Apple the No. 1 Danger To Net Freedom

CWmike writes "Columbia law professor Tim Wu, who coined the term 'net neutrality,' now says that Apple is the company that most endangers the freedom of the Internet. Wu recently published the book The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, in which he details what he calls 'information empires' such as AT&T, NBC, Facebook, and Google. He told The New York Times, 'It's largely a story of the American affection for information monopolists and the consequences of that fondness.' When asked whether the Internet could similarly be controlled by large companies, he told the Times: 'I know the Internet was designed to resist integration, designed to resist centralized control, and that design defeated firms like AOL and Time Warner. But firms today, like Apple, make it unclear if the Internet is something lasting or just another cycle.' Asked which companies he feared most, Wu replied: 'Right now, I'd have to say Apple.'" Wu has been in the news a bit lately.

Comments

Oh my god is there anything we can do?!?!

[Andy Smith]

The entire threat posed by Apple comes to nought if people don't buy Apple products. I'm doing my bit.

Re:Oh my god is there anything we can do?!?!

[samkass]

Of course, if you buy Android you'll be using the extremely standards-compliant WebKit engine Apple put together to view the HTML5 content that Apple has been pushing over proprietary Flash/Applet models...

Re:Oh my god is there anything we can do?!?!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Their reasons for supporting HTML5 are most certainly not to be more open (or whatever happy fairy tale one might conceive of), but to stifle their competition.

Stifle competition? Don't be daft. They support HTML5 because it aligns with their business goals. Having an open standard for the Web that is capable and not tied to any other company simply provides Apple with a better position to sell devices without worrying about other companies blocking them. If neither Adobe nor Microsoft controls the tools and formats and players needed to view the Web, then they can't be roadblocks to technological changes Apple implements as a way to differentiate their hardware offerings.

There is nothing wrong with that, but let's not use it to justify some belief that Apple isn't a threat to the free Internet.

Apple or any other large company could do things that threaten freedom on the internet. Blackwater could threaten to kill executives of any company that doesn't lock down all their offerings with DRM. But that's no reason to label Blackwater the number one threat to the free internet. You have to look at what companies are actually doing and why and how it fits into their business plans. Apple right now and for the foreseeable future makes their money selling hardware. They create software and services to make that hardware more attractive. So how does locking down the internet make Apple more money and sell more devices? Oh yeah, it doesn't. Until you have a compelling business plan that will make Apple more money and some reason to think Apple is moving towards that business plan, you're just spreading FUD, which is really what this article is.

Re:Oh my god is there anything we can do?!?!

[Anthony Mouse]

Apple right now and for the foreseeable future makes their money selling hardware.

This is less true as time goes on. Apple's traditional business model is to sell Apple software tied to expensive hardware with high margins. But now they're getting a cut of everything sold in their App Stores. Once there are Android phones available for $150 or less, Apple has to decide whether compete at that price point. The old Apple would say no. The new Apple has to weigh the lower margins on hardware against all the revenue they would lose by having fewer iOS devices out in the world to sell apps for, plus the network effects when they sell more devices and therefore people write more and better apps for them and therefore they sell more devices and more apps.

But the trouble for freedom with that model is that it's predicated on Apple getting a cut of all the software that anyone sells for an Apple device. Which means you can't just make software and distribute it on your own, you have to sell it through Apple. And then Apple gets to break out the ban hammer whenever they want if your app is disruptive to the business model of Apple or Hollywood or the phone company or the Chinese government or anybody else who can exercise more leverage over Apple than Apple benefits from selling your app.

Re:Oh my god is there anything we can do?!?!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Apple right now and for the foreseeable future makes their money selling hardware.

This is less true as time goes on.

That's an interesting hypothesis.

But now they're getting a cut of everything sold in their App Stores.

Yes, but it accounts for an insignificant portion of their profits and Steve Jobs has repeatedly told shareholders it is not a money maker for Apple and they're running the store as a way to sell hardware. Since it would be criminal for him to lie to shareholders, I think it's pretty reasonable to assume this is true.

Once there are Android phones available for $150 or less, Apple has to decide whether compete at that price point. The old Apple would say no.

Umm, we've been through this with the iPod market and the PC market. Apple builds offering on the high end, moves into the midrange and uses volume to keep the added services and differentiators they use to make sales a non-issue. They leave the low-end to other players.

The new Apple has to weigh the lower margins on hardware against all the revenue they would lose by having fewer iOS devices out in the world to sell apps for, plus the network effects when they sell more devices and therefore people write more and better apps for them and therefore they sell more devices and more apps.

They don't really make money selling apps, at least not enough to account for more than a few percent of Apple's revenue. Losing those sales and not completely dominating a market are familiar territory for Apple. It makes them more money to ignore the low end as demonstrated by how much money Apple has been making.

But the trouble for freedom with that model is that it's predicated on Apple getting a cut of all the software that anyone sells for an Apple device.

Your hypothesis IS interesting, but doesn't seem supported by the facts. Apple does wield a lot of control over apps on iPhones, but they do it as a differentiator to make customers happy and sell more hardware. Apple doesn't limit apps because app sales are so profitable. They do it because people who aren't geeks don't want to have to go multiple places to get apps, don't want to deal with malware apps, don't want to worry about security, don't want their kids having access to porn apps, etc. It's a way to make iPhones more attractive to buyers. Apple isn't pulling in piles of cash from their share of app sales. They have very thin margins there. If they were, would they offer free apps? No, they're raking in the cash by selling iPhones because people like them, partly because of the store lock in effects. It might not seem that public opinion is in favor of it if you just read Slashdot and listen to geeks, but we're a tiny segment of the market. I just don't see the money in app sales considering how small a share Apple is taking compared to hosting costs, overhead, payment processing, and tech support.

Follow the money

[Space cowboy]

Anyone would think he had an agenda, maybe trying to drum up some publicity for a book or something. Oh, wait...

Re:Follow the money

[Cid Highwind]

Bingo. He's playing the John C Dvorak strategy.

If you say Google or Facebook are the biggest threat to freedom on Internet: everyone yawns and says "well, duh!" and goes back to playing Farmville. If you say anything bad at all about Apple, the rabid haters (see: all the comments here so far) and the frothing fanboys (wait until this gets posted on TUAW or DaringFireball) show up in droves and drive your ad impressions (or book sales) through the roof.

Monopoly?

[IP_Troll]

Don't you need to dominate the market to be considered a monopoly? Last time I checked Apple only dominates the hipster/ trust-afarian/ techno-snob markets. Plenty of other markets for fledgling entrepreneurs.

Mr. Wu seems to be saying inflammatory things to increase book sales.

Greenpeace

[whisper_jeff]

Greenpeace recently (a year-ish ago) admitted that they picked on Apple, despite there being significantly more egregious examples of companies manufacturing products that weren't friendly to the environment because they knew that talking about Apple would get their name mentioned in the news. This guy is doing the same thing - talk about Apple, in any way, and people will see what he has to say, even if he's completely full of it and wrong.

And, in this case, he's wrong. There are very few significant tech companies that push open internet standards as much as Apple does. Apple was the first major tech company to significantly push for DRM-free music purchases. They strongly support open standards in many ways. Are they perfect? No. No company is so why would anyone expect them to be? But, regardless of their imperfections, there are actually few companies of their significance that are as pro-open standards as they are. Claiming that they are the biggest threat to internet freedom is simply an attempt to get people to pay attention to what you have to say, similar to what Greenpeace did.

Re:Greenpeace

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It's easy to be in favor of opening things up once you've managed your way into a stranglehold on the market.

Actually, no it isn't. You see keeping things closed makes it harder to acquire market share because it makes your offering less attractive to users. Keeping things closed is an advantage only after you've dominated a market, because it prevents you from having to work hard to compete in that space to maintain your dominance. So by your version of events, Apple did the exact opposite of what an abusive monopoly normally does or what would make sense if Apple was concentrating on the online music market instead of using it as a way to push their hardware business.

if you wanted to listen to it away from your computer or laptop you were stuck using an iPod or degrading the sound quality further by burning it to CD and ripping it.

Yeah, but that was the case with every offering at the time because if you wanted to sell digital music you had to abide by the rules of the RIAA, you know an actual illegal trust convicted multiple time of colluding to undermine the free market. Apple played by the RIAA's rules until they had enough influence to make changes. Now don't get me wrong. There was nothing altruistic about Apple's actions. They just weren't interested in the online music business except as a way to make money selling devices. That's the business model they thought would profit them most and it is only coincidence that their business plans aligned with the best interests of consumers in weakening and getting rid of DRM. They still did more good than most any other single company in making things better for consumers.

Wrong.

[Qbertino]

Wrong. No. 1 danger to net freedom is the increasing amount of its users that don't understand its nature and thus fall into the lock-in trap of corporations. The problem here is that you can force people who can't drive and want to to make a drivers licence, but sadly no one is forcing them to learn about computers if they constantly confuse G**gle with the Web.

Information emperor?

[SteeldrivingJon]

"As I discuss in the book, Steve Jobs has the charisma, vision and instincts of every great information emperor."

Every great information emperor?

Just how many have there been? Remember the great global Hollerith card empire of the 30s? Or the Napoleonic empire based on the data-storage capacity of jaquard looms.

This is vapid business book bullshit. What a twat.

Incorrect....

[Lumpy]

Congress is the #1 danger to internet freedom. AS long as people keep voting in these undereducated old fogeys that are only there to help their personal interests, Freedom in general will continue to erode.

Re:take a bite of the shiny Apple...

[doconnor]

I think it's that most omnipotent, profitable monopolies only care about money. Jobs has a specific vision about how people should be using the devices he makes and he doesn't want people using it any other way.

Most companies wouldn't care if people use apps that are ugly and doesn't conform to UI specs, but Jobs does, so those apps are blocked from the iPhone and iPad. This also mean some apps with innovative UI will be blocked as well.

User interface is only one example of the restrictions he has imposed.

Mega ISPs already are

[SuperBanana]

. I would think internet-focused companies like Google, Cisco or a raft of ISPs like Comcast would be much higher on the list.

Uh, they already are. Check your terms of service. Comcast's, several years ago, had paragraphs outlining how you agreed to be a content CONSUMER, not a content PRODUCER. They banned webservers, mail servers, FTP sites, and most frighteningly: "discussion" systems, aka, web boards, chat systems, etc. Home internet connections long ago went from being a pipe you could do whatever (non-network-abusive) things you wanted to with, to a pipe you're expected to use to read your email hosted somewhere else and watch Netflix.

I also find it laughable that anyone but Google could be #1. They're the largest webmail provider, the largest search engine, the largest advertising network, and the largest video/blog hosting company. For fuck's sakes, they're photographically mapping the world and wardriving while doing so. About the only thing they haven't managed to secure is photo-hosting; I'm pretty sure Flickr (yahoo) still dominates that.

He might be right.

[theghost]

Apple is more dangerous because the other villains are obvious. Apple makes people want to lock themselves into nice cozy cells. Sure the window is small, but what you can see through the bars is pretty and the chairs are comfy.

Blah blah blah overused quote about safety, security, liberty, yada yada.

Why is noone talking about the biggest threat?

[Brannon]

I'm still not able to run arbitrary code on the processor in my microwave or my refrigerator. Why can't I manually deploy the airbag in my car? How come there's no flash client for my wristwatch.

Apple is small potatoes--this goes all the way to the top.

Re:Most iPhoners don't consider their phones hosti

[jedidiah]

No. The "belligerent technorati" point out that PhoneOS is hardly remarkably in being malware free. You don't have to lock down the platform like a tyrant in order to secure it.

MacOS is a great counter-example to the notion that you need PhoneOS to be safe.

Apple (Fanboy) rhetoric is such NewSpeak.

"Forget about last years ads. Only believe what this years ads tell you."