One Bad Apple

As I red this story, my eyes wandered up to the top of the screen and i noticed that there amongst the red Newsweek banner, there sat in all of its glory a blue MSNBC tab. Less than 20 years ago three networks dominated the news media. If you want to do a story on how things are being "gobbled up" or "dominated" perhaps you should examine the industry that you work for and look at how few truly independent news outlets reamin.

Dan-What are doing? Writing like this is not going to help you. You are using negativity and story tilting to gain attention here. When you were writing as TFSJ you were witty and very spot on, Now you sound like everybody else. You were in such a groove the FSJ that now you should like an ass hat. You will loose your readership one by one with stories like this...unless you are playing to the Micrcrap crowd. Hint dude! Steve is healthy and is not dying, go back to to your groove or risk being just another noise box like the rest.

Dan-You have lost your groove dude! As FSJ you were in your stride and very cool. With stories like this your faithful leave you person by person. Negativity for attention instead of witty and smart....did part of your brain die or just check out.?You have done such a great job in the past, don't turn into a jerk now. BTW, Steve is fine, perhaps it is time to switch back!

Why must everyone always break this discussion down into Apple vs Microsoft? The truth is both companies are incredibly evil in their business practices. If you can't see this then you just as bias as the proponent that argues against your position.
There are many things that Apple has done that are unacceptable to me. The most important, though, is the fact that they stole the linux kernel and did not contribute anything back to the open source community. The entire Mac OSX operating system is based on the work of the open source developers. This is heart of the Apple computing experience, and a large part of it was not even developed by Apple. Apple then stole this work and then built a very solid OS on top of it. This is absolutely unacceptable to me and is the main reason why I will never buy an Apple product.

I really don't care what platforms other choose to run. But what does irritate me is when people are unwilling or unable to see that the corporations they support have cutthroat business practices. It is also annoying to me that Apple gets away with this squeaky clean public image simply because they are not under the scrutiny that Microsoft is. Personally, I run Windows XP at work and Fedora Linux at home. I like Windows XP, but I am the first to acknowledge that Microsoft has done some very poor things in the past.

If you are an Apple supporter, please don't get bogged down in the comparison of Apple vs Microsoft. Instead, please judge Apple on the merits of its own business practices, not how its business practices stand up against Microsoft.

Why must everyone always break this discussion down into Apple vs Microsoft? The truth is both companies are incredibly evil in their business practices. If you can't see this then you just as bias as the proponent that argues against your position.
There are many things that Apple has done that are unacceptable to me. The most important, though, is the fact that they stole the linux kernel and did not contribute anything back to the open source community. The entire Mac OSX operating system is based on the work of the open source developers. This is heart of the Apple computing experience, and a large part of it was not even developed by Apple. Apple then stole this work and then built a very solid OS on top of it. This is absolutely unacceptable to me and is the main reason why I will never buy an Apple product.

I really don't care what platforms other choose to run. But what does irritate me is when people are unwilling or unable to see that the corporations they support have cutthroat business practices. It is also annoying to me that Apple gets away with this squeaky clean public image simply because they are not under the scrutiny that Microsoft is. Personally, I run Windows XP at work and Fedora Linux at home. I like Windows XP, but I am the first to acknowledge that Microsoft has done some very poor things in the past.

If you are an Apple supporter, please don't get bogged down in the comparison of Apple vs Microsoft. Instead, please judge Apple on the merits of its own business practices, not how its business practices stand up against Microsoft.

A lot of what Mr. Lyons says is valid, or at least half true, which is the real problem with the piece: some of it is mere innuendo, which makes the valid parts less telling. A little perspective is appropriate, too. If Morgan, which made better cars than Chevrolet in the 1950's, had had GM's advertising muscle, perhaps the UK would still have an automotive industry. Big may not be better, but it certainly has an inherent advantage in presenting itself to the consumer over little. But unless that unpleasant aspect of capitalism can be erased, you have to assume consumers part with their money for partially rational as well as partially irrational reasons: if the original Apple TV was attractive despite its shortcomings, maybe the consumer got over their unwillingness to buy the improved version not only because Apple is big, but because they know other products from Apple worked for them. If it had been Microsoft, after all, they would have simply bought Vudu and stopped producing a device superior to their own.

I have to say, a lot of the article sounds like sour grapes from someone who doesn't like Apple taking Microsoft market share, or creating new markets in which Microsoft competes so abysmally. Is competition good? Of course. Do people get such a warm feeling from Apple products that they're personally insulted when they perform as poorly as other, similar ones (e.g. 3G phones on ATT's miserable network)? Of course they do. Apples sells not only things but a caché. Seems weird in the tech world, but they've made it work. Don't knock them for that.

This is such a badly written article. Apart from regurgitating every negative press that Apple has experienced over this last year, what other compelling evidence do you offer that they are as bad as Microsoft were in stifling innovation?

Regarding MobileMe, you said, "Apple offered three months of free service to subscribers as a form of appeasement.". How is this even a behaviour of a monopolistic company? If they were, they would tell their customers to, well... sod off.

I agree that the ecosystem Apple has built around its hardware offering is tightly controlled by them. And this gives them tremendous say on how their devices are used and what can be installed. This is true especially with the ipod/itunes offering. It can be argued that that since they have over 80% of the mp3 player market and that they control how the music is bought and loaded onto these devices, it can construed as a monopoly. But surely, you've read of plenty of DRM free websites which offer music that could be loaded onto any mp3 player. If you don't want to use itunes, use Amarok (which is what I use under linux) or WinAmp or any of the multitudes of players which do a real good job at managing your music on the ipod. As a personal preference, I kind of like the ipod/itunes combination I use under Win XP. This combined with itunes_companion widget from Yahoo gives me a really good media player/organiser. And frankly, my four year ipod is still one of the best sounding mp3 players in the market.

Regarding their Macs, with only around 10% of the market share, you'll have to laud their engineering/software efforts that has made them so popular now. You shouldn't grudge their success in putting together the hardware and OSX which has gained so much of mind-share recently. It is a testament to their competitiveness. Maybe when I don't game as often as I do, I'll replace my Dell XPS M1730 with a small Macbook. Hopefully, atleast then, when I buy a laptop, it will come loaded with an OS that I intend to use daily and not something that I would have to format as soon as I open the box. Yes, I didn't want to be stuck in the purgatory that was Vista and was quickly back to XP Pro that Dell helpfully included. Ofcourse, it would have been better if I had a choice of OS for my XPS, but MS being who they are, they can foist that mess onto every new laptop and continue to crow about the tremendous success that is Vista or how misunderstood it is. Codswallop!

If anything, that is a monopoly.

I don't like certain aspects of Apple domination, on a very tiny level I agree with you. But your article is really badly written because of the facts you gather aren't facts. To say Apple is Microsoft then you're either naive or do not know how Microsoft does business. A tiny example is when it ousted Netscape brutally. Sadly you compare this brutal action with Apple TV phenomenon where fair market competition rules. If people can provide superior quality products cheaper, then they win market competition. If Apple was M$, then perhaps they will go to Vudu and threat them to go out of business. Your writing for MSNbc Network, that explains your biasness. Call that journalism.

I don't like certain aspects of Apple domination, on a very tiny level I agree with you. But your article is really badly written because of the facts you gather aren't facts. To say Apple is Microsoft then you're either naive or do not know how Microsoft does business. A tiny example is when it ousted Netscape brutally. Sadly you compare this brutal action with Apple TV phenomenon where fair market competition rules. If people can provide superior quality products cheaper, then they win market competition. If Apple was M$, then perhaps they will go to Vudu, threat them and make them out of business. I just realised you're writing for MSNBC network. That explains your biasness in your article. Call that journalism.

you are wrong

There is no doubt in my mind that this is the most difficult time for Apple in it's colorful history. No longer the underdog. A force to be reckoned with in the highly competitive and fickle consumer marketplace. It's easy to say, "let's ride the gravy train." I think Steve and the board are smarter than that. They didn't get this far to simply cave in to such rudimentary motivations. They've hit the critical mass that they could only dream about a scant 10 years ago. Now they need to figure out how to sustain the momentum without risking adverse impacts on quality, innovation and choice. I think Apple recalls what made them a niche player in the 80's and for most of the 90s - being overly proprietary and controlling. They've seen it blow up in their faces before and hopefully, there's a lesson learned in their somewhere. I have faith (not blind faith) that they will make the necessary course corrections for their own interests as well as for the folks who buy their products.

jobs always struck me as not as smart as gates, but more moral. but after you make your first billion, what is the difference?

@joeldn: Last I checked iPods do not support Ogg Vorbis natively nor does iTunes unless you specifically install the Ogg Vorbis plug-in for Quicktime. If you're going to attack an article for being badly researched you should really research all of your claims.

http://www.apple.com/ipodclassic/specs.html

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1709

Another badly-researched hit piece. Let's look at what's misleading and just plain wrong in the article:

The sole example of "just like Microsoft" practices is Vudu, Apple made their box better. Wow, alert the media, Apple improved a product! Clearly that IS monopolistic. I'm sure YOUR company would NEVER try to improve its customer service or products.

MS was convicted of such practices by the DOJ and by the EU and I don't need do the list of vaporware, binding, secret agreements that killed competitors and bound the growing PC industry to one OS: Windows.

The other premise of MS-like behavior is, "operates the only store that can sell music, movies and software programs for those platforms", which is completely inaccurate. Any music I download from anywhere can be played on any iPod, iPhone or Mac. You can even manage your iPods with software other than iTunes. Just type "software that synch with iPod," into Google.

iPods and Macs play WMA, MP3, Ogg Vorbis and just about any other music format there is.

As for controlling iPhone apps, well, duh! The biggest problem I had with instability with the Treo 650 was whenever I downloaded an app that had problems my Treo had problems. Apple's iPhone's big selling point is its reliability and stability. Allowing just any developer to write and sell just any app would be counter to that premise.

The Made for iPod program is voluntary. There are plenty of accessories for iPods and iPhones that work with iPods and iPhones that aren't certified. Other companies do exactly the same thing. Nintendo has a "Nintendo Seal of Quality" that they sell.

That UK ruling was about a phone that is no longer shipped and an ad that no longer plays. No device gives you "all of the internet" without downloading some kind of plug-in or program. Thanks, UK Board for protecting those two morons in Kent who couldn't figure that out.

The writer claims that iPhone won't play Java. It does play javascript and Java can already be run with some adjustments. Look up Java on the iPhone, there are numerous articles about how to do it.

And the Alabama woman who filed the class action suit about connectivity? Testers in Europe, whose jobs are to test such things for companies like Nokia and Motorola tested the iPhone in response to such claims and found that the iPhone's antenna works normally:
http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=400&a=441105

You can check out Alabama's 3G coverage (which also means it also affects any other AT&T 3G product) here:
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/

The MobileMe thing? A legitimate knock. Apple blew the rollout of MM AND the new iPhone. They were victims of their own success and should have phased-in these products better and planned server loads better, but this is monopolistic?

So out of all the "facts" he cites he gets one right and it has NOTHING to do with his central premise of Apple as Monopolist.

What do you mean by "demanding a large chunk of the rewards for product development on Macs"? Is Apple knocking on Adobe's door asking for a chunk of the Photoshop revenue or something? Why would developers put up with that? It's not like the Mac has Windows' market share.

Developing apps for the Mac is not regulated by Apple like the iPhone app development. Furthermore, they are not forcing anyone to develop for the iPhone and then take all the rewards. If you think that Apple having a 30% cut from your sales in exchange for hosting, distribution and marketing is fair, then develop for it. If you think it's unfair, there's always Android and Windows Mobile. Boo hoo!

Maybe later they will open up the AppStore to anyone and everyone, but right now, even with their tight control, some apps still manage to crash iPhones. So imagine what would happen if they wouldn't control the things at all.

Your really should read the article again. Its not about the ipods, its about the market control.

Apple has a long history of demanding a large chunk of the rewards for product development on Macs, etc. This is the real reason macs are still such a minor player in the PC market. I am just happy we all can see openly the true nature of Apple through their behaviors relating to ipod,iphone, etc.

"A former lieutenant of Steve Jobs's once told me something surprising about his ex-boss. "Steve is a monopolist at heart," he said. "He's just like Bill Gates. He just hasn't been as successful."

OOOOH. SCARY. We didn't know free enterprise could be THIS EVIL...

Dan, Get Off the street now! Steve Jobs is coming to take over your world. On the other hand, you could go back to writing great copy for Microsoft and SCO... hah hah hah