Apple enthusiasts use as ammunition against Microsoft are received as perfectly acceptable when used on a Mac.
          GuidingLight
          • It's not blaming Microsoft

            The fact is that Microsoft has enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the computer desktop market to the point where it was subsidizing it's competition (yes Microsoft kept Apple afloat back in the early 90's) so that it wouldn't be a total monopoly only a technical monopoly. The problem I think most people have is with the monopolistic actions Microsoft has taken. Basically, stifling the competition and there by keeping a very very large margin on all their products simply because they don't have any competition. Basically, they've gotten themselves in a position where they can set their own price and if somebody does build a better product and is selling it for less they have the muscle to shut them down and the willingness to use that muscle. That's what people object to about Microsoft. Now if they were to offer their products at a reasonable price (let's get real, the prices they are charging for Office is just plain obscene same with most of their OS products especially when you consider you don't own the software you just rent it). The fact is that Microsoft no longer has to deal with market competition and it's working very hard to make sure it doesn't have to actually compete with any other company in it's core markets. Which is why you have Ballmer playing the scare tactics card about LINUX and not coincidentally Apple without saying what Microsoft IP has been infringed. Or why Microsoft has a division devoted to slamming competing products such as Open Office. If Microsoft were willing to compete strictly on the products merits price/cost of operation/features delivered then Microsoft would have to lower it's prices and reduce that margin. And that's something Microsoft stock holders won't allow.
            maldain
          • There's a difference:

            There's a difference between being cagey and being monopolistic.

            For example:

            Apple produces the iPod and uses iTunes to load songs on it.

            Nothing requires them to open up iTunes to work with other players, or publish a
            "how-to" SDK for other manufacturers to sync their players with iTunes.

            Declining to do so in the face of requests is not monopolistic.

            Anybody who doesn't like the iPod is free to buy a player from somebody else.

            Anybody who wants a software sync app for their hardware player is free to partner
            up with an open source software solution.



            That's capitalism for you.

            Now, hypothetically, if MS wanted to get one of their new products out there, and
            blackmailed a reluctant hardware company by threatening to withhold their Windows
            Licensing Rights...

            That's monopolistic behavior. It's either do what MS wants, start promoting Linux,
            or go out of business.

            It's the act of using threats like that to reinforce market dominance that defines a
            monopoly.

            The difference between a company acting in their own self interests and acting as a
            monopoly is as plain as the noses on Mount Rushmore.
            Jkirk3279