Apple responds to my "proprietary OS X kernel" column

I was serendipitously in San Jose when my column on Apple's closed-source OS X x86 kernel posted on-line. Apple had set up a day of meetings for me to discuss MacBook (nice!), Final Cut Express HD (overdue, underpriced and very powerful) and Apple's WorldWide Developer Conference (I'm jazzed). After the column ran, my agenda expanded to include a discussion with leaders of Apple's OS and open source programs. The gist of their message was that I had sensationalized and misrepresented a topic of interest only to me and an almost immeasurably small group of "geeks." I was told that the question of OS X kernel openness is still an open question, and while they concede that my column was accurate as a whole, anyone who didn't read past the second paragraph might misconstrue my meaning.

I told Apple that I'd address these objections in a blog post. So here it is.

I stand by every point I made in my column as it appeared in print in InfoWorld magazine and on-line at infoworld.com. I have nothing to do with any other sources for or interpretations of my column. Go to the link above and read the whole story. A thorough read obviates the need for clarification. However, I will address the objections and observations that Apple expressed during our meeting, because the discussion itself was enlightening. Apple's remarks are set in bold type.

My column didn't tell Apple anything it didn't already know. Where my Mac editorial is concerned, I write for my readers and for Apple's prospective commercial and professional customers, as well as Mac developers. I write as a proxy for vendors' customers, not for vendors.

Apple hasn't made public any decision to open source or keep proprietary the OS X x86 kernel. I allowed Apple plenty of time to publicize a decision. Steve Jobs announced the delivery of the first Intel-based Macs during the first week of January. My column ran in the second week of May. That interval reflects a promise that I made to Apple back in February (expressed in a 2/22 blog entry on OS X x86 syncing with open source Darwin x86) to delay my column by several weeks to give the company ample time to state its position first.

When Apple lands on an open source kernel policy, neither the decision nor the timing will have anything to do with me, my column or other external pressure. This was presumably to head off any gloating I might do over an Apple decision to open its code. Noted.

A lot of people linking to, paraphrasing or interpreting my column are getting the wrong idea because they failed to read past my column's second paragraph. I have higher expectations of my readers' attention spans than others do, and I don't break every point I make down to the molecular level to aid those who just don't understand the issue.

I misrepresented Apple's motivation for keeping the OS X x86 kernel closed (to slow piracy). In the May meeting, Apple said that this "represented the agenda of one person," who happened to be the one Apple person who would speak to me on this subject in February. This is the same individual for whom I held this story until now.