Goodbye, Apple

http://mdeslaur.blogspot.com/2009/07/goodbye-apple.html

by mrlebowski • 17 years ago

116 97 17 years ago

mdeslaur.blogspot.com

tdavis• 17 years ago

I'm a big fan of Apple, but this is ridiculous. Going to such extreme lengths in the name of what boils down to decreasing their customer base seems rather silly. God forbid someone use Linux and pay Apple for iPods.

crux4• 17 years ago

This decision is exactly the same as dozens of decisions they've made in the past, all decried as patently ridiculous and self-destructive. Apple likes to sell self-contained systems, in order to make sure that everything works really well. In the iPod's case, they have an interest in being sure that iPods are only used with iTunes, because then they can ensure that it works well -- and so people won't complain about how lousy iPods are when they use it with other people's potentially lousy software.

That's unfortunate for Linux users, because it's clearly not worth it to Apple to build a version of iTunes for GNU/Linux. But, you know, the iPod also doesn't play ogg files. So what are Linux users doing buying them in the first place?

ars4• 17 years ago

I run linux, and I don't have a single ogg file for my music.

Your argument about self contained would be good, except that it's not a case of apple not supporting other things, it's apple deliberately blocking them.

jules2• 17 years ago

Of course not. They're just making sure that you're using their software & brand. This also makes it harder to the music off your ipod, and into someone else's ipod. I'm surprised that Kroes hasn't jumped on this yet.

philwelch8• 17 years ago

Apple would probably have to go to extreme lengths to guarantee interoperability. Breaking gtkpod is, even in this blog post, described as a side effect. I can't imagine Apple cares about gtkpod enough to purposefully break it.

TJensen3• 17 years ago

The tech specs of the iPod never said it supported Linux. When you bought an iPod and decided you wanted to sync it with your Linux box, you stepped outside of the support box. That is not Apple's fault, that is your fault.

(I should note, by "you" I mean "Linux fan who bought an iPod", not "you, tdavis" :). I didn't even consider an Apple product when I was running Linux because I knew it would be too much of a pain.)

crux4• 17 years ago

Synopsis: Apple has never supported or particularly wanted third-party software or hardware to be able to interface with their systems. In the running skirmish that is trying to get said devices to work with said systems, Apple has once again made a change that breaks the jiggered compatibility. This guy doesn't use an Apple system, so he's not gonna buy another iPod.

Well, that, plus a lot more drama and dramatic linebreaks.

Tichy2• 17 years ago

I must admit I am a bit shocked by this, too. I just assumed the iPod would continue to work on Linux, as it worked pretty well so far.

ars4• 17 years ago

That's a rather bad synopsis.

Here's a better one:

In a misguided attempt to lock people in, apple is blocking linux users, (and anyone else) from accessing their data on an iPod.

Don't support 3rd party software? Fine.

Actively block them? Not so fine.

philwelch8• 17 years ago

I don't see where "actively block them" comes in. Changing the database format of your product is something you'd want the latitude to do. The fact that it breaks unsupported third party software is hardly something Apple would go out of their way to do.

tptacek8• 17 years ago

How is this misguided? This behavior looks entirely rational from where I stand. Apple wants to lock people in to iTunes, iTMS, and the iPod/iPhone. They make more money when people use the product suite.

I think people are afflicted with the misapprehension that product bundling is unlawful. It is not. It is unlawful to use bundling as a device to maintain or extend a monopoly. Saying Apple has a monopoly on the iPod is like saying Kimberly-Clark has a monopoly on Huggies.

TomOfTTB6• 17 years ago

I continue to be amazed at how people are willing to give Apple a pass on cutting off the Pre. Paticularly this guy who says he can "understand" Apple cutting off the Pre but then balks at Apple cutting off his music software.

Monopolistic greed is understandable when it doesn't affect me seems to be the attitude (On that note I'm pretty sure Apple makes way more off iTunes than it does off the hardware at this point)

As a customer who is paying for this music I should be able to sync it with whatever I want. I don't expect Apple to support the Pre but I think it's reprehensible to actively try to cut it off.

(For the record I'm an iPhone 3GS owner who doesn't even like the Pre. I just don't want to be forced to use Apple products for the rest of my life just to keep my music)

allenbrunson2• 17 years ago

Meanwhile, I am amazed that people are giving Palm a pass for the tactics they're using. They way they re-enabled iTunes sync is by changing their USB id to be the same as Apple's.

If they wanted the Pre to sync to iTunes data, they should have written their own app that reads the user's XML file. It wouldn't have been that much work.

joeyo4• 17 years ago

  They way they re-enabled iTunes sync is by changing their
  USB id to be the same as Apple's.

What about this do you find objectionable? Do you deplore reverse engineering too?

anupj• 17 years ago

I think Palm Pre is concerned more about its users, whereas apple is obsessed with it's software and hardware. Everyone knows that interoperability is a great thing to have, but nobody wants their competitor(Palm Pre et al) to benefit from the technology that they(Apple) has pioneered and improved for years. Think of it this way. Imagine a world where Palm Pre is invented before iPhone, and there is PreTunes software which is the most popular music/app store in the world. Then Apple launches iPhone, do you think Apple would try to make iPhone compatible with the hypothetical 'PreTunes'? or more importantly: Would Palm stop iPhone from being used via PreTunes? The answer is probably 'Yes'.

philwelch8• 17 years ago

You're not forced to use Apple products to keep your music--none of it is DRM'd anymore so you can use your non-Apple software to sync it with your non-Apple devices on your non-Apple computer. It's even plainly available in the file system--and Apple doesn't even require you to let it reorganize your music files into its preferred folder hierarchy.

If Apple supports interoperability, they have a mess on their hands and they're dealing with interoperability issues instead of making a better product. If they don't support interoperability, people write angsty blog posts about them breaking whatever hackish unsupported software they were using to interface with their iPod. (As for the Pre, anything that allows arbitrary devices to pretend to be an iPhone and sync jeopardizes email account information--which can be synced to the iPhone--and is a security flaw. So I'm sure Apple did intentionally lock out the Pre. But I don't think they care about gtkpod enough to intentionally lock it out.)

"On that note I'm pretty sure Apple makes way more off iTunes than it does off the hardware at this point"

Why stop at "pretty sure"? They're a publicly traded company. It's not hard to get their financials.

Here's some numbers from their Q3 report a couple days ago:

"Apple sold 5.2 million iPhones during the quarter, producing $1.689 billion in revenue..."

"About 10.215 million iPods were sold this quarter, resulting in $1.492 billion in revenue..."

"Apple's "Other Music Related Products and Services" segment was responsible for $958 million in revenue..."

Cite: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/07/21/notes_of_inter...

adharmad2• 17 years ago

Not supporting interoperability is one thing. Going out of your way to prevent it is another.

TomOfTTB6• 17 years ago

Three things...

1. DRM free does not mean all my meta data comes with me. Much of that data is stuff I created and stuff I should have the right to take elsewhere

2. I specifically said "I don't expect Apple to support the Pre but they shouldn't actively block it"

3. Revenue is gross not net. Apple's margins are obviously WAY smaller on a hardware device than they are on digital media.

Tichy2• 17 years ago

"As for the Pre, anything that allows arbitrary devices to pretend to be an iPhone and sync jeopardizes email account information--which can be synced to the iPhone--and is a security flaw"

So any of the billions of iPod users are automatically trusted? I can't imagine the security of email on the iPod depends on trusting all iPhones? Surely they have some other mechanisms in place?

CaptSolo• 17 years ago

"... anything that allows arbitrary devices to pretend to be an iPhone and sync jeopardizes email account information--which can be synced to the iPhone--and is a security flaw."

Since we are talking about USB ids here, pretending to be an iPhone would open a "security flaw" only when they have physical access to the computer iPhone's being synced with.

In which case a person already can do whatever they like with it. E.g., just copy your entire hard drive.

tptacek8• 17 years ago

Apple doesn't have a monopoly in portable music players, in smart phones, or even --- despite practically creating the market --- in online music stores. There are effective market substitutes for all of Apple's products.

Interoperability is good, but it's not a mandate.

TomOfTTB6• 17 years ago

I'm sorry but they have a defacto monopoly in the digital music market. When Walmart, Amazon and Microsoft specifically target you and can't even get their foot in the door that says a lot.

rottencupcakes• 17 years ago

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in Operating Systems either (I think polls have shown that a majority of the members of this site don't run Windows), but they still are fined and antagonized for their 'monopolistic' business practices and bundling.

Apple's free to do this if they want, but then again Microsoft should be free to bundle IE also.

fatdog789• 17 years ago

Monopoly is not required for antitrust violations. Indeed, most companies found liable for antitrust did not have a monopoly in said market.

The key issue is whether the company in question had significant market power and used that power for non-competitive purposes. Price-fixing is a classic example, but it's only one of several.

crux4• 17 years ago

As long as the Pre is capable of syncing with iTunes, you have a situation where an unsupported device is capable of affecting (through fraudulent means) the user's music, contacts, settings, and god knows what else -- all of which live in Apple's operating system, inside Apple's software.

If Palm fucks anything up and some fraction of Pre users manage to corrupt their data or their software (because Pre-iTunes interoperability is an ugly hack!), then those users are not—at least not all of them—going to shrug and say, 'Oh, well. I was using unsupported software and hardware, and I got burnt.' Enough of them are going to say, 'What the fuck!? iTunes/Apple/Mail/OS X sucks!' or they're going to call Applecare support and sit on the phone for half an hour while the poor schmuck tries to get their iTunes library back. That is what we call a bad experience, and Apple doesn't like that. If they control both sides of the equation, then they can make sure that doesn't happen.

TomOfTTB6• 17 years ago

So I guess Microsoft should be able to block any other browser because Chrome might crash and someone could says "Windows Vista sucks" (which it does but that's a whole 'nother story)

Beyond that, if that scenario does happen Apple gets to tell it's customers "Look, Palm messed up your data which is why you should use geniune Apple hardware" and they win a monsterous victory. Palm corrupting iTunes data would be the greatest thing to ever happen to Apple. So the idea that Apple is blocking the Pre because of that doesn't hold much weight.

jsz0• 17 years ago

The integration between iTunes & iPods is Apple's Secret Sauce. Since they have never really opened either side of this equation to third parties it's hard to argue any monopolistic behavior here. Apple isn't stopping anyone from developing their own hardware, software and online store and making a competing platform with the same level of integration that consumers seem to want. It's not Apple's fault that no one has been able to step up and produce a legitimate competitor yet. Like any company Apple is obligated to maximize their profits and protect their market share. We can argue if it's good or bad for the consumer but honestly it's irrelevant. That's how capitalism works. I do not see any legitimate OSS projects offering a comparable platform. Apple (especially since dropping DRM) is not impeding their ability to do it.

llimllib• 17 years ago

> Like any company Apple is obligated to maximize their profits

Not true; fiduciary duty requires you to act in a manner "reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the corporation", which does not mean "reasonably believed to maximize profits".

tvon3• 17 years ago

> I continue to be amazed at how people are willing to give Apple a pass on cutting off the Pre. Paticularly this guy who says he can "understand" Apple cutting off the Pre but then balks at Apple cutting off his music software.

Apple has every right to block the Pre. If they don't, then people will come to expect the Pre syncing to work (and I'm sure other devices would follow) and Apple would be forced into a situation where they would either have to support this or take a significant portion of the blame if an update to iTunes inadvertently broke 3rd party device syncing. Even so, if they only want you to sync with Apple brand products then they can do that too. Don't like it? Don't buy Apple products, that's always been an option.

arantius• 17 years ago

I got a Nokia N810 recently. With a hefty SD card it plays media very adequately for my needs -- and it does a whole lot more too! My iPod is starting to gather dust.

thenduks3• 17 years ago

Wow, I don't get all of this. I use Ubuntu and have an iPod touch, it doesn't sync at all, total brick. But, obviously, I have a windows partition (or, sometimes, virtual machine) which I use to test in IE or play games, etc... So I just use iTunes there. Do people really add music to their libraries every day or something? I sync mine probably once a month, but I can see myself not being upset even if I had to do it once a week. Let's put things like this in perspective, shall we?

asjo• 17 years ago

My perspective is: I do not have Windows on any of my computers (yes, that was, of course, my choice.)

So your solution doesn't work.

My solution is to not upgrade the OS on my generation 1 iPod Touch and use gtkpod. Not very sustainable in the long run, but almost acceptable.

thenduks3• 17 years ago

Hey I'm no fan of Windows, but I really don't see what's so wrong with having a 2-3GB virtual machine around on an external hard drive or something so you can sync your iPod. Perhaps if you're that against Windows on some sort of fundamental level then the iPod is not an appropriate product for you? Or maybe it's time to get a Mac mini for a media center or something and it's problem solved from another angle.

royalpineapple• 17 years ago

yes, many people who enjoy podcasts are forced to sync their iPods as often as daily.

thenduks3• 17 years ago

Then a virtual machine would be the obvious choice.

gabrielroth• 17 years ago

Apple has evidently made a decision to prevent iPods from working without iTunes, and to prevent iTunes from working with non-iPod audio players. We must assume that Apple's executives have weighed the pros and cons of this decision, and have decided that the pros (maintaining a reputation for a seamless experience) outweigh the cons (losing some sales to Linux owners, Palm owners, etc.). That's an ordinary business decision.

"You'd think they would want to sell more iPods, not block a certain percentage of their market out," says mdeslaur in this post.

Maybe the Apple executives have made the wrong decision for their company's bottom line, and maybe mdeslaur, and many of the commenters here, would have made a better decision that would have increased Apple's profits. But given that (a) they have access to a lot of data that you don't have, and (b) they're executives at Apple and you're not, I wouldn't bet on it.

sofal• 17 years ago

Good point. There is a difference between saying "Apple made a bad business move here" and "Apple crossed the line in my opinion and I will not buy from them in the future."

mrlebowski• 17 years ago

For a company that started off with the motive of making the cheapest and most usable computers, and that believed in sharing its design [from iWoz: the APPLE-1 architecture was made public], Apple has come a long way. They are successful, yes. Their products are good, yes. But now they make exhorbitantly expensive products [an iPhone 3gS with contract can cost you ~1000$ in the long run], which they force to not work with anything else [WHY?] and are closely guarded. Apple, you make great products, but I am never gonna buy them, cuz then you'll want me to buy music just from you, use only your software, and pay you for software upgrades [iPod touch] !

jodrellblank5• 17 years ago

But now they make exhorbitantly expensive products

Their profitability demonstrates that this is false. People (lots of people) can and do afford their products.

which they force to not work with anything else [WHY?]

To be able to dictate a minimum standard of user experience and to keep you tied into their ~$250/second profit supply.

you'll want me to buy music just from you

Want you to, yes, but you don't have to - iTunes has offered to import your CDs for ages, and you can put other music files into its library with click-and-drag simplicity.

use only your software

No - if they did there would be no iPhone app-store. It doesn't make sense - they want you to buy a Mac, so they want a compelling ecosystem of high quality programs of all kinds - from Omnigroup and Circus Ponies to FireFox and the gnu Utils.

and pay you for software upgrades [iPod touch]

Which take employees time and effort to develop - why should they be free?

plinkplonk• 17 years ago

@jodrellblank, I guess mrlebowski made those points(expensive, not work with anything else etc) not to claim they are intrinsically bad (which point you seem to be addressing) but as a contrast to how Apple used to work when it was founded.

In other words, Apple's present behavior may be justifiable(like you say) and a change from how it used to work in the past (mrlebowski's point).

ubernostrum2• 17 years ago

  pay you for software upgrades [iPod touch] !

I'm pretty sure it's been established at this point that the fees for iPod Touch software updates are due to Apple (after various scandals, including one in which they were involved) being extremely paranoid about accounting practices.

chaostheory• 17 years ago

I don't understand what the big deal is. If you don't like Apple's policies regarding their products there's a simple solution: buy something else. It's not like Apple has changed overnight. Just like Nintendo, Apple has been doing this for decades; this isn't some new shocker like the Kindle.

In this day and age I have no idea why someone who primarily uses Linux would even bother using an iPod when there are good alternatives to Apple's "circle of one" products.

st3fan• 17 years ago

Goodbye, Linux Hacker.

Goodbye, Apple

Related Stories