Is Apple Turning Into the Next "Evil Empire"? 722
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.'"
Present continuous tense is unnecessary (Score:4, Insightful)
monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3)
I really don't get the religion comparison - Computers are (dis)proven quality utilities that serve a purpose, not a mystical path to a mysterious (and unproven) end. Yes, Apple has the 'cult family' feeling that PC doesn't (their attitude is one more of dogged obligation), and so does Catholicism - but the comparison ends there.
If I really wanted to make a comparison to religion, I'd compare Microsoft to those religions that insist on indoctrinating the very young and ignorant: Microsoft owes its entire fo
Re: (Score:3)
The comparison was made in 1994, 18 years ago.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple has kept their overpriced ipods on top
Millions of people buy them: they're not overpriced, and in fact they're probably pretty close to optimally priced.. An overpriced product is one whose price is high enough that reduced volume means less revenue overall. An underpriced product is one whose price is too low to earn a profit for its producer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
people still buy MP3 players? I've been using my phone for that for the past 10 years...
Yes, people still buy MP3 players. In my household, there are two people under the age of twelve who either do not need a smartphone/mp3 player or don't need a phone at all -- yet they would still like to play music/movies and play games.
Not everyone is phone-bound, or at least not everyone is smartphone bound.
Re: (Score:3)
Comparing any of these other devices to an iPod touch is like comparing a pocket calculator with a personal computer. I doubt you complain that PCs are too expensive compared to your TI. Different beasts for different objectives with different price points.
Here's a little secret. The iPod touch is not an mp3 player, it's really a mobile computer that happens to have a built-in music app.
If all you want is an mp3 player with the best quality these mp3 players might be the best choice. If you want a mobile co
Re:monopolies (Score:4, Insightful)
CrashNBrn compared iPod Touch pricing to the Sansa Fuze and Clip. I can only assume you have the presence of mind to not be seriously equating an iPod Touch with those players based on your freedom canard. That would be the equivalent of saying that an 8-bit uC IC development board is better than a TI because you can upgrade it much like a PC, install any program you like, use any standard peripheral, bla, bla, bla, while your TI can't.
Freedom can be important but it is completely irrelevant to the technical capabilities of these devices and their subsequent pricing.
Re:monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Apple iPod touch 8 GB (4th Gen) : $204.99 [amazon.com], Refurbished: $178.99 Sansa Fuze+ 8 GB MP3 Player (Black) : $69.00 [amazon.com] SanDisk Sansa Clip+ 8 GB : $49.99 [amazon.com] Sandisk Sansa Fuze 8GB : $97.68 [amazon.com]
Odd comparison there, comparing a wifi-capable, full-touch screen iPod capable of running all the iOS apps, to a few models of audio-only, non-touch screen players. Why not compare to the iPod Nano 8GB at $149? Non-expandable, but half the size of any of those, which may be more important for some consumers.
The iPod line outprices nearly every other manufacturer of mp3 players, includes the cheapest headphones, has poor sound and is not expandable. The only thing it has going for it is chic-factor, name-recognition and the app store. Perhaps that has weight with some, for myself, I want my music player to have a long battery life, and play music well.
The specific one you're citing has a multi-touch screen and the ability to run hundreds of thousands of applications, which you conveniently left of your "only thing it has going for it." Perhaps you're making a false comparison for the purpose of trying to bolster your losing argument?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, I hate Apple. I hate their business practices, their monopolistic intentions, their use and abuse of Free Software while pretending to be friendly with it, it's censorship, and the religious following of its fans. Probably the last factor is the worst, I sincerely agree with your signature, and, while I'm an Atheist and anti-religion, I'm not only against religions with invisible guys in the sky. Religious-like behavior is just as dangerous as organized religion. Apple's followers have faith, and that
Re: (Score:3)
Something is overpriced if the price causes people not to buy it. Since iPods sell well, they by definition are not overpriced.
It's the old bricks vs. diamonds paradox: A brick is far cheaper and more useful than a diamond, but people still buy diamonds.
Apple's marketing (Score:3)
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 woul
Re:Present continuous tense is unnecessary (Score:4, Insightful)
The 'flamebait' was when Apple decided that '1984' was an instruction manual.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it's more like Apple = Scientology, Microsoft = Catholicism, Linux = Atheism and *BSDs = Agnosticism. Apple follows a strict "the more you pay the better we'll treat you" policy complete with a personality cult around a let's say 'controversial' individual, Microsoft is awfully intolerant of anything that dares take converts from them and has most of the world under their thumb, Linux requires at least a marginal amount of intelligence and skill not to turn into a sad parody of the mainstream reli
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really think his post is about grammar?
Re: (Score:3)
Not now that you've made me read it twice...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
In french the word for grammar sounds a lot like grandmother, so when I was in 4th grade getting ready to learn about grammar i thought we were going to be learning about a grandmother. True story.
How scary was it to hear that a grandmother might have dangling participles? No one wants to see that!
Re:Apple is a consumer products enterprise, (Score:5, Informative)
they're not very open source and they fundamentally don't care.
You mean like this [apple.com], 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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/ [maniacdev.com]
But hey, don't let anything as silly as "facts" get in the way of a good Apple bash.
But, but, but... (Score:3, Funny)
I thought Google was the next Evil Empire!
Everybody in an Evil Empire these days (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
They're all evil in an axis of evil like North Korea, Iraq and Iran. They're even in the same geographic region of evilness.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is that today, Apple, Google, Microsoft etc. all have decent, healthy competition between one another and from outsiders. That keeps any of them from behaving overly "evil". Certainly today's computer industry is nothing like the bad old days of MS dominance and stagnation back in the 90s.
Uhm. Look again. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Kids these days with their non-Euclidean boundaries...
Yes and no (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Yes and no (Score:5, Funny)
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?
We need a totally buff chick to throw a giant hammer into the video screen during Jobs's speech at an apple brainwash^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d ... product announcement.
Re:Yes and no (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It depends on what you mean by evil. I've been a Mac user since what feels like forever and I can definitly see that something have changed over the passed few years starting about the same time Apple started to become really popular. They are building what people often refer to as a walled garden where everything is controlled by Apple and if that's okay with you it actually works. I could definitly recommend the Apple solution to people that want to user computers and mobile devices in order to do things
Re:Yes and no (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember back in the 90s when Microsoft was evil because they locked people in to their products? Proprietary document formats, incompatible HTML extensions, secret APIs that only they could use? Ring any bells?
Apple are trying to go one further by not even allowing competing products on their platforms. Opera had to fight to get on to iOS devices, Google Talk was initially rejected... MS products were terrible but because Apple products do mostly work reasonably well (in a limited way) they somehow get away with it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can like or hate Apple any way you like, but they are not locking you in or out of non-standard proprietary document formats or secret API's in any way, in fact they use open and commonly accepted and interchangeable formats and technology almost everywhere.
How come I can't plug my MP3 player into my car? (Hint: If iPods were Mass Storage Devices and they used a regular USB cable like mine/most others do, this would work.)
Re: (Score:3)
Dunno about your phone, but when I plug my phone into my car's USB, I get a notification on the phone that USB is connected, and a button to push to mount the USB. That's exactly how it works with my PC: I plug it in, I touch "m
Re: (Score:3)
You are taking my post too literally. My point was that while MS locked you in to Word format for documents Apple locks you in to their App Store, the AAC format for iTunes Store purchased music, Apple approved accessories... They even resisted having other browsers on iOS and blocked Flash entirely. My point is that lock-in in general is evil and Apple are IMHO even more guilty of it than MS.
Google don't do that and still manage to make a profit. Therefore it is possible to be a successful business without
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I didn't realize using a standard [wikipedia.org] audio format, with tons of support [wikipedia.org] from tons of software and hardware, and with better licensing terms [wikipedia.org] than MP3 counted as "lock in".
You are also drawing an unfair comparison between Microsoft's desktop operating environment and Apple's mobile environment. Apple runs iOS like basically any game console; if you think that iOS is evil, then you probably also think Nintendo is evil too for making their platforms locked down.
On the other hand, Apple's Mac OS X operating system
Re:Yes and no (Score:5, Interesting)
It depends on what you mean by evil. I've been a Mac user since what feels like forever and I can definitly see that something have changed over the passed few years starting about the same time Apple started to become really popular.
I blame Steve Jobs. He always wanted the Mac to be a closed proprietary appliance, but the Mac wasn't his project at the start, and he was kicked out of Apple before his vision could dominate.
I've been a Mac user for 20+ years, but I absolutely refuse to give my financial support to iOS. It is the absolute antithesis of everything the Mac stands for. Closed, proprietary, non-interoperable, with a cryptic and non-discoverable UI. I want to see it die in a fire.
I still fear that Apple will start to boil the OS X frog. They have code signing and an app store in place. They have a warning dialog if you try to run software downloaded from anywhere else. They're clearly repositioning OS X server versus the regular version in Lion. My fear is that the regular version of Lion (or perhaps the version after it) will have lock-in, and you'll have to buy a $500 pro version with the server stuff in order to get an open Mac. If that happens, I'll shed a tear and jump ship to Linux.
Obligiatory (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
*appreciative applause*
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's like being at school (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple conforms to #2 and #4. Steve Jobs conforms to #5.
Apple is Evil as per the dictionary. Thank you, please drive through.
Re: (Score:3)
Ask the millions of people who have bought Apple products in the last few years if they feel harmed in any way.
It's called Hostage syndrome, especially apropos considering that Apple holds your data hostage. Further, you can see plenty of examples of people regretting their Apple purchases and getting burned by owning apple products without even leaving Slashdot. Deliberately obtuse, or just retarded? Finally, when you make a purchasing decision there is a tendency to defend it so that you don't feel like an idiot. Admitting a bad purchase means admitting a bad decision.
Yes, but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about products that begin with an A (e.g. Airport)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From a technical perspective the AirPort Extreme is actually a quite competent wireless basestation. The only drawback, which can be a significant one, is that all administration has to be done through the AirPort Utility application which is only available for Mac OS X and Windows.
The missing link (Score:2)
Re:The missing link (Score:4, Informative)
An interesting question. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:An interesting question. (Score:4, Interesting)
The difference here is that unlike the PC industry where there were no forces trying to keep the software stack closed or control what you ran, in the mobile space we have cell carriers (especially in the US) who want to control what mobile device users do with their device in the same way Ma Bell controlled what the devices that connected to the phone network were able to do in the past.
Re: (Score:3)
This idea that Microsoft "rode IBM to the top" ignores the fact that no matter who won, Microsoft was going to be there on whatever platform won.
That Apple II was running a Microsoft Basic renamed Applesoft BASIC.
That Commodore 64 was running a Microsoft BASIC renamed PET BASIC and later Commodore BASIC.
That Tandy TRS-80 was running a Microsoft BASIC named Color BASIC.
That CP/M machine was running a Microsoft B
Re:An interesting question. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
People have been saying this for over twenty years now. Nothing new here. What would be interesting is if common perception is that this is a valid question, and it's most definitely not.
forcing the end user to buy their hardware
No one has ever been forced to buy Apple hardware. In fact, most people don't buy their computers.
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.
Three problems...
1. Market share of the OS is a simple, but incomplete metric. Apple makes more money than any other PC maker, and is just shy of greater profits and revenue than MS. So claiming MS has "won" is not so cut and dry.
2. You are comparing iPhones to Android. You should be comparing iPhones (and other iOS devices) to Android phones and other Android devices. That an iPhone costs $199 and $299, but the Android OS is free is meaningless. iOS is free on iPhones too.
3. iOS has outsold Android. So your conclusion has yet to come to pass. But even if it ever does, you end up with the first point, how has that benefitted Google greater than iOS has benefitted Apple? Even if Android outsells iOS 5 to 1 (and it most certainly does not, and won't any time soon), how is that an example of Google beating Apple? Apple will still make far more from iOS than Google will be making from Android.
And, more on topic, what does this have to do with Apple being "evil"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:An interesting question. (Score:4, Interesting)
How do you come by that? Android has a much larger market share than iOS, already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smartphone_share_current.png [wikipedia.org] - they're now the largest mobile OS out there. In a few years, it's relatively safe to assume that gap will be even larger, as Symbian tends towards 0.
One must assume Google gets more than a buck or two for each phone you buy with "with Google" written on the back, like mine does. Presumably, that adds up. Given Android's open nature, it has more companies developing for it, which means Google gets benefits without even trying (as hard) as iOS. So I would say Google is already doing damn nicely out of Android and will continue to do so. In business speak, that's a "win". It's not even too far removed from getting "something for nothing".
Back in 97, when MS bought into Apple, Apple had around 7% of the PC market. In 2010, Apple had about 8% of the PC market - so in the last almost 15 years, they have basically made no inroads at all. Dell, on the other hand, have 15% market share. In fact, the top 5 PC sellers are HP, Dell, Acer, Lennova and Toshiba. All of them doing basically zero research into the OS. This is basically true for mobile phones too, with Nokia, Samsung, LG, Rim and Sony taking the top 5 seller by manufacturer positions, all of them now moving to Android (even RIM is now working to allow Android apps to work on Blackberrys).
So I'd say that supports the parent argument pretty well - once again Apple's coupling of OS to hardware will guarantee that the market will move on past them, leaving them an important but none the less niche player, in regards to overall usage statistics. Once again, the market they can largely be credited with creating, will leave them behind. Google will be their new Microsoft. Whatever way you turn it, that's got to hurt at least a little.
Re: (Score:3)
iOS doesn't only ship on iPhones. It also ships on iPod Touches and iPads. Android phone sales are above iPhone sales, to be sure, but the iOS ecosystem is bigger than that. Android has virtually no penetration in market segments that don't involve phones.
Re:An interesting question. (Score:4, Insightful)
3. iOS has outsold Android.
How do you come by that? Android has a much larger market share than iOS, already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smartphone_share_current.png [wikipedia.org] - they're now the largest mobile OS out there. In a few years, it's relatively safe to assume that gap will be even larger, as Symbian tends towards 0.
There are tons of problems with this. First and foremost, it's iPhone, not iOS. I'll list the others, but I don't want this first point to be lost, because it's really all that *needs* to be said.
But also, Apple reports actual sales numbers, while Android sales numbers are solely based on consultant firms' estimates, and even with the most recent estimates, going with the *highest* numbers by one group, Android OS, last quarter, did not outsell iOS, last quarter. And I also said "has outsold", not "does outsell" (although that is presently true as of the most recent numbers, I was trying to avoid debunking this whole thing. I should have known there are far too many Slashdotters here who think Android has outsold iOS for that to happen). Let's say that this quarter Android finally ships on more devices than iOS does, for the quarter, that won't catch them up over all the quarters in which they did not. Especially since many of those quarters they shipped zero. Apple has just sold over 100 million iPhones, and significantly more iOS devices (I could dig through numbers to come up with a specific amount, but it's probably somewhere between 150 million and 200 million).
So, yeah, iOS has most definitely outsold Android.
One must assume Google gets more than a buck or two for each phone you buy with "with Google" written on the back, like mine does.
And whatever Google gets per Android, one must assume Apple makes significantly more. That's why I said, later in this post, that even if Android were to ever outsell iOS 5 to 1, Apple would still make more money because of iOS than Android does because of Android. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Google doesn't actually make more from iOS devices presently than they do from Android devices.
Presumably, that adds up. Given Android's open nature, it has more companies developing for it
What the shit? iOS has *significantly* greater developer support.
which means Google gets benefits without even trying (as hard) as iOS. So I would say Google is already doing damn nicely out of Android and will continue to do so. In business speak, that's a "win". It's not even too far removed from getting "something for nothing".
The topic wasn't whether Android is a good business move for Google, it's whether Google has "won" (or is "winning" or will "win") over iOS. That's definitely not true now, and may eventually be true, but is definitely not the foregone conclusion so many here seem to think. Like I said above, even were Android to have a 5:1 market share lead over iOS (and that's an absurdly high number, btw), it won't be clear that Google as "won" over Apple. Presently, it's like Google is collecting dimes and Apple is collecting dollars (not a specific ratio, just that it's definitely a significantly skewed ratio. 10:1 in favor of Apple is probably an understatement). If Google ever collects more units (dimes) than Apple (dollars), that's not enough.
Back in 97, when MS bought into Apple, Apple had around 7% of the PC market. In 2010, Apple had about 8% of the PC market - so in the last almost 15 years, they have basically made no inroads at all. Dell, on the other hand, have 15% market share. In fact, the top 5 PC sellers are HP, Dell, Acer, Lennova and Toshiba. All of them doing basically zero research into the OS. This is basically true for mobile phones too, with Nokia, Samsung, LG, Rim and Sony taking the top 5 seller by manufacturer positions, all of them now movi
Re: (Score:3)
You're looking only at smartphones, not iOS sales. Remember, iOS ships on iPod touch devices and iPads, neither of which are counted as phones.
Re: (Score:3)
Do Android fanboys even bother to think about the words they are replying to before reflexively reposting an irrelevant stat? It's only four words.
iOS (not iPhone, but all iOS devices)
has outsold (has shipped more units)
Android (devices with the Android OS)
Last quarter, going by even the *highest* estimates for Android sales, iOS has outsold Android OS. All the prior quarters, iOS's lead has been greater. The total number of iOS devices out there exceeds the total number of Android devices.
So, yes. Indeed.
History lesson needed... (Score:4, Insightful)
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...)
MSFT as "good guy"? (Score:3)
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 cha
They already were? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Is the correct answer. The reason why Apple failed competing with Microsoft back in the day is simply that they were more Microsoft than Microsoft. Slightly more incompatible with everyone else, far more locked-in. Much more expensive to upgrade, and more often forced to upgrade.
What (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What (Score:5, Informative)
Apple is nicer now than it ever was in the past... (Score:2, Insightful)
to it's shareholders. Which is the only metric that matters.
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? I don't like the product they sell so I don't buy their stuff. Apparently, however, some people like the walled, Apple taxed, restrictively licensed, closed products that they sell. The fact is, many people don't care that the platform is closed and Apple can take huge sums of money from them. It doesn't make them less nice,
Re: (Score:3)
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 beca
Re: (Score:3)
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 spe
Re:What (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, in the year they released the phone that revolutionized the mobile market that has drawn to date over 100 million willing customers, they became more evil than ever because of this...
This idiotic bullshit of calling Apple (or any other company*) "evil" is one of the things that makes Slashdot seem childish and insignificant. Geeks are the ultimate drama queens.
* There are very few companies one could reasonably argue as being evil, or at least being major proponents of evilness. Monsanto and Halliburton come to mind. But calling Apple "evil" is absurd. Do you even know what the word "evil" means?
Re: (Score:3)
I think the contention of the parent was that "evil" was not the correct word to use. Is it your contention that not allowing flash is *evil*?
At the very worst, not allowing flash is neutral. Apple made a product. The decided what it would and would not do (BTW, it also does not "allow" windows 2000) and then they put it on the market, where people could or could not choose to buy it. It is not forced on anyone. It is not killing people because of the lack of flash. Indeed, not having flash on the iph
Re: (Score:3)
It's not idiotic, just look at all the damage that Apple has done to the electronics market. Now, people no longer expect to own their devices, and look who is prominently pushing for increased control of the customer's products, well if it isn't Steve Jobs.
What the fuck? Everyone owns their iPhones, iPods, Macs, etc. (barring those that bought them on credits or on loan, naturally). It's absurdly ironic that you claim Steve Jobs is taking control of people's devices, when it's actually Google, and not Apple, that has made use of their remote kill switch (not something I disagree with, it's very important if you end up letting malware through your system, but it's a level of control that not even the "evil and controlling" Apple has ever utilized).
They've been getting more and more into undermining consumer rights for years, that alone justifies being called evil.
If this was
No no no (Score:2)
Mate, this is slashdot (Score:2)
If your iWhatever isn't an open platform with all attached Cupertino strings long since severed, your geek license is hereby revoked.
I guess nothing interesting is going on in tech... (Score:4, Insightful)
...so shit gets selected for the front page. Sigh...
The problem with Evil (Score:2)
The problem is people generally don't think things have gotten Evil until there is some sort of large-scale crisis.
WTF is John Naughton? (Score:2)
Who is this guy/bot/troll?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Naughton [wikipedia.org]
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.
Help! Help! (Score:2)
Obligatory... (Score:3)
So does this make *nix the jews?
Original (Score:2)
The "evil" is closed systems (Score:2)
Now the next generation of computing users/makers has forgotten all the lessons of the past and is embracing closed systems, centralised control and restrictive practices as if
Turning into? Have we NOT been paying attention? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
hysteria (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Eco's article was from 1994, guys (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a link to an English translation of Eco's article [simongrant.org]
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).
Where Apple Is Going (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [engadget.com] 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 [google.com] and office documents [google.com], 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 [engadget.com] 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
Controlling? Yes. Evil? No. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
The vast majority of Apple users... (Score:4, Informative)
...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.
Better Analogy: Beer Snobs. (Score:3)
"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".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is AMAZING denial.
"It's not overpriced, it's just a price." Really? How, exactly, do you define "overpriced"?
Generic components that go into Apple devices are overpriced when acquired through Apple when compared to compatible devices from other channels.
They do have a monopoly on laptops running Mac OS X and they defend it fiercely with every legal resource they have available to it.
When talking about Apple, you have to talk about the "whole Apple." Yes, they aren't the monopoly on servers or deskto
A bite of the Apple? (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Linux/Android...
Re: (Score:3)
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.