
The Case Against Apple - jasonlbaptiste
http://calacanis.com/2009/08/08/the-case-against-apple-in-five-parts/
======
codyrobbins
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?

~~~
stanleydrew
_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
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.

~~~
stanleydrew
You make a good point, and I won't argue over the definition of a monopoly. I
will only suggest that it's a little weird to say that censorship and
suppression of competitors is a prerogative of a company when it's not a
monopoly, but then once that monopoly line is crossed it's not ok anymore. How
do you know when that line has been crossed? And if you cross back the other
way, are you allowed to restart with anti-competitive practices again?

~~~
mikedouglas
_I will only suggest that it's a little weird to say that censorship and
suppression of competitors is a prerogative of a company when it's not a
monopoly, but then once that monopoly line is crossed it's not ok anymore._

IANAL, but this was how post-Bork antitrust law was described to me.

When a small company engages in lock-in/anti-competitive practices, you can't
really make the argument that consumers are being hurt, because if that were
true, they would just buy the competitor's product. The iPhone, for instance,
exists in a smartphone market with multiple players (Blackberry, HTC, Palm,
etc), and if consumers decide that Apple has gone too far, they'll simply buy
a different phone next time. But if a company had a monopoly (which MSFT had
in operating systems during the late 90s), there are no real options for
consumers. The company could partake in anti-consumer activities without fear
of market retribution. In those cases, the courts usually intervene to ensure
consumer protection.

~~~
tjogin
Well, if you reject the iPhone (I haven't) and buy a Palm Pre, you are _still_
affected by Apple's anti-competitive iTunes dance.

I'm a huge Apple fan, and I'm extremely sorry to see them turning out to act
more like douchebags each day.

~~~
GHFigs
_you are still affected by Apple's anti-competitive iTunes dance._

Nonsense. Apple does nothing to prevent the Palm Pre from syncing with an
iTunes library. They only prevent the Palm Pre from _using iTunes_ to do so.

~~~
tjogin
I still think that's anti-competitive douchebaggery. iTunes has become the
standard platform for organizing music, thanks to the success of the iPod. I
think it has elevated to a position where Apple should have to tread carefully
in anti-competitive waters.

~~~
lukifer
All the information in your iTunes library, including playlists and such, is
stored in an open XML file in your home directory. While I think it's a
mistake for Apple to play cat-and-mouse with Palm over this, it's not as if
Palm couldn't write their own syncing background app that does the exact same
thing.

------
simonsarris
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...](http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2006/01/70072)

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

~~~
spitfire
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.

~~~
stanleydrew
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.

~~~
philwelch
_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._

They're different parts of the same integrated system. How many people
download iTunes just to use it with their iPod or iPhone? If you'd rather have
an open system that allows interoperability between tons of different devices
made by tons of different companies, Apple's not for you.

* 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.*

The rules change when you have 95+% market share. But even then, the
government really did nothing about IE integration, and the world didn't end.
It turns out integrating IE in Windows 98 wasn't the death knell to
competition in the browser market we thought it was.

Hmm, isn't WebKit integrated into Mac OS X so it can be used as a system-wide
HTML rendering engine?

------
easyfrag
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.

------
ROFISH
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.)

~~~
scythe
>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?

~~~
ROFISH
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.

------
absconditus
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
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.

~~~
jsz0
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.

------
icefox
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)

------
suvike
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?

~~~
jacquesm
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.

~~~
stanleydrew
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?

~~~
jacquesm
1) yes

2) because they're jerks too.

They're just smaller jerks. When you're a de-facto monopoly the rules change,
drastically in some cases.

~~~
stanleydrew
Very true. My only real point is that we should be allowed to demand that both
companies not be jerks, and I think we let ourselves down by not expecting it.

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

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

~~~
ojbyrne
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.

------
jsz0
"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.

~~~
plinkplonk
"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 ;-)

------
RyanMcGreal
_I’m starting to look past [Apple] and back to Microsoft_

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

------
richcollins
> 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/>

------
jasonmcalacanis
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.

------
hyperbovine
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.

------
brandon272
Brilliant article. Microsoft would be crucified if it engaged in the same
stuff that Apple does.

------
st3fan
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'.

~~~
jacquesm
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.

~~~
st3fan
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.

~~~
jacquesm
The music store is a very large part of iTunes for lots of users. Without it
you are giving only a partial experience, with it you are effectively
advertising the rest of iTunes as well and so undercutting your own offering.

------
mryall
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.

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

------
nir
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.

------
brown9-2
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
Do you work at Apple? Do you know how decisions are made instead Apple HQ?

~~~
brown9-2
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.

------
mylifeforaiur
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.

------
krishna2
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.

------
cakesy
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.

