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?
Even if you don't agree with some of their tactics like iTunes music only playing on an iPod, is that not their right to do so? Not _everything_ in the world has to work with _everthing_ else. This certainly is not a standard outside of the computer world. And besides, how else to catch up with Microsoft who leads in these practices?
Remember, when apple gets in trouble, microsoft bails them out.
... this is a troll. No doubt. But it is the truth. Can you handle the truth?
Now, Microsoft is using apple to attack Linux saying that OS/X is a better Unix than Linux.
Yeah, sure, you apple fanboys
Jobs, in contrast, is at his core someone who knows marketing and wants to dazzle his customers. With Microsoft it's what they want and you have to go along with it. With Apple, it's about finding the best customer experience and using that for profit.
Look at the quality of their respective products. What kind of quality do you get from Gates? Convoluted, buggy, but hey it's got features so shut up. What kind of quality do you get from Jobs? Look at Pixar. They are a money-making machine, but they do it by providing customers with top-notch quality. People are glad to give them their money. With Microsoft, it's often a case of grudgingly giving their money.
So a world dominated by Steve Jobs would undoubtably have it's own problems, it would be different problems than we have seen from Bill Gates. Their personalities are different enough to ensure that.
Embraces? You mean takes? Both Microsoft and Apple exploit open source software, particularly that (unforunately) under the BSD license. For example, MS took the BSD TCP/IP stack and utilities, made a few changes, and locked them up. Apple did the same thing with BSD Unix, which is the foundation of OS X.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
I believe that Apple has a right to know if one of its employees, who would've signed a NDA, is the source of the leak. How would you all feel if in cases such as this the "news source" were required to provide its sources to a third party, at that point the company that wanted to know if a leak was internal would be provided the names of sources only if it matched a list of employees.
I do love the protections that the press has and feel that those protections should be extended to online media, but I also think that companies should have some protection of their trade secrets.
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
I see your point but when I think of a world not dominated by Microsoft, I don't think of a world dominated by Apple either. Instead I wonder what it would be like if all of those manufacturers from the 80s had made it into the 21st century. What sort of development, competition, changes, might have happened in a world where a Sanyo Silver Fox, Epson, Atari, Amiga, etc., etc., were all viable choices? Perhaps that would have fragmented the market too much, or perhaps we would have seen some real innovation over the past 20 years.
But make no mistake that if Apple had not bungled the marketing of the original Macintosh way back when, and Apple became the monopoly whey would have made the Microsoft we know and love/hate look like a freakin Saint!!
Gates & Co. are motivated by one force... money, anything that threatens them from making it, they attack. Jobs is motivated by power and ego, and is most certainly a megalomaniac.
I'll take a greedy bastard over a megalomaniac any day!!!
Apple's OS owes a lot to open source software yet there's no iTunes software for Linux. A hell of a lot of DVD players actually run Linux yet you still can't get proper DVD playing software for Linux (legally, I know about libcss).
So what ? If you're that desperate to use iTunes, unlock the files with the "illegal" library just like you unlock your DVDs. And if you don't run Linux, there's probably a Windows or MacOS or Atari or whatever version floating around.
As for me I'm not even through ripping my CDs so I don't really have a use for an online service, especially not one from Apple. I looked at the players on the market, got an iRiver and never looked back anyway.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
That's exactly what the parent was talking about - there's no market share so there's no money in it for them (increased ipod/itunes sales).
No need to single out Apple for finally joining the crowd in order to stay afloat.
Yes need to single out Apple for finally joining the crowd in order to stay afloat.
I think it's a relavant topic of discussion whether Apple owes its success to superior products, or cut-throat business practices.
If I'm considering buying Apple products because their cool now, will I regret it down the road when I realize they're screwing me?
Not to mention that Apple has absolutely tarnished the chance of decent, out of the box, _free_ font anti-aliasing on Linux/any alternative OS. They hold the patent for TrueType font hinting, which is absolutely needed for good looking fonts.
Sadly, you will get Apple apolgists that think Apple is more than a company that 'plunders' OSS so they can shortcut some of their other commercial competitors.
IntechHosting - Free domain, 2GB, PHP, £4.95/$8.95
Believe it or not, just like Apple, Microsoft also used to have an army of fanboys for whom MS could do no wrong. I remember the fevered launch of Windows 95, with them all lining up outside stores at midnight to be the first to own a copy - I don't think even the Apple fanboys have got this bad yet!
However, for all the blind loyalty, slowly but surely people started to hate Microsoft. I can see Apple going exactly the same way. Why? Because like Microsoft, they have started to screw the average Joe around and act anti-competitively.
When they make their cute little computers, they can pretty much get away with charging at a premium, as they have total lock-in and nobody else can make a compatible, yet cheaper device (and competition is one of the main things that commerce is founded on). However, with, for example, the iPod and iTunes store, a lot of other companies have been able to produce alternatives that are cheaper, and do the job just as well, but better. What's the Apple answer? Lower the costs? Make their products (Fairplay DRM I'm looking at you) more attractive to consumers? Nope. Instead they try to stifle the competition by making their hardware only able to purchase tracks from their own online store (which kind of feels like a car manufacturer only allowing their cars to be used with their own brand gas), and taking legal action against any competitor that tries to provide tracks that can be made to work with Apple's hardware.
If that isn't anti-competitive, and the Microsoft way, then I don't know what is.
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
Apple failed back then because its new CEO (who ousted Steve btw) wanted to continue selling the same soda water at the same high prices day after day. Gates success stemmed from his use of contract law to stifle competition (OEMs were in effect not allowed to ship other OSes; they had to pay for Windows license on each box whether it used Windows or not). While Gates came up with an innovative contract, he did not come up with an innovative product. The present Apple is not Microsoft because the Apple of today keeps innovating in its product line. Apple's product innovation is the sole reason for its present success. Don't compare them to Microsoft. They are nothing of the sort.
Btw, Think Secret is moving to toss out the lawsuit. I can understand Apple trying to find out who is breaking its NDAs. But I hope, after this little episode is over, Apple will have learned its lesson. The new Apple tends to behave more intelligently than the old.
That's bullshit. Have you paid any attention lately to OS X and it's font system?
Apple stopped using font hinting four years ago when they released OS X. All OS X does is supersampling: Draw the font bigger than it would display, and then scale down and you'll get perfectly beautiful fonts in Linux.
Linux does not do this: Has Apple also gotten patents on this technique too?
And you're going to think me an Apple apologist, but so what? If Linux really wants beautiful fonts, then they someone should design a beautiful font engine. I'm sure one exists, but I don't think it's Apple's font patents that stop it from succeeding.
GPL Deconstructed
Anyway, the same answer is derivable via logic. Linux is a direct competitor to MacOS X. They are both vying for second place in the market, and history has shown that while most companies write for the top OS, a few write for both the first and second place OSs, but virtually none write for the top 3. Therefore it's of vital importance that they remain (psychologically if not statistically) in 2nd place.
Linux is rapidly taking over that spot, according to IDC it already has in fact, therefore anything they can do to hinder adoption of Linux is a good move from the perspective of their business model. Therefore they have no incentive to de-license these patents.
Is it OK for a medium sized business with a small percentage of aggregate market-share to use restraint of trade practices, ethically dubious legal machinations to control product information flow, and closed source development methodology? Complaints about Microsoft have ranged from outright code theft and distribution (Stacker) to breach of contract and restraint of trade while holding a monopoly. And closed source development methodology. Which is worse? Which of the two might cause greater damage across the whole economy? Toss these questions in your ethical scale and decide for yourselves. I know where I sit.
I'm not pleased with Apple's behavior of late. But IMO Microsoft has a long history of much worse. I'll stick with Apple as long as their product does what I need at a price I can afford (both time and hardware/software expense). I bought a Mac because I don't have time to maintain a Linux box at home any longer. I ran both Linux or *BSD on my home PCs for over ten years, and if I had the time to tinker, I'd go back. Not now. I work full time, I take two evening classes, and I'm a part time landlord. My computer is now a tool, not a toy. So, Mac it is - warts and all.
*sigh* As good as much Free Software is, sometimes one must make a tradeoff between necessity and available time. And if that means accepting Apple's somewhat rude and abusive behavior, for the moment I'm willing to do so for expidiency's sake. But that doesn't mean I like it. Apple may convince me yet to make my next purchase an Opteron running Linux. --M
An argument for giving back to the Unix community, from which they derive so much development capital, should not be justified by popularity alone.
Yes.
But we here have a case of both business ethics and long range thinking being absent. Sounds a familiar combination.
CC.
P.S.: Some interesting OS-statistics here
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
I do believe that corporations have a tendency to skew evil by virtue of their servitude to quarterly profits, but just because a company becomes successful does not necessarily make them evil. This reminds me of people who quit listening to bands like REM because they started doing well. "REM sucks ever since they sold out", Whatever.
To compare Apple to Microsoft and ponder "what if" scenarios is just ridiculous. I haven't seen anything remotely on the level of MS evil on the part of Apple. Apple gets special scrutiny because they're Apple. Believe me, Apple will get away with a lot less than IBM, Sun, or Microsoft.
As I understand the suit against "Think Secret", Apple wants to uncover who leaked genuine trade secrets to the media. Whoever that person is has broken the law by violating a non-disclosure agreement of some sort or another. Apple has a legitimate business interest in stopping the illegal flow of business intelligence out of their company.
As for their songs not working on other players - please. Anyone with a pulse and the most basic knowledge of computing history knows what's at stake here. If Microsoft ever overtakes Apple in the DRM space, god help us. Besides Apple has spent millions of dollars developing a kick-ass music store and portable player that work in perfect harmony. If you don't like it, don't buy it. The idea that Apple is being unethical by not helping Dell and Creative sell their inferior solutions is just bizarre.
Now, if Apple ends up with a long-term monopoly in this space, than they should be held to the highest standards regarding laws regulating monopolistic behavior. However, it's a little early to be thinking along those lines as the whole thing could flip-flop at a moment's notice. Besides, the whole game is moving away from iPods and Mp3 players and into cell phones. DRM and distribution are the new prizes and Apple knows this as well as Microsoft. Most of the whining you hear about iTMS not working with other players comes from the companies who make the other players and from MS and MS apologists who want the MS' DRM to be the de facto standard.
My personal vision of the future of computing involves a mixture of open source and for-profit software and industry standards wherever possible to promote competition. Looking at the history of Microsoft and Apple, and looking at what makes them tick, I find it hard to do anything but root for Apple right now.
"The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
IANAL but if an employee can break a non-disclosure agreement by passing NDA-protected information to a news site, but can then hide behind a cloak of anonymity in the event of their employer following up the leak, wouldn't that (in effect) render the NDA unenforceable?
You're wrong about Apple.
They hired the head programmer at Cassady & Greene, maker of the best OS9 MP3 software called SoundJam, and hired him to help make iTunes which is virtually a clone of that software, and now C&G is out of business.
They are including "widgets" in Tiger, which is now accomplished by a 3rd party utility called Konfabulator, who will not be able to sell any more software when Tiger starts shipping.
In fact, I'm not sure if you use Macs, but going back 10+ years, they have a history of taking well-liked shareware, and incorporating its features into its OS. Apple might be creative in some ways, but they mostly depend on the creativity of others.
They do however have a history of getting it right. Take the G5 iMac for example, the form factor is nothing revolutionary, but it is very well designed and is just better than others who've tried the same.
I've already got a mini and love it. But I know who and what Apple is and what to expect from them. And usually when I see great shareware I pretty much expect Apple to be looking into "adopting" it.
Please people, Apple has always been this way. Apple didn't get beat by Microsoft because they were nicer, they just got beat. If you were surprised by Apples recent moves then you just haven't been paying attention.
Sigs are awesome huh?
My kids, preteens, use itunes all the time and they don't have an ipod or a Mac. I like itunes because I save money and time. I save money because I give them an itunes allowance and they can download the latest singles instead of buying a whole CD for one song. I save time because I don't spend time trouble shooting the program for them. After they download songs they rip a CD and use it in any CD player around, in the car, at home, at their friends home,anywhere. Also isn't it possible to use an ipod with any mp3 file. Summary. I can use itunes without an ipod. I can use an ipod without buying songs from apple. I can use neither, with any alternative music store or music player, or better yet buy CD's and play them on my home stereo, which I did long before there were ipods or itunes. Apple does not control anything that I do. I can use their produces or not use their products. The choice is mine. If an artist decides to release their music only on itunes then that is a poor business choice by that artist.
Humm bob 1024*768 IS high resolution
low resolution start at 320*400. High resolution start at 800*600 Anything higher then 1024*768 is well very high resolution.
True the ati radeon 9200 is not really powerfull but in a laptop your don't need graphic power. And the mac mini is not targeted at gamers or graphic guru.
Aldo the g4 is a bit underpower graphic wise. but so is a lot pc model. Intel Extreme is not a good graphic card no matter what dell says.Beside Apple is no longer selling g4 with radeon 9200
Yes, but it's not as though they could give it away for free, and be happy to get the bucks from the few percent of the few percent of people who only run Linux desktops and also want iPods.
They'd have to port the thing, which costs money, and they'd have to support the port, which costs money. I would expect that it would be a loss to the company. And, as I pointed out in my post, what platform should they give back to? It's not as though Mac OS X is a complete Red Hat under the hood.
Is "giving back to the OSS community" equivalent to providing a binary RPM that only runs on a recent Red Hat/Fedora?
If you're suggesting that Apple open-source its iTunes client, I think that would be fantastic, but I'd guess they're probably bound by lots of patent arrangements and simply can't without mind-boggling expense.
Linux was 2.8% in 2002, just behind Apple at 2.9%. It's growth has been exponential since then, in fact many argue it's the fastest growing desktop OS.
That's spot on.
Apple is in the zone of making products you think you just can't be without. You want them. Have to have them. And you will spend the little extra to get the little extras they spend time investing in making a quality product.
M$ has labored to create a market where you have no choice. There is no rational thought involved. You must buy product X to do whatever it is you need or want to do. If you don't, it's not just the little extras you'll be missing. By design you won't (and can't) be compatible with "the market"--whatever that happens to mean for a given segment.
Even if Apple begins to drive a market segment, their philosophy thrives on competitors, even when they hold a majority of the segment. Having something crappy that you could buy but decide on an Apple product instead nets them more profit per unit. As a company, that short- to mid-term strategy is starting to pay off for all involved big time now. Whereas the M$ long-term strategy of sheer dominance is showing cracks lately.
** Re:No iTunes for Linux (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 05, @12:32PM (#11853179)
Humm bob 1024*768 IS high resolution
low resolution start at 320*400. High resolution start at 800*600 Anything higher then 1024*768 is well very high resolution.
True the ati radeon 9200 is not really powerfull but in a laptop your don't need graphic power. And the mac mini is not targeted at gamers or graphic guru.**
Aldo the g4 is a bit underpower graphic wise. but so is a lot pc model. Intel Extreme is not a good graphic card no matter what dell says.Beside Apple is no longer selling g4 with radeon 9200*
'high resolution' is a term that changes over time, on what's available. besides than that, apple calls it a "Brilliant Resolution". no wonder they have good font smoothing - they fucking have to with those resolutions.
you stupid or what? apple isn't selling g4 cpu mac with radeon 9200? sure it is: the minis, the ibooks, the emacs, all g4's with a 9200.. and they DO market them as a brilliant gaming platform that kicks pc's butt somehow.
but any way you put it 1024*768 is a fecking poor resolution for a lappy.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I have seen a smilar boom in Nottingham - my local Apple reseller, who I'm very friendly with given the amount of business that my business puts through them (commercial video maker), has just moved to new premises in a more prominent location in the local shopping centre.
The store is bigger, redesigned, and with more products on show. It's always full of customers.
The manager says business has never been so good. Top sellers: iPod mini, G5 iMac, iBook, 12" Powerbook.
Really, I am used to seeing (occasionally :-) stupid stories on Slashdot, but this is ridiculous.
Apple gives back to the BSD community. Apple mostly supports standards.
I have made a lot of money over the years because of Microsoft, but I must say that I don't like them for a few simple reasons: lack of support for standards, obfrustcated Microsoft Office file formats, putting marketing before creating simpler more reliable products...
I respect Bill Gates for his donations to charity. It makes me feel great to be able to regularly contribute small amounts of money to organizations like the Heifer Project, American Friends Service Committee, and Habitat for Humanity. But, WOW!!, I can no even imagine what it must feel like for Bill and Melinda Gates to be able to literally help millions of people instead of of a few.
But, as a corporation, I am starting to detest Microsoft.
Apple is my ace in the hole in case Linux is ever outlawed in the USA. I guess that I could live with just OS X.
Just because you can't think of an example doesn't mean they don't exist:
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/
Who are you kidding?
Apple's persistent proprietary secrecy, its atavistic self-righteousness, and its high profit margins have always been more stringent than Microsoft's.
Which is why Microsoft has always kicked its ass in the market despite lower product quality.
Even after 20 years, I still don't buy Apple because I feel I'll be "locked-in" to a proprietary system with expensive add-ons to do simple things. The fact that they'll be done extremely well doesn't sway me or the other billion Windows users.
the Apple option costs more than a non-Apple option.
The simple and elegant option costs more than the cludgy, infuriating option.
I consider it an investment in health care: all that stress has got to be bad for your heart.
You can't take the sky from me...
Talk about telling it how it is... Just look at Safari web browser. They forked Konqueror and now they have mangeled the code so bad that the konq maintainers can't even get the fixes back into their main trunk.
Sure, apple posts their changes on their developer site... it is GPL afterall, but now unless the Konq authors decided to base their distribution off the safari browser, it would be impossible for the developers to bring in the improvements apple has made...
And since apple refuses to work with the Konq developers as a team, and instead does their own work in solitary, there is no chance for any of apple's code to come into other projects (at least not in the near future)
Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
Actually, this is soooo misguided. Neither Google nor Apple are monopolies, neither have been convicted of illegal actions... No, Microsoft is STILL the only Microsoft. The rest is mental masturbation.
The fastest-growing desktop OS in the past three years has been: (drum roll) OS X.
Did you notice how all of the other posts about user statistics had links to sources? Normally you would want to post a reference of your own to refute the above posts.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. Apple shouldn't advertise their own product as being any good, they should be putting out marketing blurb like:
"The 12inch iBook! It's O.K!. Now with mediocre graphics and a slow hard drive!"
Any half decent person knows that marketing is bullshit, writing facts (or as close to facts as possible) in such a way that it sounds positively awesome. Anyone sucked in by advertising-speak deserves what they get, and anyone with a brain will do a little research first.
You say Apple's marketing is full of shit like you think everyone else's isn't.