[netcan]

It's typical. Windows always seemed to have a pragmatic, simple decision making process. They're strategic too, but not dogmatic. They never tried to win with windows, for example, by not making office for mac. If the office team wants to make software for mac or android or whatnot, I don't think they'd be stopped.

Google has the thousand flowers mentality.

Apple doesn't like to develop anything that admits the existence of intelligent life outside of Apple. In fairness, they are a "do few things well" company. They don't actually make that much software. They also don't like to do things that don't directly make money. There isn't a whole lot of money to be made selling apps on Android or windows mobile.

But yeah, itunes/ipod for android would be a no brainer for any other company. Just like kindle, for ipad. At Apple it requires divine revelation.

[jdechko]

Nothing is stopping anyone from writing an iTunes syncing client though. Apple has an approved method for syncing playlists and songs (though not the DRMed videos). DoubleTwist has been doing it for years. Palm got screwed over because they weren't using the approved method, and were trying to pose as an iPod. So it might not be developed directly by Apple, but they do support it.

[nirvana]

> " They never tried to win with windows, for example, by not making office for mac."

Wow! Ok, I'm guessing you're of an age where you were probably very young at the time, but exactly this happened. Microsoft, for years, threatened to cancel office for the mac (office only exists because of the mac- word and excel started in the mac before windows existed.)

Apple used their control over office to drive Apple nearly to bankruptcy in the 1990s. It was only until Microsoft got caught red handed shipping source code stolen from Apple that they were forced to negotiate, and that produced a massive settlement where Microsoft paid Apple many billions of dollars over 5 years, both companies entered a broad patent cross licensing agreement (Which is still in effect, and which is why microsoft doesnt' ship something like android which is an iOS ripoff- but was forced to do something original with Windows Phone.)

And of course, part of that agreement was that Microsoft would continue to ship office for the mac.

> "If the office team wants to make software for mac or android or whatnot, I don't think they'd be stopped."

Not how microsoft works at all, and I know this because I worked there. Anything that is seen as a threat to the windows monopoly is killed, immediately.

Office for Microsoft's own tablets was mortally wounded because it was seen as a threat to the desktop windows empire.... which is part of the reason the tablet market was in terminal shape until the iPad came out.

> They don't actually make that much software. They also don't like to do things that don't directly make money.

Apple makes a great deal of software that it is unable to directly monetize-- iOS and Mac OS X are good examples. While Apple charges $20 for OS X, that's ancillary.... Apple also makes a great deal of software- from games like Texas Holdem Poker (which they made to help jumpstart the App Store to Final Cut Pro X which was made to make the Mac relevant for that class of creatives back in the day) almost all of Apple's software efforts are to support the platform. Hell they even make a database and Office apps so the mac can never be without good solutions in these areas.... and then they sell them for cheap.

[nivla]

>It was only until Microsoft got caught red handed shipping source code stolen from Apple that they were forced to negotiate.

Do you have any source for this or are you just making it up? Microsoft agreeing to continue making Office for mac was the settlement of a bogus patent lawsuit where Apple sued Microsoft for having a GUI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...

[netcan]

I think we're just looking at it from a different altitude.