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?
" 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.
"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.
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.
"I'm not trying to be belligerent, although it probably seems that way "
If you know you "seem belligerent" why don't you change your writing to tone it down? Unless you want to write "belligerently" but then disclaim it with "I'm not trying to be belligerent".? Perhaps someone who writes for public consumption,especially when talking to peers, should control the tone of his writing?
Your writing comes across as that of an immature teenager who can't control his thoughts or emotions.( I am not saying you are immature, just making a subjective comment on the tone of your writing). You make interesting points. Doing so without angsty aggression would help people follow along.
"Apple is a massive company with tons of brilliant people — do you really think they aren't considering every conceivable angle,"
"EVERY" conceivable angle? Let me quote you, "Who exactly are you to be speaking in absolutes "? ;-)
Besides, this is patent nonsense. Companies "full of brilliant people" makes strategic mistakes all the time. Microsoft, IBM , HP, Yahoo even Apple in the old days, before the comeback. Unless Apple is filled with omniscient gods, they are as prone to human fallibility as everyone else.
"a voluntary matter of principal"
you meant "principle"?
I find it amusing that you consider Apple to be such a wonderful, brilliant, flawless company that it is seemingly immune to things like antitrust litigation. There are many companies out there that have or have had "tons of brilliant people" who have collectively made mistakes or strategic errors in their lifetimes, Apple included.
Oh, I certainly don't think they're immune to things like antitrust litigation. It's a whole different question whether the antitrust legislation that enables the litigation is itself a good idea. And I definitely don't think Apple won't make mistakes. But my money would certainly be on Apple to know what they're doing over the guy who's criticizing them. Actually, my money literally is on Apple — I'm a stockholder.
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.
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.
I don't think it comes from an inappropriate sense of entitlement at all. I think it comes from a completely appropriate sense of injustice.
In your original comment you suggest it would be better off if we just bought products based on our own opinions without considering what the community thinks of some of the issues. I think we form our opinions with the help of the community. Less opinions just means less information about the purchasing decisions we make which isn't a good thing.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
How is that anti-competitive? Apple has done absolutely nothing to prevent Palm from creating a a competing product to either iTunes or the iPod/iPhone. They have in fact given Palm a very strong incentive to do so instead of parasitically hijacking Apple's software.
Governments censor. People and companies make editorial decisions regarding what they will say, do, or distribute. As to "suppression of competitors" I think we all tend to lump this into the category of "being in the business of making money." If I write a letter to my local paper and they do not print it they have not engaged in censorship.
The app store is like a giant department store. If I make a widget I can't walk in to wal-mart and demand that they put it on the shelves. Even if the pornulator3000(tm) would fly off the shelves and make both wal-mart and I a ton of cash they are still under no obligation to stock my product if they think it will hurt their reputation or standing in the community (e.g. turn them into "the store where you go to get that wink-wink nudge-nudge massage device...")
If Apple had a monopoly position they would be the _only_ store in town. That is clearly not the case. They may be the hottest, most-hyped store in town but consumers clearly have other choices.
I'm always tired of the "it's not censorship if it's not the government" argument, because that's not any sensible definition of the word "censorship". I would argue that Apple does censor what is available at the App Store, just as Wal-Mart and the music labels censor the music that's available for sale there by having to sell the "clean" version, or that a newspaper censors itself or indeed its letters to the editor if it refuses to publish things that are uncomplimentary to its business partners or the government. Likewise, the "standards and practices" division at a TV network is universally known as "the censors" among writers and producers, probably because they're the ones that tell you what parts of the script you can't air.
All of this is censorship. What it isn't is a violation of anyone's legal rights to freedom of expression.
On the otherhand, it's pretty hard to argue that a web browser shouldn't be a standard part of the operating system. When I install XP, I need to fire up something to download Firefox.
I don't think Microsoft bundling software with Windows is inappropriate, within reason. Where the monopoly and anti-trust concerns for me come in is their agreements with PC manufacturers that penalizes them for providing alternative operating systems.
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.
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).
Sure, but in that case, we would tend to say something like, "created Mahalo" or "the man behind Mahalo," not "wrote" Mahalo.
Otherwise, yes, your rejoinder is very apt. We say things like, "France rejects US demands for airline passenger information" all the time, knowing full well that France could not collectively do that literally.
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.
I think the reason the parent poster rendered that opinion has to do with the calculus - real or imagined - that stands behind Apple's particular choice of things to reject, and the common attributes that unite the sort of thing they tend to reject. Or, at least, the stuff that's made the headlines lately. It seems to have to do with things that allow you to use their devices more "freely" and/or do more and/or access more.
I don't think "censorship" is quite the correct term for that, but you can see where the idea arises that Apple is not just acting as a retailer that wants to sell certain products and not others in its store, but specifically wants to limit products that have to do with openness of information and freedom of use.
Whether you agree with that assessment or not, that's what drives people to use terms like "censorship" to describe it.
What difference does it make in terms of Apple's right to choose what they sell in their store? You're taking it as a given that the platform should be open, but that, too, is their right to decide. They are not obligated to have such a store at all. Likewise, you are not obligated to buy an iPhone.
There are direct parallels with Xbox Live Marketplace, Wii Shop, and the PlayStation Store, as even more directly in the mobile stores operated by every mobile carrier. Are these companies engadging in censorship? Some of them ::gasp:: don't even sell any dictionaries!
The point is that this kind of thing goes on all around you every day and people don't seem to mind until someone starts calling it censorship. And to what end but fury? I don't understand the purpose of moral outrage over something that is merely inconvenient.
Inconvenience can sometimes equal undesirability. I think you'll find a lot of the proponents against closed platforms have the same critiques against consoles.
I actually have the same critiques of the Playstation, XBox, Wii, and every other closed harware devices that has been deliberately limited in its functionality.
Just a short time ago I heard a couple of interviews with people who worked in Spanish radio stations during the Franco dictatorship. They described all the inane rules they had to follow to appease the censors: songs that contained any hint of sex, atheism, "un-spanishness", etc. could not be broadcasted. But none of them knew exactly which the forbidden words were; the censors seemed to make up the rules as they went along. A given song could be allowed by one censor, and forbidden by the next. If the "transgression" was too serious, you lost your job (or more).
All this was, of course, entirely lawful.
Their stories reminded me a little bit too much of recent events.
Because Apple is the government and enforces it's decisions with the threat of violent reprisal, right? This is ridiculous.
You trivialize the actions of an opressive dictatorship when you liken it to inconvenience of using a dictionary that lacks the term "Dirty Sanchez". (This being an example of a term present in Wiktionary but redacted from Ninjawords by Ninjawords.)
A lot of retailers do engage in censorship, i.e. Wal-Mart and music. What else do you call it when I go to Wal-Mart, and they have mostly the same CD I can buy at Hastings except with all the bad words removed?
That is was I was referring to, yes. And? Why call it censorship, when the act of denying access to shelf space does not actually alter the content? Why should the retailer not have the right to choose what they sell? It's nonsense.
Wal-Mart does not alter the recordings. They have no right to. Record companies that wish to sell their music at Wal-Mart choose to alter their recordings for that purpose.
That's how the government operates, too. The government doesn't actually alter things--it just prohibits their publication or distribution. In affect, the government (and Wal-Mart) delegate the actual alterations to the producers of the content, which is a nice gesture but still censorship.
(The government does actively censor soldiers' letters home to remove sensitive information.)
Conflating private enterprise with government is as fallacious as it ever was. A retailer does not prohibit publication or distribution and does not enforce it's decisions with the threat of violence or imprisonment. It decides what it is and isn't willing to sell. Why is that wrong? Why should they not have the right to do that? Would your opinion change if it were a locally owned sole proprietorship and not Wal-Mart?
I'm not conflating anything. Censorship by the government is violation of human rights. Censorship by private business is usually not. But it is censorship.
In other words, private censorship isn't necessarily wrong. I never argued it was.
People need to learn how to separate descriptive factual concepts like "to censor" from normative moral concepts of right and wrong. We all censor ourselves--for instance, I am censoring myself from flaming you. Likewise, television networks censor their programs, Wal-Mart censors the music they sell, Apple censors the App Store, the military censors letters home from the troops, and the FCC censors the airwaves. Some of these instances of censorship are good, some of these instances are bad, and that's an entirely separate moral argument. It's lazy, imprecise, and duplicitous thinking to couple the concept of "censorship" so tightly with the concept of "wrong" that you can't meaningfully use the word half the time.
You are ignoring the distinctions between censorship by or on behalf of government actors and that by private enterprise or individuals in favor of arguing that because the same word can be used it is impossible to refer to them seperately.
This in spite of the fact that the word is almost universally used to refer to censorship by government authority (usually in a perjorative context) and that the context of the thread (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=750540) lends itself entirely to reading it as an immoral act. Your "entirely separate moral argument" is in fact the one started at the top of the thread. It was in fact the one I was engaged in before being derailed.
"You are ... arguing that because the same word can be used it is impossible to refer to them seperately."
No I'm not--I'm maintaining that distinction the whole way down ("one is a violation of civil and human rights, one is not").
Here's the moral argument made at the top of the thread by codyrobbins:
"If Apple wants to censor apps in the App Store, that's their prerogative."
Here's your argument:
"Apple has yet to censor anything."
I agree with codyrobbins, but I disagree with you. What's so complicated with that? You're repeating yourself and failing to even comprehend my posts. In addition, you've attributed opinions to me I haven't even expressed and thrown out tons of red herrings to boot.
I'm maintaining that distinction the whole way down
Then why do you insist on ignoring the distinction when I use the term? I mean one thing, but you claim I mean the other.
By censor I was referring to censorship a presumably immoral violation of rights such as that done by government, which is how the post I replied to used the term, how the term is most often used, and the only way that makes sense in what you agree started as a moral argument. It is what I have meant the entire time.
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.
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.
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)!
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.
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.
True, but with Steve Jobs it goes beyond that: from innumerable accounts by people who have known or met him, it's clear that Jobs is an asshole based not just on a first impression, but on an nth impression for all values of n.
True, but we're comparing made it big software guys here, and there are not that many of those.
Steve Wozniak is a genuinely nice person from just about every story that is told about him. Gates, Jobs and plenty of others from his generation that made it big had just the same opportunities to give as much as they took. And they let those opportunities slide, that's why I think the comparison is a meaningful one.
To compare Steve Wozniak to the cornerstore grocer is not very productive. That's comparing apples (pun intended, twice) with organges.
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.
"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.
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.
Second that. If Jobs would have had the opportunity to create a lock in like microsoft had/has on the desktop market he would have done it in a heartbeat.
The guy is an amazing business man and an inspiration to many but I doubt they're ever going to name some ethics prize after him.
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.
Under Gate's control, Microsoft destroyed Netscape as well as BeOS. Netscape was, in the mid 1990's, attempting to create the "browser OS" that we're finally beginning to see today. Had they not been driven out of business, we would quite possibly have been 5-10 years earlier in seeing the web-based products that we're finally seeing today. Microsoft didn't want to have to deal with the decoupling of office suites from the OS (that would be the two legs that the MS monopoly stands on, after all), so they needed to ensure that web-based office suites couldn't happen.
BeOS was just plain an awesome OS. Its networking was a joke, but the scheduler was awe-inspiring, and the default programming model of tons-o-threads would have produced a generation of programmers ready to handle today's multi-core reality. Had users had the choice between windows 98 and BeOS, with decent application and vendor support for both, there would have been no contest. Win98 was a joke, and Be was amazingly smooth and nice to use. MS destroyed Be by forcing OEMs to choose between being Be partners and being MS ones. Not a hard choice for the OEMs to make, unfortunately...
It was Bill that destroyed those companies. It was Bill that set back both the web and desktop OS development by years. Who else has done that much damage to the software industry?
Microsoft did not destroy Be, its own incompetent management did (with a bit of assistance from AT&T when it decided to discontinue the Hobbit chip.) Be first tried to create a new hardware platform, then tried to be an alternative OS for mac hardware, and finally headed towards the wintel world. By this point it was far too late. Given the space left for growth in the x86 line there was no need for multi-core in the late 90s and the cost of going to a bigger chip was far less than the cost of adding all of the additional motherboard support for lashing together multiple copies of last years CPU.
o Netscape Sold for a negotiated $4 Billion, and on it's final day of trading was worth $10 Billion. Microsoft may have (illegally as it turns out) wiped out the Netscape Browser as a profitable product for Netscape, but they hardly _destroyed_ Netscape.
o BeOS? Good Lord, if anything Microsoft would have _funded_ BeOS if only to create the illusion of there being competition in the OS market. BeOS collapsed when Jean-Louis Gassée was unable to close a deal with Apple. There really was no market for a Fourth major platform (Mac, Linux and Microsoft being the other three floating around in 1996/1997). Having a delightfully smooth OS doesn't really mean a lot if there are no applications for the platform - and, for better or worse, Microsoft had/has a vast array of developers and applications.
One, your are right, Jobs and Apple as a whole inherently understand how to make technology human and accessible to the average person. This is clear from their history of products and product marketing.
Two, surely the dominant Windows platform created opportunities for many software developers. One could develop and launch for Windows and have access to hundreds of millions of potential customers. Didn't a de facto standard platform allow people to think more about applications and what computers could be used for instead of particulars of the operating system? That said, Windows dominance surely held back operating system technology, but standardization had some value, right?
[sarcasm]You don't get it dude, we're serious here. We're going to be multi-millionaires shortly and we can't waste our precious time on your silly jokes. Get with the program man.[/sarcasm]
-4 ? really ? Wow, you must have a fanclub of sorts.
I think HN's stance on 'humorous' content has it's merits but I highly doubt if pg would have written such a thing that he would be modded into the ground like that.
On the other hand you really don't want HN to become another ./.
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.
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.
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?
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."
"wielded the patent and lobbying swords against its enemies"
What about the cease and dissist letters and attempted suit of people who named their products closely to Apples? Remember the iPod fiasco where they tried to use that sword and try to cut out the heart of a coin counter company?
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
How about "whining where people will read it" until it hurts Apple's brand more than anti-competitive practices help them?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Your point is well taken. To be sure I don't own any Apple products so I'm not really complaining. I just think that if knowledgeable people don't demand more then nothing changes. And the complacency of 90% of a product's users doesn't really imply that the product isn't flawed, especially if the product's technology is complicated or the users are particularly lazy. Not that those two things are necessarily true in this case, i'm just saying...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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.
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.
"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.
"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 ;-)
> 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
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?