One Bad Apple

Every businessman is a monopolist at heart. Why else does anyone bother with patents? Apple TV is not (yet) a success. Both it and Vudu are minnows in a market that includes cable, satellite and terrestrial broadcasts, internet and DVD rentals and sales. There is no causal link between between Vudu's and Apple's success in this market at this time. (unlike music players!)

Although Apple controls the ecosystem surrounding its products, it does not try to control the formats of the content you use. Apple uses audio, video and document formats that can be implemented on other platforms without taking a licence from Apple (eg AAC, H264, PDF).

Malware and viruses have made open platforms with internet connections a major risk and liability. Apple is to be commended for handling the installation of apps on iPhone the way it has. You can always write a javascript Web 2.0 app if you don't want to submit your Application to Apple's veto. It's very early yet, and they are tackling a problem which Microsoft has failed to tackle, and is substantially to blame for on its own platform.

Precisely 2 people complained about Apple's UK iPhone ad. It did correctly communicate that iPhone displays all of the web correctly where other cellphones don't. Neither Java nor Flash are part of the web, they are proprietary third party elements displayed via plug-in browser extensions. They are not the Web, even if Flash is common.

Despite all this, you do have a small point - Apple is powerful. They have not, as yet, substantially misused that power, even though it's easy to naively assume they have.

Dead on. I know too many people who have recently tried to switch to Mac only to get buggy systems, dead screens, software problems, and so on. The more they expand, the more falls through the cracks.

When it comes to the iPod, the iPhone, and even AppleTV Apple just made a better product and took action to stay ahead of the competition. That's capitalism, at least I thought it was. The iPod had plenty of (terrible) competition and people just gravitated towards the iPod because of the functionality, the features, andcool factor. Same thing with AppleTV; it was plenty of competition right now ... including stiff competition from Microsoft's Xbox 360 Video Store. The story of Vudu isn't a story of Apple attempting to "crush" them. The story of Vudu is the story of a start-up with a good product but no way of competing against the Big Boys; i.e., Microsoft and Apple.

Oh please!
This is such a hit piece.
Apple was never just a fringe manufacturer. They haveloyal fans because they produce quality.
I am happy that Apple is all over the apps.
It's a concept that deserves more attention: quality control.
PJ, NYC

Sad to read this kind of opinions, perhaps the writer is earning big bucks so it lakes it ok for him to run down innovative and highly valued corporations which make America great.

Sad to read this kind of opinions written by someone who is perhaps earning big bucks running down innovative and high valued corporations which make America great,

Well, you've got three reactions so far, which means that you were read simply because you wrote on Apple. Attack it some more; you might get more readers. Maybe that's what makes Apple monopolistic? :)

Well, you've got your reactions so far, which means people have read your article for the simple reason that it's about Apple. Would you call that monopolistic?

Apple is not monopolistic. I suggest you look the word up in the dictionary. They own the iPod. End of story. If you don't like it, then don't buy an iPod. It's not like they license the iPod to other companies and then bully those companies to do what they want. That is what Microsoft did with its operating system.

I'm afraid the anti-Apple, (and anti-Linux and anti-blogger) position is only to be expected of Daniel Lyons, Mr funny but nasty ???Fake Steve Jobs???.

Amongst the many exaggerations and stretches in this article, one sentence that particularly defies belief is the statement that Apple ???operates the only store that can sell music, movies and software programs for those platforms. Apple sets prices and takes 30 percent of the money.???

Firstly any store such as Amazon or E-music can and do sell music for the iPod/iPhone. It is only the music cartels not allowing Apple to sell all their music DRM-free that maintains a DRM barrier going in the other direction. Likewise DRM-free movies all play fine on Apple???s platforms.

Secondly, the 30% that Apple charges on software sales to cover hosting, advertising, credit-card fees etc for the iPhone is amazingly low in an industry where portals, carriers and gaming console gate-keepers typically take 40-70%. As far as music and movies are concerned, Apple is well-known to only just cover hosting costs with the lion???s share grabbed by the Music Labels and Tinsel-Town.

Lyons is the same guy who relentlessly boosted SCO in its blatantly pro-MS litigation against Linux and Open Source. Here???s what Valleywag and GrokLaw have to say about Lyon???s writing: ???If you read FSJ, and filter out the funnies, you'll see that the topics are pretty much what Microsoft's pushing at any given time???

See: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070805195515884

Also: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/08/07/daniel-lyons-fake-steve-jobs-and-the-sco-shill-who-hated-linux/

All-in-all, this article is quite a hit piece.

-Mart

Typical MSM alarmism. Steve Jobs may be a control freak, and Apple may have the preeminent position in the online music market, but that doesn't equal the breadth or severity of Microsoft's monopolistic behavior a decade ago. Your examples (a single iPhone app developer and... Vulu?) are weak. If you hate or fear Apple, just say so. I'm very disappointed in you, Daniel. Love, Mom

You fail to mention several pertinent points:

1. Apple had to build its own brick and mortar stores cause no one else could or would sell Apple products effectively. At the time everyone thought it was a HUGE mistake, a la Gateway or Dell stores.

2. Apple had to build its own online store (iTunes Music Store) because, again, no one else would have provided content for iPods and Apple computers. Besides, why would anyone want to be beholden to Real or Microsoft or Napster and their draconian DRM schemes.

3. Speaking of DRM, if it hadn't been for Apple, we would all be stuck with the record companies pipe dream of subscriptions and we certainly wouldn't be burning CDs from our downloaded tracks.

4. The record companies are the ones forcing DRM down our throats which supposedly "locks" us into the iPod. They allow Amazon to sell the same trax as Apple without DRM.

5. Neither Vudo or Apple or anyone else has been winning "rave reviews" for their video download service. They are all mostly hamstrung by the studios and the pipes. You're the first person I've seen that thinks Apple is a success in this area. BTW, Microsoft has been trying to do video downloads for years now too, (webTV, X-Box, etc.) and have screwed up at every turn. Once again, most of these download services DON'T work with Mac, so Apple has to enter the arena or its uses get left out.

6. As far as the app store goes, Apple needs to publish a clear set of guidelines and communicate with its developers. However, once again, Microsoft, Nokia, RIM, Palm, et al, have had years to set up an end-to-end development-marketing-distribution-sales universe for their phones and have failed miserably. They certainly weren't going to bend over backwards to help the iPhone. Apple knew it would have to have a vibrant developer community for the iPhone to take over and NO ONE else would make it happen. So they did it themselves and now MS, T-Mobile, Google, Nokia and everyone else is sucking Apple's exhaust and looking pretty foolish for poo-pooing Apple's entrance into the cell phone market a little over a year ago.

Wow, this article is pretty wild and downright socialist is its leanings. The largely failed AppleTV as an example made me laugh! It's a HUGE stretch to link MS and it's 'one OS, one application' behavior. Those that recall DrDOS, websites that ONLY work in IE and a slew of other actions would be hard pressed to link MS and Apple. Now if Apple stopped making it's iPod work* on BOTH windows and mac, deliberately caused crashes while web surfing or caused non-existent errors when accessing an iPod with Linux with third party apps you MIGHT have a case. Until then you're stretching the premise to pretty laughable lengths.


(*One notes the ZUNE does not work with MAC)

Wow, this article is pretty wild and downright socialist is its leanings. The largely failed AppleTV as an example made me laugh! It's a HUGE stretch to link MS and it's 'one OS, one application' behavior. Those that recall DrDOS, websites that ONLY work in IE and a slew of other actions would be hard pressed to link MS and Apple. Now if Apple stopped making it's iPod work* on BOTH windows and mac, deliberately caused crashes while web surfing or caused non-existent errors when accessing an iPod with Linux with third party apps you MIGHT have a case. Until then you're stretching the premise to pretty laughable lengths.


(*One notes the ZUNE does not work with MAC)

"Apple owns popular hardware platforms (iPod, iPhone) and operates the only store that can sell music, movies and software programs for those platforms."

Nonsense. Almost any music or movies that I can get off the Internet will work on my iPod. The exception is Windows music made to work only on Zune. All the older Windows music and video formats easily convert to run on my iPod and iPone or will work without any conversion at all.

God forbid a public company try and make money for it's shareholders.

What do you expect Apple to do, not release a product just because another company will go out of business. As it stands Apple is nothing like the Microsoft of the 90's which did things like force OEM's from bundling competing products in it's PC's.

Unlike Apple who, yes is killing other (small compared to Apple) businesses. But it's doing it through innovation. The proof is in your own article... "Apple struck back, introducing a vastly expanded catalog of movie titles, which it started renting, as well as selling. And it came out with a new, cheaper version of the Apple TV box that matched most of Vudu's features. Now Apple is selling or renting more than 50,000 movies a day, and Vudu is laying off staff."

This is what's known in the business as COMPETITION. It's what drives not just businesses forward but the human race forward. It is also the reason why our PC's/Mac's have advanced as fast as it has, how fast do you think the computer your sitting in front of right now would have been if Intel was the only chip company that existed.

Plus the countless mistakes against Apple you made in this article doesn't help either but I'll leave that to others to comment on, because if I had to list all your mistakes I'd be here forever. Little research please next time.

Nas,

God forbid a public company try and make money for it's shareholders.

What do you expect Apple to do, not release a product just because another company will go out of business. As it stands Apple is nothing like the Microsoft of the 90's which did things like force OEM's from bundling competing products in it's PC's.

Unlike Apple who, yes is killing other (small compared to Apple) businesses. But it's doing it through innovation. The proof is in your own article... "Apple struck back, introducing a vastly expanded catalog of movie titles, which it started renting, as well as selling. And it came out with a new, cheaper version of the Apple TV box that matched most of Vudu's features. Now Apple is selling or renting more than 50,000 movies a day, and Vudu is laying off staff."

This is what's known in the business as COMPETITION. It's what drives not just businesses forward but the human race forward. It is also the reason why our PC's/Mac's have advanced as fast as it has, how fast do you think the computer your sitting in front of right now would have been if Intel was the only chip company that existed.

Plus the countless mistakes against Apple you made in this article doesn't help either but I'll leave that to others to comment on, because if I had to list all your mistakes I'd be here forever. Little research please next time.

Nas,

Your article is a bit overboard. For example, Apple's market capitalization did not "surged past Google's" but rather just transiently went over it for like a day. And Apple TV is barely on the radar, with most people considering it a failure at this point. What do you want Apple to do? Everyone loves the underdog.

This article is off base in its research and lack of facts, it's hard to know where to begin. Microsoft's actions are COMPLETELY different - yea, similiar industries but really, guy, you should either do research or ask an older person working at Newsweek what was going in 1994.

First of all, Vudu - it's called competition - what about Amazon's Unbox or Netflix Instant Play or XBox or another dozen competitors - only Apple is to be blamed for selling a similar product? You do realize that EVERYONE including Geico or Unilever is free to enter the set-top marketplace? That might astonish you but adding features or even entering a new marketplace is NOT consider monopoly action.

If you had done research, you would have discovered that the MADE FOR IPOD is a VOLUNTARY program (except for those that offer charging & syncing through the connector) and yes, Apple cahrges for it BUT you also get the MADE FOR IPOD logo ... voluntary ... as for pricing, what? One guy out of 5,000 ipod products complains he can't make enough? Maybe the fault lies with him? It sems there are THOUSANDS of companies vieing to be MADE FOR IPOD ...

Same with the iPhone apps, it's THEIR STORE ... of course, can you sell tunafish at Sak's Fifth Avenue? Every store in America voluntarily decides what products they want to carry - same with the iTunes store - how hard of a concept is that to understand? Don't you think it's better someone takes responsibility for the products they sell?

The itunes store is popular but when it launched, I'll bet you were the first to mock it as competing against the big boys and no chance of success so now that people have chosen it because it's the best & easiest to use?

But really, guy, you shoudl learn much more about the industry and shame on your editors for not knowing anything about the CE industry or technology since 1994 - very shabby and weak.