The Case Against Apple

http://calacanis.com/2009/08/08/the-case-against-apple-in-five-parts/

by jasonlbaptiste • 17 years ago

125 126 17 years ago

I apologize for not being entirely on-topic, but I don't understand why people have the perception that "Steve's a great guy," as the article says.

He always seemed like a jerk compared to Bill Gates.*

More or less I agree with Wired commentary's assessment: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2006/0...

* And who else could we compare him to? (Thats not rhetorical, I'd enjoy some replies on the subject. Perhaps Woz?)

loltrader• 17 years ago

Agreed. I've always thought he's a douche bag.

jacquesm9• 17 years ago

Compared to Woz both Steve and Bill are jerks.

jimbokun2• 17 years ago

Compared to Woz, most people are jerks.

spitfire• 17 years ago

The difference between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs is Steve Jobs isn't actively trying to HURT others through illegal and unethical business practices. Gates' company has been found guilty of this a number of times.

Steve just makes his products and if someone wants to play in his sandbox they play by his rules. He may be a dick to work with, but he isn't actively hurting others.

And no, I wouldn't say making some donations - no matter the amount, makes up for past actions.

jacquesm9• 17 years ago

That's very true. The lawsuit that got swept under the carpet should have gone through and it probably would have led to some serious sanctions against ms. There is no way that Gates would have been able to deny knowledge of all the stuff they were doing that was clearly illegal.

Earlier today there was a thread about possible tainting of the bing serps by microsoft, one of their employees did his very best to make it clear that they have changed their attitude. I salute the man for his upright position on this, if everybody there would be like that it would be a different story altogether, but it is going to be a long long time before I'm going to give microsoft the benefit of the doubt on stuff like this.

The road behind is literally littered with the corpses of companies that came under the tank, and a good portion of those did not do anything to deserve the treatment they got.

stanleydrew7• 17 years ago

This is kind of absurd in its lack of even-handedness. I'm no expert on the history of these two men and the histories of their companies, but to say that Gates and MS have actively tried to hurt others whereas Jobs and Apple haven't would appear to reveal a serious pro-Apple bias.

First, lack of a conviction for anti-competitive behavior doesn't imply that Apple's not actively trying to hurt competitors or consumers. It just means they haven't done anything bad enough to warrant the government getting involved yet. But more than that, I'm not sure we should even care about convictions. I think every major company tries to create an environment in which they have the best chance of success. A lot of times they do things that are anti-competitive and harm consumers in order to create that environment. And a lot of times those things slip under the radar. I think this article does a great job of describing some of what Apple has been doing in that regard with iTunes and the App Store. And to pretend that Apple's recent actions haven't actively hurt other companies and even its own customers is ridiculous.

Finally, the statement that "Steve just makes his products and if someone wants to play in his sandbox they play by his rules" could just as well be applied to Gates. But if I were to make such a statement most people Apple fans would flip out. So Steve "just makes" this personal music management software that everyone loves which is great, and then says oh wait, if you want to use it to sync with a portable music device you can only do it with our product. Way back Gates "just made" this operating system that everyone loved which was great, and then said oh wait, if you want to surf the web you'll have to do it with our product (that wasn't even the restriction, which is yet another absurdity of this comparison). Somehow otherwise intelligent people magically dismiss the former as Jobs just exerting his right to dictate the terms on which you can use his products, while considering the latter massively anti-competitive behavior. Someone please explain what's going on.

Fixnum• 17 years ago

Agree completely. To my knowledge, Apple hasn't supported SCO-like efforts to destroy Linux, funded studies claiming Linux was plagiarized, consistently shipped buggy and insecure code, and wielded the patent and lobbying swords against its enemies and tried to destroy other businesses and open source in general by illegal means and lobbying (slightly off topic, but see also http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0907.longman....). Apple may be controlling, but they are just selling their products and not destroying others (although Jobs's wife is apparently a big political contributor, so who knows?).

As for the "Jobs vs. Gates" article, comparing the business practices of Microsoft and Apple by pointing out that Gates makes a lot of philanthropic contributions (and in fact also spends lots of money lobbying for the US government to spend more money on Gates Foundation-related projects) is just nonsense. "But great wealth does not make a great man." Neither does making lots of high-profile charitable donations. Frankly, this whole thing of having to be seen doing charitable work is a bit disgusting. Not that charity is bad, but shouldn't being a successful businessman involve shipping a great product rather than in cultivating an image to keep the antitrust crowd off your back?

This said, it's no better when the EU and DoJ go after Microsoft and Opera's CEO cheers them on. Maybe I'd actually try out Opera if they didn't support using bureaucrats to destroy their enemies.

As one hacker once said, "Shut up and show them the code."

fhars• 17 years ago

Actually, apple has been found guilty of doing exactly what you claim they never do in norway: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6153085-7.html?tag=mncol;t...

axod2• 17 years ago

Steve Jobs seems to have a knack for correctly recognizing what most people will find beautiful, and making it happen :/ I don't really care if he's a jerk or not, and I don't really find the article convincing TBH.

Bill Gates has done more to hold back progress of software than anyone else. Giving some money to charity doesn't really suddenly make things fine again.

jimbokun2• 17 years ago

"Giving some money to charity doesn't really suddenly make things fine again."

The kinds of things that Gates are working on now are arguably more important than the rate of progress in software. Like preventing easily preventable diseases in third world countries.

zaidf• 17 years ago

  Bill Gates has done more to hold back progress of software than anyone else.

At least he never created a Windows Store, like, you know, Steve Jobs.

I say this as someone who greatly admires Jobs and watches his Stanford speech for inspiration often. But as far as not holding back progress, Steve Jobs isn't whole lot better than Microsoft.

corntoole• 17 years ago

I have to disagree with the statement that Gates has done so much to hold back software. Some of the best minds in computing still are @ Microsoft Research. MSFT pours billions into basic and applied computer science research. If you say that Gates is very much responsible for the stagnation of software development, than you could blame Jobs just as much if not more b/c Jobs was the one who led the charge in making computing a pop culture when he saw the Xerox PC, decided to build the Mac, but missed some of the really cool ideas behind it.

scythe2• 17 years ago

Eric Schmidt and Scott McNealy are the trivial ones, I guess, though Sun never got into the consumer market. Perhaps Shuttleworth?

jaymon• 17 years ago

I had a professor that was instrumental in creating the IEEE floating point standard (or something like that, I don't quite remember) and was heavily recruited by Apple back in the day, so heavily in fact that Steve Jobs personally took him and his wife out to dinner.

His wife disliked Steve so bad that after the dinner she refused to let him even consider the job with Apple.

Just a little anecdote about Steve Jobs that I always found funny and remembered.

cakesy2• 17 years ago

That could be a huge compliment to the guy, depending on his wife. At least with some of the wives I have known.

staunch• 17 years ago

I've met people I thought were assholes at first. People I've become friends with have told me they thought I was an asshole at first. First impressions are exactly that.

shiranaihito2• 17 years ago

He always seemed like a jerk compared to Bill Gates.

Jobs may be a jerk, but Gates is Satan. I think the winner is clear.

shiranaihito2• 17 years ago

Ah yes, humour. I forgot we can't have any of that here.

ROFISH2• 17 years ago

So in summary: iTunes doesn't allow open devices, AT&T and Apple's single-provider agreement is bad, App Store approval sucks, App Store approval sucks, App Store approval sucks.

As much as I want the above fixed, I'm really, really tired of seeing the same tired, old problems listed on HN without a proper solution that doesn't involve the words "boycott" or "jailbreak". (And if there isn't such a solution, I could do with a lot less whining.)

andreyf• 17 years ago

How about "whining where people will read it" until it hurts Apple's brand more than anti-competitive practices help them?

scythe2• 17 years ago

>without a proper solution that doesn't involve the words "boycott" or "jailbreak"

Why not buy a different phone, perhaps one that does what you want?

ROFISH2• 17 years ago

Actually, I like the iPhone as is. While I think openness and freedom is nice and will further advance all platforms, Apple's stance on the App Store (and other misgivings) doesn't personally offend me so much that I would give it up; it still is the better phone, for my personal needs.

You, the reader, could have other needs. That's awesome. That's why, I guess, I'm tired of the outrage. It's a tool, not a definition of my life.

AlisdairO• 17 years ago

While all of those things bug me to some degree, it irritates me that people still mention them with regard to anti-trust action. The only place where anti trust action could conceivably start to apply to apple is in the MP3 player space, and even that's open to debate.

st3fan2• 17 years ago

His first point about iTunes is not very strong. Unlike the iPhone, the Mac is an open platform and you have choices. There might not be a lot of alternatives to iTunes, but is that really Apple's fault?

If you, as an end-user, don't like iTunes then just use something else. Like for example Songbird, which also actually does sync with non-Apple MP3 players.

If you are a hardware vendor then why not invest some time and money in either supporting Songbird or create your own player and sync app.

iTunes really is not that brilliant. Maybe some guys in a garage should see this as an opportunity to build some great software that works with 'the other players'.

jacquesm9• 17 years ago

The biggest stumbling block around a 'garage' implementation of iTunes + store is that the labels are not going to make a deal with anybody that is not sufficiently large.

absconditus3• 17 years ago

What is Microsoft's excuse?

st3fan2• 17 years ago

Why do you need deals to sync music to a device? Feel free to shop at Amazon for music, or rip your CDs, or use music that you've bought on the iTMS.

It is not about a music store, it is about the freedom to sync your music with any device. Which is a much simpler problem.

codyrobbins7• 17 years ago

In my opinion this is another in the recent series of overblown invectives along the lines of, 'I'm a consumer, therefore a company that produces consumer products must suck my dick.' I'm so sick of hearing this.

I don't buy Apple products because it's the cool thing to do, or because Microsoft is a monopoly, or because I think Steve Jobs is a nice guy. If nobody else liked Apple products, or Microsoft wasn't a monopoly, or I thought Steve Jobs wasn't a nice guy, I'd still buy Apple products. I base my purchase decisions on the products, not based on moral judgments of the people who create them.

If Apple wants to censor apps in the App Store, that's their prerogative. If they want to be non-transparent and inconsistent in how they approve apps, more power to them. I would want, expect, and demand the exact same power over the products I create. The products do not belong to the community, and Apple doesn't have any responsibility to the people who buy them. They don't have to be more open or less controlling or promote more consumer choice, or give away their products affordably. If you want the products, buy them and use them; if you don't, then don't.

Apple is a smart company run by smart people. Apple's mission is to make products and make money off them. Just because Jason Calacanis thinks they're making bad business decisions doesn't mean they are. My bet is that they know what they're doing. Last time I checked, Apple was a billion-dollar company and Jason Calacanis wrote Mahalo — you do the math.

And let me make one more specific point. Jason brings up the Japanese MP3 players that you can find in Akihabara. I've been to Akihabara too, and, frankly, it's filled with tons of incredibly cheap, tacky, and poorly made electronic crap. iPod's probably don't have dual headphone jacks, TV and radio tuners, and audio recorders because they aren't crappy products marketed solely on the number of poorly-implemented features that can be crammed in to them.

I could go on and on here about everything that's wrong with what Jason says, but taking the time to write even this much is making me feel less productive today than I should be.

EDIT: Wow, what's with the downvoting? This is my thoughtful and honest comment on the topic of the original post. Haha, I guess people don't like my colorful similes?

avner• 17 years ago

"Apple doesn't have any responsibility to the people who buy them"

I beg to differ; I believe any company providing a service or a good has an obligation to its customers. Granted that Apple can afford to ride the high horse at the moment because of its refinement and early adoption of multi-touch, but a draconian control over something like the iPhone will not fare well for Apple in the long term. Sooner or later litigators will compare this amount of control on an ever increasing popular device with the Microsoft-IE case and anti-competitive suits are likely to follow.

Competition will catch on in the iPhone's case, and people will look for alternatives when multi-touch based devices with similar UX and more liberal standards become available.

codyrobbins7• 17 years ago

Again, I would ask, who exactly are you to be speaking in absolutes like that about what will and will not happen? Apple is a massive company with tons of brilliant people — do you really think they aren't considering every conceivable angle, never mind the obvious ones that you, sitting there in your armchair, can toss out off the top of your head? Do you honestly think that they're just completely oblivious to the trade-offs and the possibility of antitrust litigation is somehow going to blindside them? They're taking calculated risks.

Also, there is a difference between a company acting as though they have a responsibility to the consumer, or choosing to have a responsibility as a voluntary matter of principal, for public relations purposes; and whether a company actually does have a responsibility in fact or not. There is also a difference between whether you think they should have a responsibility or not and whether they actually do. You obviously think they should have a responsibility, but I still think that they don't as an objective matter of fact.

I'm not trying to be belligerent, although it probably seems that way — it's just that exactly what I'm saying is that I think too many people wishfully demand the recognition of rights they don't have from companies like Apple, and similarly impose responsibilities that don't exist onto them.

diz• 17 years ago

I agree - actually, the most insightful thing on that page is the comment by "Tom".

stanleydrew7• 17 years ago

If Apple wants to censor apps in the App Store, that's their prerogative.

Then why is it not OK for Microsoft to try to force you to use a particular web-browser by pre-installing it with Windows and making it difficult to install others?

aditya• 17 years ago

Because Windows is a monopoly in the operating system space and they abused that monopoly, you couldn't just switch operating systems on a PC because there was no good alternative.

Apple is far from being a monopoly in the phone space (even in the much smaller smartphone space where RIMM rules) yet and you can easily switch phones and do whatever you want.

codyrobbins7• 17 years ago

Then why is it not OK for Microsoft to try to force you to use a particular web-browser by pre-installing it with Windows and making it difficult to install others?

Yeah, definitely — I don't necessarily think Microsoft did do anything not OK in that respect.

plinkplonk3• 17 years ago

" My bet is that they know what they're doing. Last time I checked, Apple was a billion-dollar company and Jason Calacanis wrote Mahalo — you do the math."

This is a dangerous way to think. By this reasoning Steve Ballmer does in business would be valid because he is a billionaire and/or runs a multi billion dollar company, and no one would be able to criticise any of his decisions unless they were multi-billionaires too.

Blackwater is a billion dollar company and every "business decision" they make (including killing people in Iraq) is beyond criticism, because (by this logic) unless you run your own mercenary outfit (a claim not many of us can make), you don't have the right to criticize them .

"This is my thoughtful and honest comment "

honest? maybe. "thoughtful" is for other people to say.

"people don't like my colorful similes?"

What similies? I don't see any similies anywhere. I see one interesting point wrapped in a lot of angst.

greendestiny2• 17 years ago

Apart from the implications of the iPhone as a communication device on publicly licensed frequencies, I haven't heard anyone suggest that Apple be legally forced to change their practices.

People are expressing their anger and disappointment, and why shouldn't people have an opinion on Apple censoring the app store?

People express and form their opinions in concert with each other, its basically what defines humanity. I don't see why we should ignore things we find unfair or unreasonable. It might suit an economic model to imagine consumers all independently making utilitarian judgements but it has little or nothing to do with reality.

Morality actually plays an important part in society and we promote it because its the glue that binds us together. We speak out about things in the hope that the ideas of many people will come together collectively evoke positive change. In specific terms people hope that the negative press about Apple will make them change their minds.

What you are advocating is not a fairer market place, its people shutting their mouths so you don't have to hear opinions you don't like. Nothing good can come from that.

codyrobbins7• 17 years ago

People are expressing their anger and disappointment, and why shouldn't people have an opinion on Apple censoring the app store?

This is a standard counterargument you hear whenever anyone criticizes someone for something like anger or disappointment. No one is telling them they aren't entitled to their opinion, and I'd go so far as to say it's universally understood in our society that everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's just that when people have opinions that others feel are wrong, and those people criticize the opinion, it's not enough that their opinion is formed because they're angry and disappointed. The very fact that it's an opinion does not mean it's sacrosanct and unassailable — the validity of the opinion is still assessable based on the facts behind it.

My entire point is in fact that the people who form an opinion based on anger and disappointment or a misplaced sense of entitlement, which I feel the OP did, are exactly the kind of people whose opinions are suspect in my mind.

ojbyrne3• 17 years ago

Minor quibble, "Jason Calacanis wrote Mahalo" isn't accurate. I don't quite understand why it's so hard to grasp the difference between executives (go to meetings, power lunches, couldn't actually write code if their life depended on it), and programmers (actually build stuff, when the executives aren't in the way).

codyrobbins7• 17 years ago

Sure, good point. When I used 'wrote' I did mean it in the broadest possible sense of his 'authorship' of the business as a whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphorical_extension

He may not have written the actual code, but he's definitely the driving force behind the company.

abalashov4• 17 years ago

First, I don't think Jason Calacanis is arguing unequivocally for government intervention, necessarily; he's first and foremost expressing a market preference as a consumer, and is trying to make the case to other consumers to have the same. If the consumers protest Apple's decisions, this situation could, theoretically, be resolved by market pressures alone; in other words, not so much that "the company that produces consumer products must suck my dick" as "the company must bend to the will of what its customers want." In order for that to happen, a larger proportion of consumers have to be better informed about the nature of the restrictions and more assertive about what they ostensibly prefer instead. It's not so much that Apple should be compelled to cater to them legalistically, I think, as that the denominator of everyday technology use tends toward open, interoperable and free. At least, that's the argument Calacanis is making. Whether you agree with it or not, you should give it a fair treatment instead of simply dismissing it as an exhortation toward legal anti-trust action.

Yes, Apple is there to make money from its products and so, Apple looks out for its interests very well. That means the buyers of its products should do their part to look out for theirs.

Having said that, I understand your position perfectly. I came out with a very similar stance as my initial reaction to the whole Google Voice situation, and basically agree with you fundamentally. However, this is a complicated question; both of the extreme positions ("kill the evil Apple now!" vs. "Apple is the vendor, it can do what it wants, and if you don't like it, don't buy it") have certain untenable aspects to most people when carried to their logical conclusion.

Specifically, I think the central ideological premise of competition-related regulation hinges on the fact that the world is too complicated to expect ordinary consumers to intricately understand every nuance of the restrictions, stipulations, caveats, etc. that come with every single product they come into contact with in a variety of areas. Whether you agree with this or not, you have to acknowledge that neither AT&T, nor Windows, nor Apple came to be "monopolies" (in the various ways in which they were/are alleged to be) because every consumer consciously and willfully bought into the consequences of adopting their respective goods/services/platforms/etc.

There are two sides to that argument, of course; the traditional free-market stance is that this is the consumer's own damn problem; if you're going to be lazy and not do your research, you pay the price. The counterpoint is that there is a great deal of social moral consensus around NOT allowing that to happen in other areas of life, which is why a great many consumer protection, disclosure, safety and liability laws exist.

If the roofers were allowed to put large amounts of radioisotopes in your shingles and you just didn't happen to know that this is an issue you should inquire about, you could get badly burned on that in the absence of laws that basically say that they can't knowingly do stuff like that.

jasonmcalacanis3• 17 years ago

That's correct, I'm a free market guy and I try to include in each example the upside of being open. Apple is starting to frustrate a lot of users with the closed nature of their ecosystem. We're all informed enough to know that a closed system can be more streamlined and easier to use, but using ease of use as an excuse to kick out competing products is a sure way to slow the technology industry down.

Also, I'm not saying Apple should do everything the way the Slashdot, digg or engadget crowd wants them to. However, something as simple as carrier choise, browser choise, mp3 player compatibility and how you spend your "data minutes" seems an easy thing to do for people.

It's easy to love Apple products, but it's becoming hard to support them--if that makes sense.

danh2• 17 years ago

> My bet is that they know what they're doing.

Apple has become a company that stands for censorship. I hate to be associated with that.

The fact that the censorship is a conscious decision by Apple makes it even worse.

GHFigs10• 17 years ago

Apple has yet to censor anything. They have only rejected certain things from being sold in their store. If you think that is censorship then you must think that virtually every retailer in the world also stands for censorship.

paul9290• 17 years ago

Everyone has their opinion and that's cool.

For me I want the full experience on my netbook, laptop, desktop, mobile net device and etc... Not some hobbled experience because old business models are being protected(blatant anti-competitive actions)!

ojbyrne3• 17 years ago

I couldn't get past the first paragraph (If you wish to reprint this...). Still laughing.

planck• 17 years ago

Laugh if you want, but his stuff has been reprinted in Business Week/Techcrunch/Valleywag before.

ojbyrne3• 17 years ago

And? Those aren't really quality publications with high standards, as far as I'm concerned. Though if I had to pick one, I'd choose valleywag.

jasonmcalacanis3• 17 years ago

The reason I actually put that up there is because people were taking it without permission/credit/linking/etc.

So, I'm starting to give up on actually having these things on my site and letting folks take it as long as they give credit (and some SEO juice).

brandon2722• 17 years ago

Brilliant article. Microsoft would be crucified if it engaged in the same stuff that Apple does.

absconditus3• 17 years ago

What exactly is Apple doing to stop anyone from creating an MP3 player, store and desktop software? Why are other companies entitled to access iTunes? Is it Apple's fault that the Zune isn't more successful?

I find the attitude displayed in this article to be disgusting. There are many things that I'd like to see changed. I have no right to demand that private companies do what I want. I do have the option of not buying their products.

In addition, the average person that uses Apple's products simply doesn't give a shit about any of this. The numerous non-geeks I know that own Apple products never mention any of these issues.

mrshoe• 17 years ago

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but here is why other companies are entitled to access iTunes:

Think back to the Windows and IE antitrust legal battles. iTunes is similar to the Windows monopoly. It's the biggest platform for buying music online. According to antitrust laws, it is illegal for Apple to leverage that monopoly against competitors.

That said, Apple made a big investment into the whole iTunes infrastructure and has put a ton of work into negotiating with record labels to get all that music in the store. They did all that for basically no direct reward; they make almost no money off iTunes. They did it to support their iPod business. It seems a little unfair for other MP3 player manufacturers to expect all the benefits of using that infrastructure without the investment. The $1-$5 per device that the article suggests is not nearly enough. Apple makes hundreds of dollars off each device they sell which use the iTunes music store.

codyrobbins7• 17 years ago

I, too, agree — but with the caveat that we're discussing this 'according to the antitrust laws.'

Moving back to consider the antitrust laws themselves, though, is important and I think you bring up a great point about how Apple invested significantly into the iTunes infrastructure, and allowing competitors to piggy-back on it is dubious at best. It's like a bankrupt railroad being allowed to use their competitor's track free of charge, simply by virtue of the fact that they have gone bankrupt and therefore should be afforded some sort of perversely 'level' playing field on which to compete.

I similarly think the antitrust case against Microsoft was dubious. As a web developer like many of you, I certainly scorned them for the anguish they caused me by bundling IE with Windows and thus shoe-horning it into the position of dominant browser. But I can't say I feel they shouldn't have been allowed to do that, even if it gave them an 'unfair' advantage over Netscape. Ostensibly, including a browser in the OS certainly made it easier for the average user to get on the Web.

calambrac• 17 years ago

The iTunes music store is emphatically not a monopoly anymore. Those days really didn't last long, and are completely over at this point. I personally haven't used it in years, because Amazon and eMusic both blow it out of the water as far as I'm concerned, and the impact of making that switch has been zero. High marketshare != monopoly.

jsz02• 17 years ago

There's a lot of confusion about how US anti-trust law works. Leveraging a monopoly, or being a monopoly, is not illegal. The legality part is how you choose to leverage it.

It would be illegal if Apple bought Creative and ceased production of Creative's MP3 players

It would be illegal if Apple refused to reach an agreement with a record label to sell music via iTunes because the record label also sold music on a competing service.

It would be illegal for Apple to code iTunes to look for its competitors software and uninstall them.

It would be illegal if Apple reached a deal with Microsoft and Creative to not price any MP3 player under $100.

From a legal standpoint the illegal behavior has to be provable. What really got Microsoft in trouble was the assortment of documents & memos outlining their anti-competitive strategies more so than the acts themselves.

stanleydrew7• 17 years ago

In addition, the average person that uses Apple's products simply doesn't give a shit about any of this. The numerous non-geeks I know that own Apple products never mention any of these issues.

I don't see how this is relevant at all. Most people in America don't give a shit about Medicaid (e.g.). Does that mean we should just put up with whatever mismanagement occurs? Should we tell people who do feel like taking a stand and demanding more from Medicaid to sit down and stop whining?

I know that Medicaid is publicly funded so the comparison breaks down a bit, but all purchasers of Apple products are its "funders" and I think they have a right to demand more. Who cares if non-geeks aren't aware of these issues? Those are exactly the kinds of consumers that need those of us who are familiar with the issues to stand up for them. They aren't aware that they aren't being given a choice (perhaps because they can choose one of several fart apps on the iphone).

absconditus3• 17 years ago

My point is, most people are very happy with their Apple products and simply don't care about these issues. A small number of us would like to see these things changed, but are generally happy with the products we use. Then there is a small group of people, mostly geeks, who feel entitled to everything exactly as they want it.

Your analogy is ridiculous. If you don't like Apple products don't buy them. There is no category of product where Apple is the only choice. Apple doesn't even have a large share of the mobile phone market, making the iPhone argument even more pathetic.

suvike• 17 years ago

Despite the laughability of some parts of the article I think Calacanis nearly hits on something interesting with regard to Apple, Microsoft, antitrust, and the difference between a computer and a mobile phone.

As the iPhone becomes closer and closer to a full-blown 'computer', at what point do the EU authorities, who sanctioned Microsoft for simply _including_ a browser with its OS, go after Apple for not allowing any browser other than Apple's own? When does the degree of separation become too small to be considered relevant? I'd be surprised if there wasn't an antitrust inquiry into Apple's practices with Mobile Safari in the next couple years if things don't change.

Furthermore, what will users come to expect when the hardware of their phone is functionally indistinguishable from their laptop besides the fact that they can put it in their pocket? Will the software restrictions so readily accepted for mobile devices be accepted on PCs? Of course, the PC and mobile phone industries have evolved from completely different places, but I think there will be a point where users will come to expect the same from their home and mobile computers. Where will the expectation line be drawn?

jacquesm9• 17 years ago

I don't think the 'simple inclusion' of a browser was what got microsoft to be shot down in the EU. The main reason was their efforts to suppress competing browsers, by software measures in their OS and by backroom dealmaking.

Those were aggravating factors and fairly big ones.

And really, all things considered, giving the users a choice is not such a big penalty. Then there is the fine of course, but I think the height of it was to some extent due to microsofts game playing with the EU courts.

stanleydrew7• 17 years ago

Wouldn't completely preventing an alternative browser from being installed qualify as an effort to suppress competing browsers by software measures?

And if giving the users a choice is not such a big penalty, why does Apple care so much about explicitly NOT giving users a choice?

jasonmcalacanis3• 17 years ago

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I've got to run out to dinner but I'll look forward to joining the discussion later tonight/tomorrow. You guys always have some of the most interesting feedback.

jsz02• 17 years ago

"Think for a moment about what your reaction would be if Microsoft made the Zune the only MP3 player compatible with Windows"

iTunes isn't, and has never been, a platform open to third parties. It's a software accessory to the iPod hardware. This may have been a valid argument when DRM was still prevalent on iTunes but these days that is not a factor locking people into iTunes. The iTunes database format is basically just XML. Easily accessible by other applications that want to make the migration to an iTunes alternative easier or an application that simply wants to build off the iTunes database. This is exactly how the BlackBerry media syncing software works.

On a broader note I would say anyone who does have a major problem with the 5 issues cited in this article should definitely look for another platform instead of constantly whining about it. It's not like it's all that hard to do. With a few small exceptions it probably takes a couple hours to fully migrate to non-Apple products & services. I guess that's why these Apple whines annoy me. It's very easy to switch if it really bothers you. I feel like the authors of these articles are making a big deal out of something that almost no one really cares about. The media loves the build-em-up, cut-em-down cycle and this seems like another example of it. It's good for page views, no doubt. When I see a real number of people switching to alternative platforms I'll believe it's really an important issue.

FYI Microsoft does not offer Zune software for OSX or Linux.

plinkplonk3• 17 years ago

"I would say anyone who does have a major problem with the 5 issues cited in this article should definitely look for another platform instead of constantly whining about it"

And hopefully the people who don't have a problem with the 5 issues cited in the article would stop whining about the people who whine about them ;-)

easyfrag• 17 years ago

So what are we, us early-adopting power users, saying here? That Apple has suddenly morphed into an entity that ignores our demands?

Please! I switched over to the Mac platform about 4 years ago but I knew what I was getting. I was buying a product from a company that for years shipped a one-button mouse, that killed off its clone line to control the hardware, and that deprecates its platforms so it could advance in the directions it wanted without the baggage of legacy support.

I knew iTunes would only synch with iPods, for me that was part of the cost of switching. Yes I think Apple should get on with it but I don't expect they will and I can see their point. Apple is fanatical about controlling the user experience, it knows how iTunes will work its hardware but cannot know about hundreds of Taiwanese models. Can the white box mp3 player phone play video? Yes? Great. Can it decode h.264? Pictures? Great. Does it understand "Synch most recent (iPhoto) Events?" What does it expect for Calendars? Contacts? Notes?

Jason is forgetting that the reason he moved to OS X is that he was sick of the "incompatibilities and other assorted quirks of Microsoft’s wildly open ecosystem." You joined the wrong church my friend.

icefox• 17 years ago

First he lists that he has "collected" Seven iPods, four Mac laptops, two iMacs and three iPhones.... and then he complains about how much he has spent on it, but it never seemed to have occurred to him that:

A) If he still has four laptops they must still be good and usable and if that is the case why did he buy the new one?

B) Apple hardware has some of the best resale value out there, why has he not bothered to even try to sell off any of the hardware? He could easily recoup half of his money or more. (Unless he is one of those idiots who list their two year old macbook for the same price they paid thinking they will get full retail price from 2007 for a used two year old used laptop)

RyanMcGreal• 17 years ago

I’m starting to look past [Apple] and back to Microsoft

It seems to me like he's missing a third option.

krishna2• 17 years ago

Microsoft is becoming IBM. Google/Apple are trying to take Microsoft's spot. Twitter/Facebook/Whatever is trying to become Google.... Nah..this is never going to end.

hyperbovine• 17 years ago

I enjoyed reading how Apple is "Destroying MP3 player innovation" in paragraph one, only to discover that "Apple’s iPhone is a revolutionary product" in paragraph two.

Tuned out around there.

brown9-22• 17 years ago

It must feel weird to work at Apple and see Jobs given credit for every single product and decision made. A company with thousands of employees can't have one guy making all the important decisions or ideas.

nudded• 17 years ago

Do you work at Apple? Do you know how decisions are made instead Apple HQ?

brown9-22• 17 years ago

No, but common sense dictates that it takes more time to make all of the decisions required to run a multibillion company with thousands of employees than a single person has.

cakesy2• 17 years ago

This is a load of waffle, didn't get past the first two points becuase they are rubbish.

Firstly, he compares itunes to Microsoft windows, and is upset that Microsoft makes windows compatible will mp3 players, why doesn't apple make itunes like that? Windows is a fucking OS, Mac os has no problem with all mp3 players. itunes is what APple uses to sync with the ipod, it is not up to them to write software for other players. And there are plenty of players that use the itunes library.

Second point, iPhone is free to use on all 5 carriers in Australia, this is not just Apples decision, but up to the carriers in US, the same carriers who didn't want to work with Apple, except for AT&T.

There are a lot of reasons to dislike Apple, there aren't 2 of them.

mylifeforaiur• 17 years ago

Executive Summary: Steve Jobs is on the cusp of devolving from the visionary radical we all love to a sad, old hypocrite and control freak–a sellout of epic proportions.

kevbin• 17 years ago

Stopped reading at "Sure, everything on the Mac platform costs twice as much…"

richcollins• 17 years ago

> Apple is now the anti-competitive monster that Jobs rallied us against in the infamous 1984 commercial. Steve Jobs is the oppressive man on the jumbotron and the Olympian carrying the hammer is the open-source movement

The OS X kernel (Darwin) is open source as are 200+ other apps that ship with OS X: http://www.apple.com/opensource/

nir• 17 years ago

The Apple/Microsoft comparison ignores the fact that MS has a huge market share which, until the recent switch in user focus from desktop to web apps, had few viable alternatives.

This is far from the case with Apple. Avoiding Windows ca. 1999 required serious commitment and basically giving up on Office type applications. Avoiding Apple today requires saving yourself $x by not buying its products. Notice the difference?

And if you miss certain Apple-only software/features - I would - since this is Hacker News we could discuss alternative implementations. Leave the "I'm a web celeb and I'm gonna quit my iPhone!" to the hypeosphere.

mryall• 17 years ago

I'm not sure I understand his argument. Competition in the MP3 player and smart phone industries has only increased since the entry of Apple into these markets.

The MP3 player is now the must-have accessory of every kid. I'm certain the sales of Sony, Samsung, and the other makers of MP3 players have risen enormously since the iPod soared to fame. Sure, the iPod is the market leader, but the market _wasn't there before the iPod_. By creating a market for the players and -- more importantly -- for legal downloads of music from the internet, Apple started a new era in music distribution. The fact that no other company has managed to carve a substantial market share in this industry is much more due to their incompetence than any anti-competitive behaviour by Apple.

Similarly, the launch of the iPhone has spurred on innovation and competition across the entire spectrum of smart phones. RIM, Palm and Nokia are innovating and lowering their prices to compete. Apple's exclusive deal with AT&T in the US has proved a boon to the other hardware companies because they can negotiate amongst the other carriers to create a good package for consumers with a good margin for them too.

While Apple's actions on the App Store review process are deplorable, their actions in the music and mobile phone industry are just innovative and fiercely competitive -- not anti-competitive.

The Case Against Apple

Related Stories