Slashdot Mirror
Is Apple Turning Into the Next "Evil Empire"?
jira writes "'You may think you own your iPad or iPhone but in reality an invisible string links it back to Apple HQ' writes John Naughton. He adds: 'Umberto Eco once wrote a memorable essay arguing that the Apple Mac was a Catholic device, while the IBM PC was a Protestant one. His reasoning was that, like the Roman church, Apple offered a guaranteed route to salvation – the Apple Way – provided one stuck to it. PC users, on the other hand, had to take personal responsibility for working out their own routes to heaven.'"
it is not an ongoing process. you should use past perfect tense.
Read radical news here
I thought Google was the next Evil Empire!
I would had wanted to argue "what is there to discuss?", but nevermind.
Is apple _turning_ into the next evil empire?
No, they already are.
Now what?
Is Apple Turning Into the Next "Evil Empire"?
Apple: Slashdot, we're not Microsoft. Do you seriously think we'd explain our masterstroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? We did it 35 minutes ago.
Summation 2
Can we drop this absurd use of the word 'evil' please?
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
Or perhaps this one.
The fact that this question is being asked is, in my opinion, a sign of the times. I never thought I'd see the day when Apple is considered an "evil empire", and Microsoft is kind of the underdog/good-guy. I think, however, that Apple is making the same mistakes now they made 30 years ago. They decided to tie their hardware and software together, forcing the end user to buy their hardware - at a drastically increased initial investment cost - in order to get their software. Microsoft came along and blew that concept out of the water, and now Apple is doing the same thing again with mobile devices and iOS. Then we have Google creating an open source operating system that's totally "untethered" from hardware (I've even seen Android running on iPhones).
I think that we're going to see a repeat of the 90's here somewhat shortly with respect to mobile devices (aka "the next frontier"). Apple will insist on selling iPads and iPhones at $500 - $800 each, and Google will allow their OS to be placed on any device the consumer wants, decoupling the OS and hardware and ultimately "owning" the mobile marketspace, just like Microsoft beat Apple in terms of marketshare and continues to do so to this day.
They have been for a long time, along with many others who would love to get to their position in the market. Apple chases profit like all other companies, they just oft have a better UI. The first thing Jobs did when he came back to Apple was axe all the Mac-clones that were being built. The second thing they did was try their best to put all non-Apple Macintosh repair shops out of business, and then open the Apple Stores once they'd done so. They haven't changed business models, they just now have a dominant market position to leverage. Frankly I think they learned a lot of their current tactics from MS, but they've never had everybody's best interests at heart, any more than MS or anyone else did.
What do you mean, "turning"? They were never good to begin with. They perhaps turned more evil in 2007 with the release of the iPhone.
I don't think they are overpriced, after all they don't operate in a supply/demand type chain. Apple sets the price based on the development, design and manufacturing costs, plus whatever profit margin they want. If they were overpriced then a lower priced competitor would come into the market and take some market share... like Android has done quite successfully with smartphones, except that the market is not yet saturated.
As for their other stuff, well personally I like their computing equipment enough to think that it's worth the extra you pay (and when I priced up my macbook it was actually cheaper / on par with the competition). On the other hand an iPhone is overpriced for me because I don't see the value in what it does, same with the iPad. But for plenty of others it's obviously not overpriced. If they try to control OSX as they have iOS, then I'll move to Linux if it doesn't work for me, and they'll lose my custom.
I really don't like what Apple are doing in the content space with walled gardens etc. However, that doesn't make them overpriced. Evil perhaps, or maybe just normal corporate. I don't think Anonymous are the weapon to use here, and I didn't like the tone of your comment, people are allowed to buy into Apple equipment and services if they choose to do so. Try your wallet as a weapon instead.
...so shit gets selected for the front page. Sigh...
The Apple logo is just the invitation to this sort of techno-moralism. For natural born atheists and non-Christians, the half-eaten apple is a representation of the Forbidden Fruit. So, yes, Apple is "evil" in that "iconic" sense. You just have to have an iPhone but all you can afford is an Android? Confess your sin and say your prayers, son.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Naughton
What's important here is not the content but the context. Naughton writes for the Observer newspaper in the UK (which I think is where this unlinked article comes from -- get with it, samzenpus). Nothing here is news for /.ers, except to track how the mainstream awareness of Apple is changing.
So does this make *nix the jews?
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Exactly this. Calling Apple an "evil empire" is fundamentally non-conducive to debate. Either you hate Apple, and thus think they are evil, or you don't hate Apple, and think it's silly to call them evil (and fewer people hate Apple than don't, so they definitely don't count as "evil" in terms of popular opinion). Evil is a fairly harsh term, and few corporations deserve the adjective.
Even neither Microsoft nor Oracle deserve to be called "evil". Once you've done that, you've proxy Godwined your argument.
FYI: http://www.simongrant.org/web/eco.html
Here.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
I've never been too afraid that Apple would hold onto any dominant market position indefinitely because Apple's one size fits all philosophy simply cannot make everyone happy. Apple success has shown however that consumer electronics supports a one size fits all philosophy infinitely better than the business market where Microsoft trounced them.
Apple has kept their overpriced ipods on top largely by providing consumers with the most physically attractive product. And physical attractiveness has also played a role in adoption of their laptop line as well, especially the Air. Yet, I doubt the iPhone will carry the day on looks.
All the phone manufactures are far more habituated to producing a beautiful product that either laptop or mp3 player makers. Android lets them focus much more so on the looks problem. And people don't want to all look exactly alike.
Apple isn't likely to dominate any markets that actually matter. Yes, tablets remains an open question. Yet, we're seeing iOS's retarded design limits here. Maemo's widgets and integration made it a better tablet operating system than iOS. And that made Maemo ultimately a better phone operating system too. Apple may've needed to approach the problem from the other direction to escape the desktop metaphor, but ultimately iOS is inferior to Android with it's widgets.
We should ideally just pass a law that compiled code isn't protected under copyright law unless the source code is available to anyone who purchases the product of course, i.e. mandate open source licenses. Good luck! lol
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Apple's general SOP has ALWAYS been "evil empire". They simply weren't as financially successful as Microsoft. So Microsoft kinda took lumps for general tech company bad-neighborism.
Believe me, Apple WISHES they'd had Microsoft's success and capital. Had they done so, home computing would be an irrevocably stunted market.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
While it is all well and good to say that Apple is not evil, Apple is more like the Chinese Government than Microsoft EVER was. Microsoft never put limits on what you can or can not install or run on a Windows based computer, and the only reason there is any sort of lock-down on the Xbox 360 is primarily due to copyright enforcement reasons.
Apple on the other hand, has been doing things like saying, "We will not allow Adobe Flash on our mobile devices", not because of any true technical reasons, but because Apple does not like Flash. Flash allows applications on web pages, which means that Apple does not get an automatic cut of any revenues from said applications. This is a VERY monopolistic policy, and Microsoft would have had thousands of lawsuits if they tried to do something similar. Even back in the days of the browser wars, Microsoft never BLOCKED the installation of Netscape. Apple has also started to force content publishers into going through the damned App Store, where Apple gets a 30 percent cut.
So, you may not call it evil, but I'd say that Apple is using tactics that INVITE people to call them evil, or monopolistic in its policies. Looking to improve profit is normal in business, but doing it while screwing your customers is generally frowned upon. It is like Best Buy increasing prices on products that are in short supply in their warehouse.
So how about instead of pointing out who is Evil, we try to find someone who isn't evil? Any suggestions?
It's like some kind of new fashion / management trend.
Scene from a golf clubhouse:
Executive #1: "Hey, were you Evil today?"
Executive #2: "Oh, I was exceptionally Evil today! Evil, with extreme prejudice*!"
* "extreme prejudice" was a term used in the Vietnam war by the US forces, which was a euphemism for killing someone. It was used in Apocalypse Now. Martin Sheen was told to "terminate Colonel Kurtz's command with extreme prejudice."
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Apple isn't evil. It's very good at making money. What other criterion is there with which to judge the actions of a company?
You are kidding me right? So if I sell land mines and cancer sticks, the only measure of my success is my profits and if my customers come back for more? With apologies to Niemöller:
First they locked down the smart phones,
and I didn't speak out because cell phones were always closed.
Then they locked down the tablets,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't use tablets.
Then they locked down the Macs,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't use a Mac..
Then they locked me out
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Both the corporations and the government would love to lock down your PC for profit and control. That Apple is taking their cut is one thing, but their control over the app store should be a much greater worry than the Great Firewall of China and things like that. What the consoles did to lock down games, Apple aims to do with the rest. You just wait, if the Mac App store is a success you'll soon see them introduce a new iDevice that's almost like a Mac except it only runs app store software.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It is not a religion. :)
After many years with DOS, OS/2, Windows, misc. Linux desktop pc's, I now have a Apple computer, phone and tablet at the moment. But it is not a static thing. I might have a android tablet and phone in the future. I might even get Linux on my desktop, who knows.
But at the moment the most important thing for me is to have devices with maximum stability so I dont have to spend my percious sparetime tinkering/fixing them.
I am beginning to get a bit annoyed at the stupid limitations of the iPhone such as why are wifi scanning tools now banned and why am i not "allowed" to download more than 25 mb filesize over 3G, I have a good data plan. Otoh it is not really a problem but i think i should be able to so perhaps my next phone in a year or two is not iPhone, know knows.
While I do think Apple has gone quite a way down the road towards being a corporate control freak, I think this is a bit exaggerated. They haven't come even close to the kind of manipulative behavior the MS started pulling in the mid-90's. MS basically had the entire IT industry under its thumb for many years. They could kill other products just by making a vapor ware announcement. Good luck trying to get a system with Windows installed from anyone. Good luck trying to find a computer publication that didn't grovel before their feet and lick their boots. Apple has never enjoyed that kind of power with the possible exception of the mp3 player market. They may be a bit restrictive and manipulative with their own products but hardly "evil". I've had owned two Macs but I'm hardly a member of their cult as some see it. There's nothing on their platform that restricts you unless you go there voluntarily. I have migrated all of my data over to one of my Linux machines and lost nothing in the transition. No lock there. That said, I wouldn't tether myself to anything from their iTunes store.
If you want to talk about evil corporations, google some of articles on the stuff Monsanto, Haliburton or many of the Wall Street banks have done for profits. Once a business is in the business of selling stocks, the company is no longer about products or services or anything other than shareholder value. All other activities are merely means to achieve the end of increasing profits or share value. There is no morality once this path is chosen only expedience.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
Interestingly Eco's article was from 1994. And it was "Macintosh users vs MS-DOS users", not so much "Apple the company vs IBM".
This is a link to an English translation of Eco's article
Things were a little different back then, than I see it today. Today, definitely "Apple the company" is defining a selling their route to salvation as a full multi-media company. This did not describe Apple in 1994, which was to be honest struggling under the "Macintosh" brand, I don't think anyone in their wildest dreams would have imagined Apple ever become so broad back then. And today the "PC-clone" users (this is the obvious descendant from the "MS-DOS" religion) includes a multitude of religions that battle each other quite strongly (e.g. Linux vs Windows).
I don't think the mobile carriers care much about what OS your phone is running, or could do much about it if they did care.
The difference I see between the current situation and 30yrs ago is that there's no behemoth like IBM to roll out their version of the iPad/iPhone/iEtc... Microsoft would have been just another mediocre OS if not for IBM. When Apple-II came out, they ruled the market for a few years, but most "serious" business types were waiting for IBM to come out with their own PC (back then "PC" simply meant personal computer, regardless of brand). Once IBM launched it's "PC" brand, they quickly crushed Apple's market share, and Microsoft just rode IBM's coattails to the top.
Another key element then was IBM's decision to license their architecture to other manufacturers -- something that Apple has always refused to allow -- which played a major role in the IBM/MS platform's dominance by making "commodity" hardware cheap and ubiquitous.
Google/Android has the second advantage (openness) but not the first. There's no 800lb gorilla like IBM waiting in the wings. In this case, Apple IS the 800lb gorilla...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Google comes from an era where choice is the norm. While not completely open, they make fairly heroic nods in the direction of enabling user choice.
Microsoft's record of enabling user choice is significantly poorer, though there have been exceptions.
Apple never left the "bad old days" of the late 70's and early 80's where vendor lock-in was the norm.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Apple is dominant in the music device (ipods), content (itune) and tablet/pads (ipad) markets. But, it is insignificant in the desktop and notebook, and a non-player in the netbook markets. What's so hard to understand?
They are developing iPhone apps because they are more likely to reach a greater number of people and make money. If Android offered similar, concrete opportunities the developers would be focusing their time on Android apps. This of course is subject to change, as the Android user base is on course to surpass iOS soon (if not already.) We'll see what happens then.
If I understand correctly, one common fear is that Android will be prevented from reaching it's full potential because of iOS dominance. From where I sit though Android seems to be going from strength to strength. I can easily imagine a rebalancing of the market where you have iOS devices for those who wants Apple's premium, "curated" experience, and Android for everyone else. Why does there have to be a supreme winner and a crushed loser?
Android devices will eventually outnumber Apple's, simply due to the greater number of carriers and manufacturers, not to mention lower price points for consumers. There must be value for developers in that.
Google, Microsoft, HP, HTC, Motorola, Dell, Samsung, Nokia, RIM, and the rest of the Android crowd are all imitators. Without Apple's technological leadership they'd be lost and consumers wouldn't have the great products we enjoy today. If you're an Android user who likes the experience, credit Apple. If you're a Blackberry user looking forward to getting a new Playbook, credit Apple. If you're an HP customer yearning for a new Palm based tablet, credit Apple (which is where HP's leader Jon Rubenstein came from). Apple provides best of class products and those products then serve as roadmaps for the industry at large.
LOL, isn't that true of absolutely any device? be able to generate some kind of traffic on the LAN, and know the password?
Hi, everyone. Reading articles about Apple's Post-PC outlook (such as this one), it's interesting to think about where Apple is headed, as it provides a good context for their recent announcements.
First, it should be clear that Apple wants to extend their walled-garden approach to their entire line of products. This would allow them to provide a consistent user interface and good interoperability (something they'll continue to tout to sell consumers on their Post-PC products). It will also allow Apple to translate success in one area (e.g., strong iPad sales) into other markets (e.g., stronger Mac sales with Lion's interface echoing the iPad's). Finally, it will allow Apple to monetize other services (as they already have with 3rd party application and subscription sales).
At the iPad 2 announcement, Jobs gleefully boasted that Apple has the largest number of registered user accounts with credit cards of any online vendor, and Apple's certainly interested in billing those accounts as much as possible.
One obvious area where Apple could try to pull ahead is in data storage and synchronization. Apple is actually worse at this right now than many other vendors (e.g., using iTunes to get a Word document onto an iPad), as they've avoided implementing simple, consumer-centric solutions (e.g., WiFi syncing to iPhones, iPods, and iPads from Macs/PCs) so they could build the infrastructure necessary to implement an Apple-centric approach. The $1 billion data center they're building in North Carolina is obviously for something bigger than just music streaming.
It's likely that Apple will try to pull more customers into Ping and MobileMe. Whereas Google has to implement roundabout connectors to allow users to synchronize their calendars and office documents, Apple actually controls the OS and APIs used on Macs, iPhones, and iPads. Apple could simply force all applications, including 3rd party applications on the iPad and iPhone, to use Apple's cloud data store by changing the SDKs and development agreements for their iOS devices.
In iOS and in Mac OS 10.7 Lion, a multitasking application is supposed to gracefully "suspend" when a user switches to another application. If the application isn't used for a while, iOS/Lion actually can save its state and reallocate its resources for other applications to use. In Lion, this has even lead Apple to remove the open application indicator lights from the dock. In Apple's new computing paradigm, applications merely have a "state," they're never "closed" or "opened."
Now, imagine Apple extending this paradigm to applications running across devices. An end user could open a document for editing in Pages on her office Mac, then, without doing anything, could leave work, open Pages on her iPad on the train home, continue editing the same document, and so on. If data and application states are synchronized through the cloud, users don't have to worry about file versioning, backup, etc. The possibilities become even greater when multiple applications and file sharing with multiple users are involved.
Apple is in the best position to make this sort of computing paradigm possible, since they already have such large markeshare across multiple devices.
Having wireless carriers' cooperation in providing lots of cheap bandwidth to customers will be critical in enabling their vision. In this regard, Apple has recently moved from being at the mercy of a single carrier (AT&T) to having leverage over two carriers (AT&T and Verizon). The WiFi hotspot feature that Apple has just added to the
I am really not buying this... If you are going to write about rising evil empires why are you not writing about Google? As big as Apple is, its going to stay a 2nd in line in the tech market, even as it dominates some parts of it. Apple's ways have never really veered from their pattern so none of the "negative" behaviors they are being accused of are the result of their success, they have always been transparent. Accuse them of whatever you will, they unlike Goog are not changing their behavior with power. I call bs on this bit of "analysis".
Content + Container; Content = Container; Content â Container... which is the question?
Guilty as charged.
The community has had a rough time and is letting off some steam.
Consider: ./ pans the iPhone. iPhone is successful ./ derides the iPad. 75mil sold. ./ calls every year the Year of the Linux Desktop. Farther than ever. ./ Friends the N900 Maemo. M$ co-opts Nokia
-
-
-
-
So, Apple, MS, and Nokia end up on the Evil List.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
They decided to tie their hardware and software together, forcing the end user to buy their hardware - at a drastically increased initial investment cost - in order to get their software.
Apple lost their initial lead because the Apple 3 was a complete lemon, not because of their business model!
Microsoft came along and blew that concept out of the water,
Not exactly. MS's big break was getting DOS adopted over CPM/86 for the IBM PC. IBM were slow getting into PCs but they already had a huge locked-in customer base in corporate business systems - customers with nice suits who didn't want to buy computers with psychedelic logos from hippies.
What everybody seems to conveniently forget is that The IBM PC was a closed, proprietary system - yes, the word "open" was bandied around at the time, but it didn't mean then what it means today (I think it basically meant that if you paid IBM lots of money they'd let you build plug-in cards). Yes, it ran MS-DOS and other MS-DOS systems were available, but software compatibility was restricted to command-line programs with character I/O. Any sort of remotely modern user interface, color, animation etc. required access to the IBM BIOS which was very much strictly (c) (r) IBM and only available on a kosher IBM PC.
Then some bright spark found a legal way to reverse-engineer the IBM BIOS and, several lawsuits later, cheap IBM compatible clones appeared. Wouldn't happen today, of course, since you can't clean-room your way around software patents. Of course, the only reason people wanted those clones was that IBM's huge captive corporate market had already turned the proprietary IBM PC, warts and all, into the "industry standard" system with a huge software/hardware base.
Of course, that was the beginning of the end for IBM (for any smaller fry it would have been the end of the end) so a few years later they sold off their last profitable PC line to Lenovo, renounced evil and became the fluffy, lovable champions of Open Source they are today.
Microsoft, of course, still got paid for every copy of MS DOS sold and lived happily ever after. However, this wasn't just because they were a software company who stayed out of the hardware business - they were a software company who managed to license their software to a near-monopoly holder just as the corporate PC market went exponential. Nice work if you can get it - but I don't think its available.
The other thing worth noting is that, at least through the late 80s and early 90s, Apple was using more advanced hardware than the PC world (proper 32-bit 68000 vs. the 086/186/286, then switching to PPC when 68k got old, built-in LAN and network printing) - which was pretty important when their main market was DTP and pro graphics. System 7 on a 80286 would not have been a big seller, I suggest (certainly not on the PC architecture with the 640K limit). You might also bear in mind that while the first Mac portable was a bit of a turkey (although, ISTR, it did introduce the world to active matrix screens) the first Powerbook pretty much defined the modern laptop (with the back-set keyboard and pointing device in front) and one of Apple's important selling points ever since has been that they made damn nice laptops. OK, now they are using essentially the same platform as MS, but if you don't think they've still got the edge in product design (albeit with a more cosmetic than technical bent than in the past) then you should have gone to Specsavers.
The other little historical wrinkle to remember is that Apple have already tried licensing their OS - round about the time they nearly went titsup and had to be rescued by Jobs. Did the licensees make "economy" Macs to vastly expand the customer base? Of course not - they made high-end workstations that just undercut Apple's models and punted them to existing Apple customers (Trying to remember if I ever saw a StarMac advertised outside of a Mac specialist magazine...)
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
they're not very open source and they fundamentally don't care.
You mean like this, or are you talking about something else?
If they did care they would clutter their designs with backwards compatibility hacks. They don't.
You mean like Classic environment in OS X or Rosetta on Intel macs, or are you talking about something else?
If they did care they would keep, perhaps slavishly, to existing standards, They don't.
Existing standards like, say UNIX, POSIX, CSS3, AAC, h.264, or are you talking about something else?
Why are they even discussed on /.?
I always figured it was because they are the world's biggest vendor of standards-compliant open source UNIX environments, and that stuff is considered pretty important around here. Plus they vertically integrate it with a closed source presentation layer that is the envy of the industry, and a media distribution model that is controlled with an iron fist, which gives us LOTS to talk about.
... or are you talking about something else, cuz it's really hard to tell if you are even on the same planet as the rest of us.
Everyone gets the warm fuzzies about Google, when in reality they are much worse than Apple or MS. Sure both Apple and MS want to lock you into the ecosphere with software, and in Apple's case hardware. I don't see how that can be coined as "evil". Google is doing the same thing, but here is where I have exception to Google. GOOGLE'S PROFIT MODEL IS BASED OFF OF SELLING YOUR INFORMATION!!!! That is Orwellian and evil. It is a known fact that they have your search history and it's not too difficult to connect the dots to figure out who you are. There are numerous examples of Google profiting off your personal information and won't go into all of them. But everyone seems to either be ignorant of this fact or choose to ignore it. Google is not an upstart pirate rebel alliance. My argument is that they are much worse than Apple or MS ever will be by profiting off your personal information. And sure Apple and MS does make money from the use of personal information (iAd on the iPhone is a perfect example), but it's not their sole profit model. Google "free" is not truly free, and you are still on a yoke....but one that is much more nefarious. Okay step off soapbox now....
Badges!?! We don't need no stinking badges!
Basically, Microsoft's marketing department has yet to admit that it's simply not as forward-thinking as Apple's. The Microsoft Way is to allow others to pay the price of innovation first, then move in on the emerging market after analyzing others' failures. Apple woke up, and simply decided not to fail anymore. Rather than play by the rules MSFT (and everyone else) was following, they simply changed the game.
Consequently, there is no more cheese for the second mouse these days.
All of this does NOT mean that MSFT is now being bullied, or that they should get some points on the ethics scorecard. (They're still a convicted monopolist; we know very well what they would like to do if they had the chance.) They're paying the price for their commitment to a failing strategy. Since when do we re-label "the incompetent guy" to be "the good guy"?
It would be a shame to see Apple become truly evil and monopolistic (I don't think they're there yet), or to see Microsoft lumber its way into irrelevance (that hasn't happened yet either). But MSFT does need a massive strategic overhaul -- starting with the repudiation of their marketing strategies to date (e.g. vendor lock-in, risk aversion to innovation), as signified by the canning of Mr. Ballmer.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
First of all, let's lay down our definitions of "evil" here. For me, Microsoft is evil due of *illegal* practices of abusing monopoly status, such as:
1) deals with OEM which includes clauses of avoiding of offering competition products;
2) bribing local politicians and using money for PR companies to curve public opinion about alternatives to Microsoft software;
3) encouraging lock-in in their products, indentionally or unidentionally, trough poor product quality;
4) etc.
Apple maybe is guilty of several things, but those are not coming even close to this definition. Yeah, they always preferred controlled enviroment - therefore it is not legal to buy & use OS X for your home-made Intel, there is no easy way to access iPad/iPhone/IPod Touch from other OSes than Windows or OS X, etc. But still choice is there.
So are they annoying and controlling? Yes. Are they evil? Not even close. I don't use their products - because I can't afford them and because I value my freedom too much. But still they don't lie about it when they sell or advertise it. They don't promise freedom, they promise certain ease of using their products.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
...don't care one little bit about the App Stores being "walled gardens".
They don't care that iPods or Macs do not natively support Ogg Vorbis or FLAC.
They don't care about iTunes not having as many features as some linux open source thing. They don't care about linux, either.
They don't really care about no Flash on iPhone/iPod/iPad. As long as they can watch the latest Maru videos on YouTube, they will continue not to care about no Flash on iPhone/iPod/iPad.
They care that the Mac Pro/MacBook/iMac/iPod/iPad WORKS.
They care about the seamless one click purchase and it's on the harddrive aspect of the iTunes Store.
They care about the seamless no click synching of iPod/iPhone to the computer.
They care about the interface that lets them get on with it. They don't want to hear about Terminal or how much better a CLI is vs. a GUI. Because they DO NOT CARE.
The vast majority of Apple users have never heard of Slashdot, and don't care a fat rat's ass what any of us here think about Apple.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Please carry on with the AppleHate/AppleLove.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
"Devotees" of Apple products are more like Beer Snobs.
Users or Windows or Android devices are more like the people who drink Bud or Victoria Bitter. "Quality" PC's from HP and Alienware are like "Boutigue Breweries" that are owned by a Megabrewer. "Guiness" brewed under licence by CUB is an example.
The first time you drink a quality beer from a Microbrewery, you may think, "This is different to the usual stuff I drink; it actually has body and flavour." The third or fourth time you may think, "This is *so* much better than the other crap." The same goes for Apple products. The first time you use a Mac, or an iPhone you think, "This is different to how I usually use a computer or phone.", after a while, something just clicks and "different" changes to "better".
Your typical Android fan is a technical person who wants to be able to fiddle unconstrained with their phone and they want a plethora of hardware options, even at the expense of usability (in this case upgradability). They want a Linux PC in their pocket.
Your iPhone fan wants a usable appliance first and foremost.
There's no reason that these two can't coexist.
Now here's the kicker. There is no iPhone fan anywhere who thinks that people shouldn't have the option of using Android--and frankly most wouldn't insult them for doing so. The reverse is *not* true for Android fans.
OSS software isn't even allowed to run in Apple's "Post-PC Era" devices.
Yes it is. There are many open source apps on the App Store, and always have been.
Where did you get the idea that OSS was "not allowed" to run on iOS? Oh, right, Slashdot! And they're always right, right?
Here are just a few: http://maniacdev.com/2010/06/35-open-source-iphone-app-store-apps-updated-with-10-new-apps/
But hey, don't let anything as silly as "facts" get in the way of a good Apple bash.
I want to say this as someone who generally enjoys Apple products but does find them a bit overpriced, so please withhold fanboy accusations in one direction or another.
An executive at our company recently gave a speech to our team about how impressed he was with Apple's sales theories. He says that he sees Apple as successful because they don't just make products that fit into a certain line - they make new products.
As in... what's an iPhone? If you had to describe an iPhone to someone, what would you say? You would say maybe, "It's a smartphone that functions using a touch screen instead of a keypad and has access to a very large number of small applications and games." Go into an Apple Store, though, and ask a rep what an iPhone is, and he'll say, "Well, it's the iPhone. Here, try it out." Then he'll give you one and let you play with it for awhile.
When you watch a commercial for the iPhone, you never hear things like, "blazing fast 1.5 Ghz speed," or "some of the largest capacity on the market." You also never hear the word "smartphone." When you watch an iPhone commercial, you see people browsing the internet or playing games or chatting on IM. By the way, you might recall how the original iPod commercials never said the words "mp3 player" - they just featured silhouettes of people dancing. And when has Apple ever referred to an iPad as a "tablet computer?"
Whenever Apple markets a product, they don't describe it to you. They tell you its name, they show you what it does, and they try to get you to think of it as a brand new device that has no relationship to anything else on the market. Getting back to our executive at our company, he talked about developing our product suite with a new name that hadn't been used before, and talked about how he'd set up their booth at the last major trade show to have tons of demonstrations, where people could just interact with the product rather than reading a ten-page fact sheet about all of the new and interesting things that product can do. We had a ton of interested customers at that booth this year.
You can't help but compare that stuff to Microsoft, who is always playing catch-up. "Here's OUR mp3 player! Here's OUR user-friendly OS! Here's OUR smartphones!" Microsoft markets its products as the MS iteration of products that always exist, giving them that special MS touch that makes those products better. Apple markets its products as... Apple products. I don't care whether you love or hate Apple or something in between - you have to respect that strategy.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.