Is Apple Evil?

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/ipad

by larrykubin • 16 years ago

105 95 16 years ago

At what point do they run into the restrictions that came up in the Microsoft / IE situation? Do they need to be more dominant first?

wmf4• 16 years ago

Do you mean antitrust scrutiny? It seems like Apple's cream-skimming strategy allows them to be really profitable without ever getting large market share.

sgk284• 16 years ago

They need a monopoly... which they are nowhere near having. Even then an AppStore isn't anti-competitive (if anything, it embraces and thrives on competition).

seldo• 16 years ago

I don’t know why they’re doing it. It’s hard to see how it makes them more money. (Curating all those apps must be expensive, not to mention the lost sales from the unapproved ones.)

It seems like a 30% cut of any app sold for your operating system would far outweigh the cost of approving those sales.

akeefer3• 16 years ago

Apple, at least, claims they don't make much money there. Per their latest quarterly call: "iTunes and App Store are still running 'a bit over break-even.' We’re investing a lot in these stores – that’s where the revenue is going." http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/25/apple-q1-2010-results/

pyre5• 16 years ago

Wouldn't "W're investing a lot in these stores" translate into "lots of fixed costs are being spent building ourselves a platform to profit off of this?"

electromagnetic• 16 years ago

What happens when they stop needing to invest huge amounts of revenue into their stores? Major profits.

Example: I buy a B&B and use the revenue from my rentals to expand the property to get more rooms (IE higher revenue) and I invest that too. 10 years down the road I could have the biggest hotel in the country, making record revenues but nearly zero profit, and then I stop expanding. I'm then raking in multi-millions from one-stop sales and my business will have operated exactly the same as iTunes and the App store.

Apple has the potential to make huge amounts of money off of iTunes and the App store. They're just delaying this to expand their market hold and look benign. "How can Apple possibly be evil?" you hear people ask; "They barely profit off their stores," they say. 10 years down the line, when no one cares anymore, no one will bat an eyelid when Apple is taking in over a billion dollars from its iTunes and App store sales.

rikthevik• 16 years ago

The app store money is a huge deal, no doubt.

This control gives them veto power over every piece of software on the iPad lets them create a seamless user experience. People are used to computers crashing and being impossible to use. I think people will pay a lot of money for a computer that doesn't require a CS degree to operate. I'm sure Apple does too.

protomyth2• 16 years ago

30% of 0.99 - credit card fees - bandwidth cost

credit card fees on small amounts are heinous

whalesalad2• 16 years ago

I think people are confusing corporations succeeding in a capitalist market with "evil". This is AMERICA, where we compete for everything and anyone can do anything, as long as they can do it better than someone else. Apple is not evil. They're a company that likes to make money, and likes to make devices that people blow their loads over.

I worked at apple for a while... they gave me some cool things like a free bus pas ($50 in Hawaii) every month to encourage use of public transit. They're certainly not evil, not any more evil than Google, Microsoft, HP, IBM, the list goes on...

They're just the most successful. And it always sucks at the top, because everyone is trying to bring you down. Imagine all the companies that are trying to get at Apple's trade secrets, it's no wonder they have such intense security.

Sanguinez• 16 years ago

Companies can be successful and making a lot of money without taking away their users' freedom. It doesn't make them evil, but it makes me loose any interest in their products.

jacobolus2• 16 years ago

Who said anything about secrecy or getting at their trade secrets? Aaron is sad that Apple’s long-term strategy, as far as he can tell, is to build locked-down platforms where they take control away from device owners. This makes those of us who like to tinker – who believe in constructivist education and free culture and open systems and decentralized power – sad, because the more successful these devices are, the more they threaten to undermine those values.

mos14• 16 years ago

Our lives are full of devices that could be general purpose, but were made more specialized for ease of use, maintenance, battery life, or w/e.

I don't understand why so many people are getting their panties in a knot because somebody is selling another non-general-use device with a processor.

And I know that hyperbolic rhetoric is fun, but let's be realistic. This is not undermining constructivist education, free culture, decentralized power or open systems in any meaningful way. If you really think it's accomplishing all that, go take your medication.

whalesalad2• 16 years ago

EDIT: Sorry somehow I thought this post had no URL, I was making these comments purely on the title. Must have accidentally clicked comments instead of the title.

sofal• 16 years ago

You cannot take the "it's not evil, it's just capitalism" argument all the way to its logical conclusion. Even a basic Economics 100 class will teach you that it's more complicated than that. Some levels of "good" and "evil" may have slippery and relative definitions, but it should be obvious that evil, as well as good, can exist in capitalism.

If you disagree with what is being called "evil", than you could be more specific. I don't think free bus passes for employees justifies a company to engage in anti-competitive behavior. Remember, legal != good.

lurkinggrue2• 16 years ago

They are not evil, just a bit Authoritarian.

That dosn't settle well with many geeks but shiny can overcome that in some.

gwern• 16 years ago

I disagree; I think Apple's alignment is more Lawful Evil.

lurkinggrue2• 16 years ago

Hmmm... that would explain a lot.

stanleydrew2• 16 years ago

It’s clear that Apple plans for the iPhone OS to be the future of its product line.

I don't like that they are making such a big push with the iPhone OS either, but how is it "clear" that Apple plans to make it the foundation of its future product line?

netcan• 16 years ago

Thinking of it, I'm surprised that they haven't made more moves in that direction yet.

Can you think of anyone you know who would be better off with an Iphone like OS for their primary machine? Streamlined & controlled app installation. No file system access. No virtual desktop. No desktop at all.

I know several. The reality is that most people still feel awkward with computers. They have to ask for help. They qualify sentences with "I don't know computers." It's not just about what they can do (they can usually get their work done), it's about how that feels. It feels crap.

I seriously think that if you put an iMac sized iphone in front of them with a Word app and such, they would feel a lot better with it. They wouldn't need to ask for help. They wouldn't feel like they don't understand. They would be able to get their work done just as well. In fact, an iPad with 3g & a keyboard dock is almost there. Maybe it is there.

Why should Apple want the world of computing to look like this? They are good at that world.

robg3• 16 years ago

What if they're simply aiming for a bigger slice of the PC market? They came to dominate smartphones (and Music distribution) well-after the fact by simplifying everything. I don't see why the PC market is any different. Apples were always supposed to be easy to use and they've made software installations and updates much easier by controlling the process. 8% of the market leaves plenty of room for improvement and I'd bet a majority of users would gladly give up freedom for simplicity.

http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2010/01/while-pc-market...

akeefer3• 16 years ago

I think it's perfectly clear why they're doing this: because they think it provides a better consumer experience. That, in turn, is what translates into more money and more sales. (I believe they said on their conference call earlier this week that don't make much off their cut of app sales).

The iPhone and iPad are not computers: they're extensible consumer electronics devices. The iPhone sells so well precisely because it just works, and it's really hard to screw it up relative to a computer. How is creating a consumer electronics device evil? Because people want it to be a computer? Because it'll somehow erode the market for full-fledged computers? Because they're attracting developers to their closed system? How is this any more evil than Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft making their game consoles relatively closed systems?

We should all keep in mind that computers as such are a usability and maintenance disaster for 95% of the population who has no idea how to deal with viruses, install or remove software, resolve crashes or incompatibilities, or even navigate a file system so they don't lose their documents.

Maybe I'm too cynical about computers and give Apple too much of the benefit of the doubt, but their devices are good precisely because they exert so much end-to-end control, and computers are broken for so many people precisely because they're so open.

robg3• 16 years ago

The more I think about the iPad, the more it looks like a computer to me and one that would satisfy a large segment of the PC market. I'm just not sure why Apple isn't marketing it as one and selling a package that includes the dock and keyboard and maybe even speakers. It's a PC but one that you can easily take with you, turn on quickly, and do stuff on the go. In a weird way, the history of the Tablet seems to have them responding that it's not a Tablet PC. But I see no reason, practically, why it couldn't be exactly that.

Otherwise, I agree with you completely. And looking at their 8% market share of PCs, there's a lot of room for them to improve in that category and do very, very well. They've already shown that simplicity sells.

benatkin• 16 years ago

> selling a package that includes the dock and keyboard

I think many of those who are fine with it being their main computer will be fine without a keyboard. Also, it wouldn't be Apple's style. It reminds me of how the MacBook Air doesn't come with an optical drive.

DougBTX2• 16 years ago

package that includes the dock and keyboard and maybe even speakers

There is a dock with a built in keyboard, and there is a plain dock. The iPad also supports Apple wireless keyboards, has a built in speaker, and both docks have audio jacks.

Also, you can buy iWork for it, so yes, may as well be a consumer computer. Don't expect XCode or Terminal apps though.

GeneralMaximus• 16 years ago

No. Please, no. I love my Mac to death for one simple reason: I can program it and distribute my apps to just about anyone without restrictions and without having to go through the abomination that is the AppStore. Why does the computing industry suddenly want to take the joy out of programming by pushing for closed devices?

No, I won't program for the web. Why? Because I don't want to write JavaScript. I want to write C, C++, Objective-C, Python, Perl, Haskell or any one of the thousands of programming languages I can run on my Mac today.

wmf4• 16 years ago

How is creating a consumer electronics device evil? Because people want it to be a computer? Because it'll somehow erode the market for full-fledged computers?

Yes. Zittrain wrote a book about it: http://futureoftheinternet.org/

computers as such are a usability and maintenance disaster for 95% of the population

This can be fixed (see OLPC), but all the companies are just locking everything down rather than innovating. There's a huge lost opportunity here.

akeefer3• 16 years ago

I don't think the opportunity is lost, it's just that none of the big companies are taking advantage of it. Honestly, I think that's because they think it's too hard. Microsoft and Apple have been trying for decades at this point to make a computer that's open, easy to use for everyone, never crashes, etc. The open source community has been trying too. I don't see anyone as having succeeded there. It's not for lacking of wanting to succeed, or for a lack of trying, it's just a really hard problem, and by locking things down they can create things that work much more predictably and reliably.

I don't think the OLPC is a counter-example; it solves some issues in virtue of having a standardized hardware platform, and they've tried to do away with the file system (which sort of works and sort of doesn't), but I don't think they've completely solved all the other problems around versioning and installation and removal and viruses and third-party devices that need their own drivers, etc. I don't know a ton about it, so it's entirely possible there's something else innovative there that I'm missing. I also would argue that they haven't done it in a device that an average consumer would really want. They done all sorts of innovative things that I think are great, but I don't think they've solved those fundamental issues in a general way.

As for the moral obligation standpoint . . . I haven't read Zittrain's book, so I can't fully debate that argument. From my perspective, roughly, you have a moral obligation not to do X if doing X infringes on someone else's rights without their consent. So to say it's unethical to create a device like the iPad you'd have to argue that people who don't buy the iPad are directly harmed by it somehow, and that just seems like a tough argument to make. I think the effect of something like the iPad on the future of computers, the internet, society as a whole, etc. is so hard to predict that I don't think you can fairly say that someone or some company has a moral obligation one way or the other. Maybe those devices will open up computing to people that currently couldn't use those devices, making their lives better. Maybe it will enable doctors to carry around a tablet that helps them avoid mistakes, saving lives. Maybe it will help small-time developers make more money selling their software. Or maybe it will kill innovation and put us at the mercy of an increasingly-paranoid government and law-enforcement community or put our information and privacy firmly in the hands of large corporations. It's so hard to say which way things will go that I just don't think you can say it's unethical.

niels_olson• 16 years ago

as an owner of 2 OLPC laptops, I submit that it is not the model of usability and maintenance you seek.

ecq4• 16 years ago

EDIT: absolutely agree user experience is Apple's no. 1 priority.

rw• 16 years ago

Apple gives us great default choices. But when you want to change them, what do you do? Nothing, because you can't.

swernli• 16 years ago

The inability to change their products is directly tied to the restrictions in the problem space that let them make the defaults great. You're right, you can't change them. Which means you can't screw it up. Most people are not tech-savy enough to handle the choices, so instead of giving people something mediocre and saying it can be customized, Apple makes something great that is locked down. For most people, that's perfect. For those it isn't good enough for, they can get something else.

tolmasky2• 16 years ago

I think its important to realize what you miss out on as much as what you get. Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we may have never gotten a web browser.

Apple has explicitly disallowed any interpreter other than the one built into Safari, simply because it would be impossible to have a web browser without JS. Some would argue that they've severely crippled it by removing Flash, which demonstrates just how far they are willing to go.

Now imagine if the iPad had arrived before the browser. They would have never allowed this browser idea, with this crazy "javascript" thing, on the App Store. There would have been no special exception because it "might change the world". I think we can all agree that the browser was probably one of the most important developments in not just computer history, but human history, even if we had to do it at the cost of those confusing file systems and other side effects of open systems.

The problem with this model, is that we may miss out on the next "browser". The next huge idea that completely changes the world, because we have ONE party that has to decide whether it is profitable for them first.

Its possible to create a great, easy to use system, that is also open. Arguably the web is precisely this. The web is also usable by my grandparents. The web can also eliminate the complexities of the file system (each web app stores its files). But the web is still open.

tbrownaw2• 16 years ago

> Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we may have never gotten a web browser.

Assuming this had at some point become the only common model of computing, what would keep out newcomers from coming out with less locked-down systems? What about things like "many dealers started bundling the Apple II with VisiCalc" (http://lowendmac.com/orchard/06/visicalc-origin-bricklin.htm...); if there's sufficiently useful software that won't run on your computer, you (or your employer) will buy a new, working, computer.

> The problem with this model, is that we may miss out on the next "browser". The next huge idea that completely changes the world, because we have ONE party that has to decide whether it is profitable for them first.

General computing cannot be replaced by such devices, let alone by a single implementation of such a device by a single manufacturer.

gaius• 16 years ago

Had this model of computing existed before the web browser was invented, we may have never gotten a web browser.

That's a really weird thing to say because it did. Atari 2600 anyone?

But Apple have never even pretended the iPhone et al were "open" computing devices. Contrast that to the just-as-limited ChromeOS.

jacquesm• 16 years ago

> I think we can all agree that the browser was probably one of the most important developments in not just computer history, but human history

I really don't agree with that. In computer history, it had been preceded by generations of dumb terminals hooked up to networks, so as such it wasn't all that new. The HTTP protocol underlying it and the URL arguably are much more important developments, the browser is just a presentation layer on top of those.

As for human history, the wheel, the control of fire, penicillin, communications satellites, space travel and hundreds of other inventions were both done earlier and have had a much bigger impact on how we live than the browser ever will.

The mobile phone, maybe. The browser ? No way.

NathanKP• 16 years ago

I completely agree. I find that especially older people simply do not understand computers or even the concept of multi-tasking. The iPad has been getting flack because it is basically just an iPhone and can't run multiple apps at once. Yet the problem I see is that a lot of non-tech people don't really seem to understand the idea of running multiple programs at once. To them the iPhone style of opening an app, using it, closing it, and then opening it to see it in the state that it was in when you closed it makes more sense. As long as app launching is kept extremely fast, almost instantaneous, it is no inconvenience either.

This is just one small example of the way the iPhone / Apple techniques seem to work well for people because they are simple and easy to use.

peterwwillis• 16 years ago

I think it's perfectly clear why they're doing this: it's a lock-in device. The more people buy these half-assed products that limit their choices and exclude 3rd party support and control of your own device, the more money they can funnel out of you. Oh, you want music? You have to buy it from us. Oh, you want a program so you can be productive? You better hope we approved a recent version of it. Don't like it? Too bad, you already bought the hunk of metal and silicon, deal with it. Make no mistake: total vendor control is not in your best interests as a consumer. It never has been, never will be.

ErrantX2• 16 years ago

> Oh, you want music? You have to buy it from us.

Lets be fair - that isn't true.

gr366• 16 years ago

I don't know the answer to this, but have we seen evidence that Apple's commitment to OS X is waning? They seem to have discussed multiple product lines today, one of those being the "computer" market, and the others being part of their new "mobile device" markets, namely iPhone/iPod Touch and the new tablet.

I do know that as far as tech support, I've had to help my girlfriend out a ton with her MacBook (curse you spinning beach ball), but the extent of support I've had to provide for her iPhone has been, "switch it off and switch it on again."

Perhaps Apple is distinguishing between full-fledged computers (for those who have the technical skill and desire to tinker) and consumer devices that are, yes, tightly controlled but less likely to get screwed up by your average person who likes to email, browse the web and watch videos.

tjmc• 16 years ago

I think that's the key point - this is a great "computer for dummies". A machine your grandparents could use.

I don't need an iPad in the same way I don't need a car with built-in radar to help me reverse. But there are plenty of people who do need that help. I'm happy for the choice to be there, just as long as I can still buy an open machine. Personally, I don't see Apple giving up on that area.

dannyr• 16 years ago

"That’s not to say the iPad won’t sell, or that I don’t want one. The scariest thing is that I think it probably will. ... I love Apple products. I’m a huge Apple fan. I’d buy an iPad right now if I could."

This is why Apple will continue to do what it is doing right now. People complain about its controlling policies. People call them "evil". But these very same people will not back up their words with action and continue to buy products made by an "evil" company.

As long as Apple continue to hit its peak in stock price, as long as it earns record-breaking profits, as long as it sells millions of products, it will not change its ways.

To the author, you can blog all you want about Apple's policies. The only thing that matters is for you to turn that into action. If you think Apple is "evil", don't buy its product. Stop patronizing "evil".

wmf4• 16 years ago

I am boycotting the iPhone/iPad (I have the open N900), but I don't have any illusions that it will change anything. In a world where 1% of the people create all the innovation, boycotts by innovators are pointless. For the past ~20 years the masses have been effectively subsidizing tinkerers/hackers/developers by buying open PCs even though they didn't really need them; now that has come to an end and it looks painful to those former beneficiaries.

pyre5• 16 years ago

It's not 'coming to an end.' Business users will still use laptops. No one is going to be writing novels or creating complex spreadsheets on an iPad. 'The masses' will need a computer that can do those other things well (for school or such), and they don't have the budget to buy a general-purpose PC/Mac + an iPad + an iPhone.

stanleydrew2• 16 years ago

A lot of people will buy one used, which doesn't add anything to Apple's bottom line. Although you could argue that Apple products' relatively high resale value drives some initial sales...

volida2• 16 years ago

The are betting on their platform which should be more than enough for the average user, therefore the lack of Flash. Whether that will fire-back to them remains to be seen. It probably wont for the time being.

But why is everyone making so important issue the need for Flash? Except playing videos (for which there are alternative) I don't see much other use.

The average user doesn't care what OS you give them as long as you are meeting their expectations. As long as Safari is full compliant with the web standards I don't care about anything else.

Anyhow, if this is going to be a successful product other hardware makers will follow and you will be able to install Windows.

dandelany• 16 years ago

But why is everyone making so important issue the need for Flash?

Two reasons:

1. It's Apple, everything is supposed to just work. As a web developer, I not a huge Flash fan. But if I'm on my iPhone or iPad and I get the "missing plugin" brick, I'm pissed: I'm missing out on content. Steve Jobs wasn't telling the whole truth when he said it was the "real internet".

and 2. Flash was introduced almost 15 years ago. The fact that Apple is today announcing a magical device with a touchscreen and a blazing fast mobile processor, but one that cannot run a plugin that my grey Gateway 2000 Pentium I desktop had no trouble with just seems backwards. I don't know if it's an Apple problem or an Adobe problem, but it's what you get when you mix two companies with closed software standards.

volida2• 16 years ago

Your points are valid, but I don't see how they affect the average web user. I'd be iterated too if there was a missing plugin. But most pages don't depend on flash so the odds of that happening are less.

With the upcoming compilation of Flash to native applications developers will be able to tunnel their apps through the App Store. Not perfect but for Flash game developers it's not so bad.

ecq4• 16 years ago

"And the iPhone OS will only run software that they specifically approve. No Flash or other alternate runtimes, no one-off apps or open source customizations. Just total control by Apple. It’s a frightening future.

I don’t know why they’re doing it."

I'll tell you why. because Apple's number one priority is the user experience. You need that kind of control if you want the best possible user experience. And it works for them and their users. 99.999% doesn't give a shit about your concerns.

That's the reason why iPhone sales trumps Nexus One/Droid/etc.

pyre5• 16 years ago

> I'll tell you why. because Apple's number one priority is the user experience. You need that kind of control if you want the best possible user experience.

If Apple applied their logic to the Universe (or at least Earth) we would all be living in an episode of Leave it to Beaver to 'improve the user experience.' What if you don't want to live in a Leave it to Beaver universe? Too bad.

CamperBob• 16 years ago

When Apple starts paying off legislators and bribing judges to outlaw the possession of Linux- and Windows-based PCs, you'll have a point. I don't see that happening, do you? Nobody is forcing you to live in Leave It to Beaver-land; you're just bitching because your cable company added an oldies channel that carries it.

ecq4• 16 years ago

no ones forcing you to use Apple products. You're free to use Windows/Linux/Nexus one/etc.

:-)

greenlblue• 16 years ago

Any time there are ideological stakes and interests there are bound to be "evil" plans to preserve them. In the end it's going to be consumer choice and as long as Apple keeps their customers comfortably numb I don't think they are going to change their ways to be friendlier to the developer community.

s3graham• 16 years ago

I'm not buying it.

Agreed, Apple is certainly trying to close things down, but there's sufficient competition in the space that I don't see the "frightening future".

If pads take off now, there'll be a decent Android GoogPad, WinMo ZunePad, with Amazon selling no-DRM media, etc. and you can decide if you want a slightly less sexy design in exchange for device functionality/flexibility.

derefr• 16 years ago

The important thing to remember here: there will always need to be a platform to run your IDE on to develop the closed-platform apps. Even In a completely locked-down world, the platform SDK has to be running on something.

jsz0• 16 years ago

As long as Apple doesn't do anything to harm alternative platforms I admire their determination to provide the most elegant, usable, consumer devices possible. I want the most usable device possible and I'm willing to accept some limitations to get it. It's a choice that's just as valid as buying the most hardcore Linux/OSS device you can find because you want the maximum flexibility and freedom.

gsmaverick• 16 years ago

If you think it's so bad then don't buy it. As long as you continue to buy Apple products you are supporting their policies.

dnsworks2• 16 years ago

The real evil I see with Apple is the App Store. It's very anti-competitive. Since you can only sell ipod/ipad applications through their store, they own a monopoly on it. This is problematic because it's a model that will never allow any competition. If I wanted to start a store that takes only a 5% or 10% commission of every ipod/ipad application sale, I am unable to do this.

Apple is preventing me from selling other people's software more competitively than they can. Imagine if Walmart told all video game manufacturers that they were no longer allowed to distribute through any other channel besides Walmart.

philwelch2• 16 years ago

That's a bad analogy. A better analogy is, "Imagine if Microsoft told all video game manufacturers that they were no longer allowed to sell Xbox games without having them approved by...oh, wait."

(If console games were small enough for digital download to be feasible, do you really think Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo would let you buy them at every damn store? Would they even bother putting drives in the machines anymore?)

dnsworks2• 16 years ago

Don't you get the feeling that Apple is trying to phase our their OS X model towards a more iphone-like ecosphere where they can own everything? I do.

ronnier2• 16 years ago

>It’s a frightening future

It's not that frighting, use Windows.

neilk• 16 years ago

I think you mean "Ubuntu".

ronnier2• 16 years ago

Either one, my point is that other options exist.

tzury• 16 years ago

Dear Mr. Jobs, You have just announced the most restricted personal computing platform ever! evil, even with a slick look remains evil

http://twitter.com/tzury/status/8312812934

awa• 16 years ago

I don't think it would be long before somebody is able to root the device and install a version of linux or android on the device. The nook was rooted within days and the iPad would be definitely more tempting to hackers to tinker with.

zppx• 16 years ago

How will developers create new applications for the iPhone OS without the Mac? Just think about this question to see how this article is utterly nonsensical. Contrary to what the Apple apologists are saying Apple do not have "user experience" as it main concern. What is really happening is just a transition, Apple is becoming more and more a digital content distributor and less of the hardware/software company that it was in the past will remain, but it will not be obliterated, and the iPad is just a materialization of this police of a company that is trying to win more money in this market.

kenshi• 16 years ago

The iPad and other closed systems (PS3, Xbox) don't magically make Windows PCs, Macs, Linux or the Web go away.

As developers we have more choices than we have had in a very long time in terms of picking the platforms we want to develop for. Every platform has its pros and cons, as a developer you get to choose what's important to you when picking a platform to target.

People who want to write software will always pick open systems. People who aren't techies or creatives just want technology to serve a purpose (users of information appliances), and just want things to work with the minimal amount of fuss. Locking things down simplifies a lot of things for end users.

The panic over every platform that gets released that isn't suitably open, just makes me think of this Alan Kay quote:

"In fact, let’s not even worry about Java. Let’s not complain about Microsoft. Let’s not worry about them because we know how to program computers, too, and in fact we know how to do it in a meta-way. We can set up an alternative point of view, and we’re not the only ones who do this, as you’re well aware."

Source: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039523

lssndrdn• 16 years ago

  it’s not hard to imagine Apple doing their best to phase 
  out the Macintosh in the next decade, just as they phased
  out OS 9

I completely disagree. There's a need for high end machines for image, sound, and other professionals who use these machines because they are really good. Sure, some people who would have bought a iMac will end up buying an iPad instead because really all they need to do is surf the web and check their mail. But from there to discontinuing Mac OS X altogether it's a big leap of the imagination which I find unfounded.

Is Apple Evil?

Related Stories