Slashdot Mirror
Is Apple The New Microsoft?
Varg Vikernes writes "Even if you don't count Apple's actions this week as a potential threat to first amendment rights (Apple's crackdown on Web sites that love the company), they do nothing to bolster Apple's public image. In fact the company's success of late has yielded accusations of bullying and potentially unlawful business tactics, along with complaints about the fact that songs purchased from its iTunes music service don't work with music players other than its own. According to Forbes, to some these tactics sound like something Apple's neighbor to the North might employ. They wonder aloud Is Apple the New Microsoft?
In fact, I personally believe that if Gates and co. hadn't screwed Apple over all those years ago to bring out Windows 1.0, then we'd be in a hell of a lot worse position than we are now. At least Microsoft only have a monopoly on Software. If the 2 Steves had managed to create a monopoly where Apple had total control of the OS AND the hardware, then it would be impossible for anyone else to get a look in. We saw how Apple treated the clone system builders, and BeOS for that matter. Actually, now I think of it, Apple are setting up their own stores here in the UK and driving their formerly faithful resellers out of the market with their well know price fixing strategies (try buying apple hardware at better prices than Apple supply it direct to see what I mean).
I do like (and own) some of Apple's kit, but I'm not one of the blinkered Mac apologists who defend their every action. Apple is not a bunch of nice people; it's a corporation, and frankly I'm not surprised in the slightest at their attempts to monopolise music downloads and attack their own fans' websites. Maybe Wozniak wasn't all about making money, but Jobs and the others left steering the ship certainly are.
Have you noticed that, althought Apple's own operating system owes a lot to the open source movement, and the thousands of developers whose code they use for free, you and I still cannot run iTunes on our Linux desktop to sync an iPod? No money in it for them...
It's time some people took off the rose coloured hippy glasses and realised that Apple is just another wannabe monopolist who've (luckily for us) simply been curtailed by an unfortunate event perpetrated by the current software monopolist.
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
In this day and age, everyone does business this way.
No need to single out Apple for finally joining the crowd in order to stay afloat.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
They have a LONG way to go to becoming Microsoft. Some of the things done may look, sound, be the same, but c'mon -- like Apple's market pressure is ANYthing like that of Microsoft's. Please.
Websites that spread trade secrets and leak important details about upcoming products (including ship dates, manufacturing locations, key design details) months before they're announced are hardly websites that "love the company".
What sort of fucking moron writes something that preposterous.
A slashdot editor, of course.
All they need now is crushing market share...
They way all corporations do their business is by flexing their muscle. When a company starts to measure its success by how much their quarterly results benefit their investors, then they become myopic bullies and innovation stops. MS is far ahead there.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
This is pure FUD, and guess what? It's aimed at you, the slashdot reader.
From the article:
It's ironic that a company as innovative as Apple Computer could have such a regressive view of the changing world of American media.
Apple's view may seem regressive to the average slashdot reader, but to the rest of the world, it's way ahead.
This is a baldfaced attempt to confuse two sources of outrage for the average geek: threats to free speech and threats from Microsoft. It's a common rhetorical and political tactic meant to funnel away attention from the true threat.
Don't be fooled. Microsoft is the new Microsoft, and the old Microsoft.
From the article:
Problem is, the definition of journalism is rapidly changing. "Traditional" media like print newspapers, broadcast news and weekly magazines years ago began being augmented and in some cases supplanted by "new" media on the Web.
The protection of sources is still a source of contention, even among the "traditional" media. Refer to the Valerie Plame case (another classic "divert the opposition" case) for contention about protection of sources in the traditional media. Protection of sources, even for the major media, is not a set part of the First Amendment.
BSOD.
Apple actually embraces open source, basing its browser on it and releasing the Darwin kernel for its rock-solid (thanks to open source) OS back to the people.
A show of hands,
Who here feels compelled to buy Apple products to stay in business?
What about Microsoft products?
I buy Apple because it works. I buy Microsoft because I have to communicate in business.
"No".
Longer answer:
Apple was never really the "friend" of independents. Macs are designed to be closed systems, not particularly open towards user-implemented modifications. This is one of the reasons the systems are so polished, secure and easy to use. The fact that Apple is willing to sue to protect said secrets doesn't make them the new MS... they're just doing the same thing they've always done - protect their products.
ThinkSecret infringed on that, and it could very well have been detrimental - look at how quickly Intel has designed a Mac-mini clone. Redmond doesn't have to worry about that - most of their software is a clone of Mac ideas anyway.
I've been an Apple user since the Apple II back in the Day. They have always marketed the image the company and the customers as open, free thinkers, and iconoclasts. The reality is that Apple is one of the most closed proprietary companies around. As Apple moves closer to being an entertainment company, I expect the trend will get worse.
They seek to have total control over their platform and how the users use that platform. Sueing their fansites is exactly the behavior I would expect from Apple.
It is ironic that Apple used 1984 themes in their first Mac ad since Apple revels in "thought" control.
True Apple Inc. love would be swallowing every new product hook, line, and sinker.
You'll take what Apple gives you and be happy.
Yeah kinda cracks me up. That's like bitching that I can't buy a chevy alternator for $50 and put it in my $50,000 BMW. No this isn't a 'Apple is the BMW of the computer world post' It's just a general comment that products built by one company aren't guranteed/flat out don't work in a competitors product. Sure maybe the concepts are similar but they won't intermingle.
Neither will the beaters on my Kitchen Aid mixer plug into my Oster mixer, or anything else like that. It always amazes me that when a company gets runaway success by filling a need in a marketplace that when they end up doing really well people start to want to tear them down.
I work for a computer manufacturer, I've got access to roadmaps that go out for years, if I were to 'leak' these to a 'fan site' that does nothing but try and predict what we were doing my company would go on a witch hunt pretty quickly too. There is a thing called competition and competitors out there, even for Apple. Apple's main 'thing' is to develop innovative products. Their competitors goals are to try and find a way to cobble something together that is 'good enough' and a lot cheaper, and watch people flock too it.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Not until they have $35 Billion in the bank. That's with a "B" -- and that's cash.
see here
If the iTunes Music Store was the only download music store, and they used a proprietary format, then that would be one thing. As it is, the apparently barrier to entry in the downloadable music business is so low that music stores are springing up all over the place (the local radio station now has their own music store where you can download the music from their playlists). MP3 players are for sale at half the stores in the mall.
Nobody is forcing you to use anything from Apple; there are viable competitors in every one of their markets. Nobody is paying an "Apple tax" to buy a computer that doesn't have iTunes installed on it...
forcing you to use anything from Apple?
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
And how is MS using Apple to attack Linux by saying OS X is a better Unix than Linux? I've seen a variety of individuals say something to this effect, but I've never really seen it as an official company line from either MS or Apple.
Web sites were not protected by free speech because they are not legitimate members of the press.
So you only have free speech if you're a journalist? I guess I didn't read the First Amendment closely enough. This comes as somewhat of a surprise. I thought Apple was generally doing things right and not being stupid, but maybe I was wrong. I wonder where Google stands on this?
Bears don't normally eat things that talk and move backwards.
That's an odd complaint. I don't think Apple is demonstrating a grudge against OSS or Linux in particular, it's just that the market share of Linux on the desktop is tiny (2%). If Linux had 70% of the desktop market, they'd certainly be offering iTunes for X11 and Linux. Moreover, if it were purely a quid-pro-quo arrangement, I'm not sure that Apple would be bound to produce iTunes for Linux - maybe they should provide iTunes for OpenBSD, since they actually use that team's products (OpenSSH, for instance). Just because you get Apache and Samba with Red Hat, and OS X (OS X Server has Samba) also includes them, doesn't make them "part of Linux," after all, though they're clearly important to making Linux useful.
If I had a contract with somebody and they broke it, I would want to know about it and so would you.
I have never been a fan of Apple's business practices. I toyed with getting a powerbook last year but ultimately I went with an HP model because they let me choose what I wanted in it. Apple has a policy where it is their way or the highway. They have some great stuff but the lack of competition selling MAC hardware makes it unfun for people like me to buy. Also they way they deal with iPod is annoying. Want more battery life? Then buy the iPod photo for 500 bucks rather than the adequately sized 20Gb model for 300. They are constanly trying to push products that are more expensive than they should be by bundling options. Look at the iMAC. Neat little machine but if you want a good video card then you have to opt for a standard g5 rig at a higher price.
I really don't see the parallel with M$ but I suppose if Bill gates was selling PC's then maybe. M$ hasn't even "forced" any upgrades to a new OS in 4 years. Apple on the other hand releases service packs for the price of a new O$. Oh wait that's what XP was to win2k. So Ok they are alike in that respect. Apple is just trying to muscle it's way back into the market but they are missing out on a large segement of potential buyers. People like me who want a good system at a reasonable price.
As for iTunes it is just there to sell a product so why should it be compatible with competing technology? If you want to buy music for your non ipod then go to a place that has it.
For the record I do own a 20GB iPod and I love the thing.
Just mod this whole article -1 Flamebait and get it over with.
I keep reading that "Red Hat is the new Microsoft" or "Apple is the new Microsoft". There is only one Microsoft! They alone have near monoploy market share. They alone have tried their best to lock people into their own proprietary versions (java, web browsers, office suites).
Apple may guard their secrets and markets closely, but they also support open standards and open source.
Red Hat makes the source code for all their products easily available by ftp/http mirrors everywhere.
To paraphrase Gandalf: There is only one Microsoft and it does not share power!
Microsoft's DRM is OS level, not application level.
Yeah kinda cracks me up. That's like bitching that I can't buy a chevy alternator for $50 and put it in my $50,000 BMW.
Not at all. You can buy a $50 Chevy alternator. Of course, it won't fit, so you might have to make some metal brackets, drill new holes and find the right kind of pulley to make it fit on the belt, but you can still do it legally. No one can stop you trying and no one should be able to stop you trying.
With DRMed works, you can not do the software equivalent of the above unless authorized, because of the DMCA (even though you supposedly have fair use rights). Now as it happens, Apple do authorize it by letting you burn on to CD and re rip (which may be a pain), but you can still put your songs on a different player.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I think it's still possible that, if Jobs had the market dominance of Gates, he'd act just like him.
And that's exactly why we need antitrust protection. Power corrupts.
They all act like this. Their stuff is made in the same factories as PC clones, they're pretty lousy to their customers when there's a defect or quality control problem, and their only concern is their bottom line and their shareholders. The only reason it's worth picking on them for it is they've had this BS image of being above that for years. They aren't, and weren't. Apple fanatics don't like hearing it, but you can't make yourself an individual by buying a mass-market product from a publicly held corporation.
There are big differences between Apple and Microsoft.
Microsoft goes out of its way to steal competitor products (Sybase SQL server and OS2/Windows) copy innovations without any consideration to the originators (see GUI interface and mice: which both copied but apple paid stock for when they borrowed it), choke the life out of people they have contracts with (Look at the spyglass to IE story) and sabotage technology standards that they don't control (See Java and the butchery they did to Javascript/ECMAscript the supposed standard). Even in their originally innovative products, they primarily engage in anti-competitive, intentional incompatibilities (See every upgrade of Microsoft Office) that sabotage the compatibility efforts of others.
Apple does none of these things. They are innovating, inventing and are really careful about asking people to mind their own business. They want to make their money by selling the best products in a category - Microsoft wants to make their money by being the only company to sell products in every category.
To sum it all up: Apple makes, Microsoft takes. If Apple is cooking up new, tasty technology, they have a right to privacy.
They're the old Microsoft. Nobody practiced such harware and software lock-in like Apple did before they produced OSX. However, that's also one of the things that made the mac work so well. Everything was perfectly matched. It wasn't until Firewire and USB that we could use much third party hardware like printers and keyboards and mice(oh my). Really, Apple is more like Sun. Software and hardware lock-in are still there. For me, the quality of the product makes up for it. Now they make a computer that works great AND you can tinker with it to your heart's delight. That's something else you couldn't really do until OSX. Tinkering was(and still kind of is) the only advantage the PC had over the mac.
What?
Apple's crackdown on Web sites that love the company
Paying Apple employees to break an agreement with Apple and leak Apple's trade secrets isn't a manifestation of "love".
Some people have to grow up and understand that a company is about making money, and a company has corporate interests that some blogger may not be able to appreciate. A company isn't "open", like the government is (supposed) to be.
Second, this is about unauthorized publication of private information. Certainly nobody believes that "the press", in any of its traditional or more modern forms, has the unfettered freedom to publish private information, especially if the release of the information is potentially harmful to someone.
Consider the (admittedly imperfect) analogy of a blogger publishing your private medical information, or financial records. Nobody would claim that the first amendment extends to malicious release of private data.
A reasonable person might argue that a corporation is not entitled to the same protection as a an individual, and it is certainly the case that ThinkSecret's actions were not malicious (although they were arguably harmful). OK, we have the basis for a discussion, but not histrionics about a corporate evil empire trashing our constitutional rights.
I can't believe Forbes published that drivel. Reasonable people can disagree about whether Apple's actions are reasonable or constructive, but this was an inexcusably sloppy start.
And, oh, by the way, my pre-iPod MP3 player (a Creative Nomad II) is currently loaded with mostly iTunes-purchased songs. I guess I failed to notice the Apple-logo'd chains around my neck when I loaded it...
Apple's stance on Think Secret is about First Amendment rights. From Apple's perspective, it is trying to protect their trade secrets by limiting information about upcoming products. Apple isn't alone in doing this. Most automanufacturers go to great lengths to protect new models. From ThinkSecret's perspective, it's about their First Amendment rights. A court will settle it.
If it was MS, not only would MS sue ThinkSecret, they would try to influence ThinkSecret's partners, suppliers, and customers in not so subtle ways.
Apple like some companies have and will continue to bully some resellers This behavior could turn away many, and Apple could be nicer. The sad fact of the matter, though, is that Apple owns a monopoly on their own machines, but they have not in recent memory tried to bully resellers against competitors.
Microsoft has not only bullied resellers but strong-armed partners too against their competitors. When Win95 was out, many OEMs were persuaded not to install Netscape but IE or their Windows prices might rise. Intel wanted to develop a Java runtime compiler for i386, but MS hinted that AMD would get a more favorable treatment when MS developed their next version of Windows if they did.
The issue with iTunes keeps coming up, and it never really gets explained. AAC is an open standard. Fairplay contains the DRM. Not many players support AAC and almost all support mp3 (as does iTunes/iPod) and some support wma. Those that support wma have struck deals with MS. Some of those who complain about Apple being closed include MS and Real and that's the pot calling the kettle black. You can always convert the songs into MP3s if you want although it's not a simple process and their will be fidelity loss.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Has anybody else noticed that Apple is not suing ThinkSecret? They are not pursuing damages from ThinkSecret. They are not trying to bully ThinkSecret into disappearing from the web.
In short, Apple is not attacking ThinkSecret.
This is not a First Amendment issue. Apple is trying to track down people who violated their NDA. When you sign an NDA, you are signing a legal contract and violating that contract is a violation of the law. When you sign an NDA you have essentially agreed to forfeit your 1st Amendment right as it relates to the subject of the NDA.
Apple is trying to track down a person or people who willfully and illegally violated the terms of a legally binding agreement that they made with Apple. ThinkSecret is safe. ThinkSecret is not being forced off of the web. They are not being sued for damages. They are not being prosecuted at all. They are being subpoenaed for info that would lead to the prosecution of people who have broken the law (this is not even debatable at this point, these people have violated the terms of a contract that they agreed to). No one is attacking ThinkSecret or their right to say whatever they choose to say.
And the whole idea of media sources being protected is sketchy at best. There has never been a clear and well-defined legal precedent for this supposed protection. In fact, whenever "sources" have provided info that is later determined to be false or defamatory, they are usually pursued with the blessing of the courts. And when someone provides information by violating a legal contract, why should it be any different? If you didn't want to get in trouble for telling people, you shouldn't have signed the NDA.
You people have a funny idea of how the first amendment works.
making their hardware only able to purchase tracks from their own online store
I'm not talking about ripping a CD and making an mp3 of it, or downloading from Kazaa here. I'm talking about freedom to buy music from an online store other than iTunes. There is none of that with the iPod, and that's why the iTunes store is being investigated for price fixing by the European Union.
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
Used to? Jesus man. I still see so much evidence of this going on today here on Slashdot and everywhere else. To an awful lot of people, Microsoft is still a kind, benevolent company who make secure robust software. Or at least they don't seem to bothered by the rest of the shit MS does.
WTF are you talking about? In order to be able to sell the damned things, they needed to have DRM in place. We don't like it, but that's reality. Their players may only understand their DRM, and other players may not since you'd have to break their DRM to use it. But did you not notice an iPod plays MP3's???
So go buy yourself a friggin' CD and make your own MP3s. Download your MP3s the way you do now and play them. Go buy a non-DRM'd MP3.
An iPod is in my future. iTunes music store isn't something I care about at all. The fact that for the MP3s I've ripped from my legally purchases CDs will play on it is why I'm buying it.
Blaming the economic reality that if you want to sell digital music nowadays and not run afoul of the RIAA it needs to be DRMd on Apple is like blaming a liquor store owner for not selling to minors.
Oh? I have a choice of a whole bunch of MP3 players on the market. The fact that Apple branded players only decode Apple DRM'd things is hardly a shock.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I went to download quicktime the other day and found that I had to also install iTunes with it. WTF?!? If I wanted iTunes I would have downloaded it long ago. It's like Apple is really the new Real.
Apple the new Microsoft? This is a joke, right? Ok, I'll play.
1 /0 2/172242&mode=thread
I can think of two big reasons why Apple is not the new Microsoft:
1) Apple's products seem to work very well:
http://www.tcf.vt.edu/systemX.html
2) Apple hasn't been convicted of anti-trust violations:
http://grep.law.harvard.edu/article.pl?sid=02/1
The only thing that I seriously hate in all this hooplah is the assertion by Apple's lawyers that freedom of the press applies ONLY to the traditional media. I may not have any legal training, but any assertion that certain constitutionally guaranteed rights apply exclusively to people in the elite makes me nervous. Because then you have to start asking where the line is.
If I print out my own weekly newsletter on my computer, am I more of a traditional (and thus constitutionally protected) journalist than a reporter with 30+ years experience who now writes exclusively online?
I think that EVERY citizen has a constitutionally protected right to free press. I don't recall a clause in the constitution that says you have to be certified to truly enjoy that right. The right covers us all.
Additionally, what would Apple's lawyers be saying if this information HAD been published in a big "traditional" paper? Or if it were on CNN?
IMHO, I think they are behaving like Microsoft. They don't really care about constitutional rights or legal protections of free speech, etc. It's just about money. I'm a mac user, but I'm not an Apple apologist - and I think there's something terribly wrong with any corporation's greed can circumvent the rights of ordinary citizens.
Whether you journalism snobs like it or not, anyone CAN be a journalist with enough time and dedication. No certification necessary, according to our constitution.
Technically speaking, yes. You can also bypass the DVD region code system, but the theoretical possibility does not justify the restriction. You don't really expect people to burn their songs to CD every time they want to use them outside iSomething? It is indeed justified to criticize Apple for this.
No, it's not. AAC is an MPEG-4 standard, developed independently of Apple by the same Motion Picture Experts Group that developed standards such as MPEG-1, MPEG-2, and mp3. It is not an Apple-proprietary format. If your portable player of choice does not support the standard, it's not Apple's fault.
If you insist on using a non-DRMed format (and Apple's is the best DRM around, in that it expertly balances both the fair use rights of the user and the draconian demands of the fanatical recording industry), then you are likely a tinkerer by nature, and there are options available. For example, you could "burn" the tracks to an Image Drive, and then "rip" the tracks off the iso image to another format. I'm sure you could even bang up a script to automate the process and transfer the metadata to an ID3 tag. No physical media need be involved.
My point is that Apple is doing things right. The average user has a great deal of freedom with the songs they have purchased. This is a big accomplishment, considering the demands of the recording industry. Don't be so quick to dismiss Apple's efforts.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
Buy a second hand mac dual g4 with lots of ram, buy OS X panther, buy a cocoa handbook, install developer tools, code the program works better than iTunes and supports your device.
In which part Apple stops them?
People not using Mac as their only system can't understand how absurd those editorials are.
I got a OS X system, I buy original cds and yet there is not a SINGLE ALTERNATIVE ON OS X FOR iTUNES!
How can I respect any other company if they don't respect the computer of mine?
This business of comparing Apple's success in the digital music market to Microsoft's business practices is drawing a long bow at best.
Apple have always presented a unified platform of software and hardware. That is now and has always been their approach. It is their right to not hold the concept of software and hardware separation as sacrosanct.
For many years this approach has been cited as the reason that they did not succeed in the OS wars with Microsoft. Possibly true too.
It would seem that the approach of "building the whole widget" does work well in the digital music market however.
Apple did not leverage a monopoly in the music player player market to build the success of the iTunes music store. Similarly the success of the iPod was not built on the strength of a monopoly in the download market. IF they are approaching a monopoly in those markets now then it is because the entire strategy has worked.
Fair-play is not new - it was used on day one of the iTunes music store. It was clear that the iPod was the only portable player this stuff would work with. What did the market say? "Gimme"
Apple have always wanted to build the whole widget and that is what they are doing in music. Apparently the users like it this time around.
Plenty of people state your point, trust me. I see it everytime I moderate when I set my threshold to -1. The point here is that complaints about moderation are generally offtopic and uninteresting to those seeking to read about the story. If you disagree with a moderation, you can moderate yourself or M2. Or at least throw an (OT) in your subject line and decline your karma bonus. Or, if you're intent on complaining, at least show some effort; provide a more involved comment with reasons why such moderations are undesirable. That way you might actually sway a future moderator to undo what you felt was unjust.
The problem here is you're drawing a general conclusion about moderation in general, when it's an activity done by thousands in aggregate. Sometimes stuff like this gets modded up. Sometimes it gets modded down. It only takes two people to move something like this up to +4 or down to 0. There is no conspiracy.
BTW, I got here when checking context on M2. I M2'd the Troll mod on your first comment as fair because I thought it was fair.
I sincerely hope this helps you post better in the future. After all, that's the whole bloody point of moderation. Please take the criticism constructively.
You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara