PDA

View Full Version : The Case Against Apple (AAPL)


MacBytes
Aug 9, 2009, 09:56 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: The Case Against Apple (AAPL) (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20090809225626)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

cohibadad
Aug 9, 2009, 11:17 PM
Worthless article. He either needs a law lesson or a business lesson. His gripes come down to Apple not doing the work for competitors and blaming it on Steve Jobs. Apple is not Steve Jobs and if someone wants their MP3 player to sync with a Mac they can code their own software.

Silencio
Aug 9, 2009, 11:18 PM
If it's from TechCrunch, it's crap. More of the same old "Apple has a monopoly on its own products!", "Apple should help their competitors compete against them" claptrap.

More twits that think Microsoft's business model is the only valid business model in the entire free market. :rolleyes:

P Mentior
Aug 10, 2009, 12:50 AM
Did anyone else find this interesting?

"Simple solution and opportunity: Not only let the iPhone work on any carrier, but put *two* SIM card slots on the iPhone and let users set which applications use which services. (Your phone could be Verizon
and your browser Sprint!) Imagine having two SIM cards with 3G that were able to bond together to perform superfast uploads and downloads to YouTube."

What would having 2 SIM slots do? Some how I don't see many people going out and buying an iPhone then getting two separate contracts with different providers for 1 device? The last part just shows a serious misunderstanding of how phones work. Just having 2 SIM cards wont improve your bandwidth. You would need 2 entirely separate sets of phone hardware as well.

munkees
Aug 10, 2009, 01:18 AM
Apple has zero monopoly on anything, and seeing Apple compared to other smart phones, has a very small market share, this guy needs to do his homework.

akutad
Aug 10, 2009, 08:35 AM
I don't know how you guys feel.... But my gut doesn't feel good about AT&T exclusive rights on the iphone. How is that not heading towards monopolistic action? I've never heard a logical explanation about this?

gilkisson
Aug 10, 2009, 08:43 AM
I don't know how you guys feel.... But my gut doesn't feel good about AT&T exclusive rights on the iphone. How is that not heading towards monopolistic action? I've never heard a logical explanation about this?

Only GM has the Corvette. Do they have a monopoly on sports cars?

Only Proctor & Gamble has Irish Spring - do they enjoy a monopoly on soap?

Only Chef Boyardee has canned Mini-Raviollis - have they cornered the pasta market?

Only Coca-Cola has Dasani -- do they own the bottled water market?

Must I go on?

ct2k7
Aug 10, 2009, 08:48 AM
Only GM has the Corvette. Do they have a monopoly on sports cars?

Only Proctor & Gamble has Irish Spring - do they enjoy a monopoly on soap?

Only Chef Boyardee has canned Mini-Raviollis - have they cornered the pasta market?

Only Coca-Cola has Dasani -- do they own the bottled water market?

Must I go on?

No, the point is that Apple have chosen their device to be exclusive to one carrier.

akutad
Aug 10, 2009, 08:49 AM
Only GM has the Corvette. Do they have a monopoly on sports cars?

Only Proctor & Gamble has Irish Spring - do they enjoy a monopoly on soap?

Only Chef Boyardee has canned Mini-Raviollis - have they cornered the pasta market?

Only Coca-Cola has Dasani -- do they own the bottled water market?

Must I go on?

I see the point your driving at.

This is how I feel. I really enjoy the iPhone period. I dislike the carrier as an example. My only option is too bad. Yes, yes I can unlock the iPhone. But I don't want to because it's like BS windows again.

I like the TV market. I can choose which tv I would like to buy and then I can choose which network I would like to use.

I would like the same example above with cell phones. Any one else feel the same way without getting their back up because their so incredibly loyal to the apple brand?

Perhaps I'm a free spirit and it's unrealistic in the western world.

gilkisson
Aug 10, 2009, 08:53 AM
No, the point is that Apple have chosen their device to be exclusive to one carrier.

Yes, they have.

That comes nowhere near to a monopoly, however. Or being "unfair".

niuniu
Aug 10, 2009, 08:56 AM
So, go buy something else...

akutad
Aug 10, 2009, 09:01 AM
Yes, they have.

That comes nowhere near to a monopoly, however. Or being "unfair".

Unfair to who?

It feels unfair to me.

gilkisson
Aug 10, 2009, 09:20 AM
Unfair to who?

It feels unfair to me.

It's also unfair that you cannot buy a Whopper at McDonalds, then. You really enjoy the Whopper, best hamburger ever made, but their fries, their service, and their tableware are just horrid. You love McDonalds service, they make you feel happy, but cannot stand the Big Mac.

You tried sneaking in a Whopper, but they frown on that, make a big hassle out of it. So you decide the right and proper thing is to force McDonalds to sell you Whoppers. Then you can have it all.

Under that scenario, what are your choices? A) Eat the whopper, which you love, and tolerate the service, or B) Eat the Big Mac, which you find unpalatable, and love the service.

Don't see another option open, to you or anyone else.

rdowns
Aug 10, 2009, 09:34 AM
No, the point is that Apple have chosen their device to be exclusive to one carrier.

And?

You can choose to buy one or not.

Why do people seem to feel they have a right to an iPhone under their terms?

nick9191
Aug 10, 2009, 09:37 AM
Well it started poorly, it trailed off a little in the middle, and the less said about the end the better.

Firstly he claims that everything on the Mac costs twice as much. Even if that were true, if a computer allows you to be more productive (paramount if you are professional) then how can it cost twice as much?

He then rabbits on about how Apple are being anti competitive by not allowing other players to work with iTunes. I can't understand the logic of why any company would do that, or why it would be considered anti competitive. Why should Apple help their competitors to compete against them? If they want a piece of the pie then they can create their own software that is as good as iTunes. Which leads me onto my next point:

He assumes that the iPod is dominant because of iTunes not allowing other MP3 players to sync with it. The truth is that none of them can come up with a piece of software like iTunes. They can create the hardware, but they can't back it up with decent software on the computer and on the device itself.

Complete nonsense.

Peace
Aug 10, 2009, 09:43 AM
Here's the funny part :

"Think for a moment about what your reaction would be if Microsoft made the Zune the only MP3 player compatible with Windows."

I may be wrong but the Zune is the only MP3 player that can sync with the Zune store is it not ?

dejo
Aug 10, 2009, 09:45 AM
Marco Arment responds: Planet Calacanis (http://www.marco.org/159321665)

pdjudd
Aug 10, 2009, 09:50 AM
I can't understand the logic of why any company would do that, or why it would be considered anti competitive.


I think Jason's point is that it goes again the spirit of openness and the idea of comparing open and closed systems and the idea is that open systems will always succeed. Jason believes that Apple can make more money from iTunes by opening it up to other players and making iTunes the standard player for anybody. Jason argues that since iTunes is popular, Apple has some sort of an obligation to open it up and play fair

I agree though that it doesn't make sense from Apple's perspective. iTunes is Apple's player and iTunes is hardly monoplistic or anti-competitive. I think that Jason is more pre-occupied with the popularity of iTunes and the entitlement that everything out there should be as simple as the iPod and iTunes integration is for everybody. The flaw in that logic is that not everything works that way and it's not Apple's fault to make up for the deficiencies of its competitors.

pdjudd
Aug 10, 2009, 09:53 AM
I may be wrong but the Zune is the only MP3 player that can sync with the Zune store is it not ?

Yes, but it isn't the only MP3 player on the market that syncs with Windows. Of course the same can be said on the Mac - support does exist just not as widespread.

As much as Jason wishes it were so, the world does not operate on open standards for everything and probably wont when you have a model of selling physical items to people that has a business model attached to it.

GoCubsGo
Aug 10, 2009, 09:54 AM
I'm confused as to why anyone would listen to this guy. His reasoning is beyond stupid.

Silencio
Aug 10, 2009, 11:35 AM
Simple solution and opportunity: Not only let the iPhone work on any carrier, but put *two* SIM card slots on the iPhone and let users set which applications use which services. (Your phone could be Verizon
and your browser Sprint!) Imagine having two SIM cards with 3G that were able to bond together to perform superfast uploads and downloads to YouTube.


I don't know what's worse: the fact that the author of the article would write such lunacy or that someone would quote it without questioning it. SIM cards for Verizon or Sprint!? You don't realize that CMDA phones DON'T USE SIM CARDS?

Do Nokia's $800 unlocked phones have two SIM slots? No. So why should they get a pass and not Apple?

I don't know who at Microsoft started this whole "Apple is a monopoly" meme, but they sure did a great job of getting the clueless to believe it and keep parroting it.

Demosthenes X
Aug 10, 2009, 11:56 AM
You can't have a monopoly on a particular, individual product. By definition, then, all companies have a monopoly on their own products: only Sony sells Sony, only Aston Martin sells Aston Martin. But Sony does not have a monopoly on TVs, and Aston does not have a monopoly on cars, and only an idiot would argue otherwise.

That said, I would like to see the iPhone on other carriers, but it is not a monopoly - there are substitute devices available on other carriers today.

The writer's comments on innovation in the MP3 market are insane. Two headphone jacks is a bigger innovation than 50 000 apps?

Stonebyte
Aug 10, 2009, 12:49 PM
I think he makes a number of fair points, though:


Years and years after Microsoft's antitrust headlines, Apple is now the anti-competitive monster that Jobs rallied us against in the infamous 1984 commercial. Steve Jobs is the oppressive man on the jumbotron and the Olympian carrying the hammer is the open-source movement
We over-paid for your phone--which you render obsolete every 13 months, like clockwork--and then signed our lives away to AT&T. The way you pay us back is by becoming the thought police, deciding what applications we can consume on the device we over-paid for!
[Opera] started an iPhone browser project but gave up when faced with Apple's absurd and unclear mandate to developers: Don't create services which duplicate the functionality of Apple's own software. In other words:
"Don't compete with us or we will not let you in the game."

Kilamite
Aug 10, 2009, 01:45 PM
"Think for a moment about what your reaction would be if Microsoft made the Zune the only MP3 player compatible with Windows."

That is so stupid. Any MP3 player is compatible with the Mac if the manufacture making that MP3 player bothered their arse to write some software for it to sync.

Say the same about Windows: name an MP3 player other than the Zune that syncs with Zune Software..

weing
Aug 10, 2009, 02:58 PM
Just what does he DO that requires so much "new and newest" hardware? 20k . Are you kidding me?
I make a pretty good living and mostly from and on my macs and have yet to even feel the pinch to buy a INTEL machine yet!

Evangelion
Aug 10, 2009, 03:37 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, I present you the winner of the "dumbest comment on Macrumors"-competition:

I think he makes a number of fair points, though:



We over-paid for your phone--which you render obsolete every 13 months, like clockwork--and then signed our lives away to AT&T. The way you pay us back is by becoming the thought police, deciding what applications we can consume on the device we over-paid for!

Jeffacme
Aug 10, 2009, 05:16 PM
The entire article is moronic drivel. All of us are dumber for reading it.

But to be fair, the actual formulation of this type of dumbassian logic must surely kill more brain cells than the mere act of reading it.

AustinZ
Aug 10, 2009, 06:35 PM
We over-paid for your phone--which you render obsolete every 13 months, like clockwork--and then signed our lives away to AT&T. The way you pay us back is by becoming the thought police, deciding what applications we can consume on the device we over-paid for!

So, I guess your iPhone doesn't make calls anymore on AT&T's network and can't run apps because it's 'obsolete', that you had no idea exactly how much you were going to pay for the phone and the contract (because, you know, that's how most things work- you buy them and then you find out how much you have to pay), and to top it off you have to stick with their service for the rest of your life, or you're contractually bound to render to them your soul.

Right?

The entire article is moronic drivel. All of us are dumber for reading it.

I like how the author pretty much claims that 'we let him get away with it', 'we' being the consumer, 'him' being Steve Jobs, and 'it' apparently being the evil monopoly that Apple has somehow accrued because people decided to purchase iPods and iPhones.

In other news, APPLE MARKET SHARE INCREASES BECAUSE PEOPLE BUY THEIR PRODUCTS. DETAILS AT 11.

P Mentior
Aug 10, 2009, 11:42 PM
I don't know what's worse: the fact that the author of the article would write such lunacy or that someone would quote it without questioning it. SIM cards for Verizon or Sprint!? You don't realize that CMDA phones DON'T USE SIM CARDS?

Do Nokia's $800 unlocked phones have two SIM slots? No. So why should they get a pass and not Apple?

I don't know who at Microsoft started this whole "Apple is a monopoly" meme, but they sure did a great job of getting the clueless to believe it and keep parroting it.


Where in my post did I ever say that i believe that Sprint or Verizon use SIM cards? I was Making the point that just having 2 SIM cards doesn't give you twice the bandwidth. I would suggest you look at what people write more carefully in the future....

macintoshtoffy
Aug 11, 2009, 01:07 AM
Did anyone else find this interesting?

Simple solution and opportunity: Not only let the iPhone work on any carrier, but put *two* SIM card slots on the iPhone and let users set which applications use which services. (Your phone could be Verizon
and your browser Sprint!) Imagine having two SIM cards with 3G that were able to bond together to perform superfast uploads and downloads to YouTube.

What would having 2 SIM slots do? Some how I don't see many people going out and buying an iPhone then getting two separate contracts with different providers for 1 device? The last part just shows a serious misunderstanding of how phones work. Just having 2 SIM cards wont improve your bandwidth. You would need 2 entirely separate sets of phone hardware as well.

In New Zealand, we already have it - you can switch between Vodafone and Telecom or 2 Degree's if you want. We have no legal requirement for unlocking phones - Apple just did it because Vodafone's policy is 'unlocked phopnes'. Obviously AT&T demanded it, and apple complied.

If you want to moan to someone about or take legal action, then the people you should be speaking to are AT&T - not apple.

macintoshtoffy
Aug 11, 2009, 01:11 AM
Where in my post did I ever say that i believe that Sprint or Verizon use SIM cards? I was Making the point that just having 2 SIM cards doesn't give you twice the bandwidth. I would suggest you look at what people write more carefully in the future....

Mate, this is what you said:

Simple solution and opportunity: Not only let the iPhone work on any carrier, but put *two* SIM card slots on the iPhone and let users set which applications use which services. (Your phone could be Verizon
and your browser Sprint!) Imagine having two SIM cards with 3G that were able to bond together to perform superfast uploads and downloads to YouTube.

You stated firstly that "Imagine having two SIM cards with 3G that were able to bond together to perform superfast uploads and downloads to YouTube." - why even bring it up if it is impossible?

You stated secondly that, "Not only let the iPhone work on any carrier, but put *two* SIM card slots on the iPhone and let users set which applications use which services. (Your phone could be Verizon and your browser Sprint!)" which is an implied statement that Verizon and Sprint use SIM cards (by virtue of tying the two sim card argument with the Verizon and Sprint scenario used as an example). If it were only theoretical then why not state, "if Verizon and Sprint used SIM cars....".

P Mentior
Aug 11, 2009, 02:45 AM
Mate, this is what you said:



You stated firstly that "Imagine having two SIM cards with 3G that were able to bond together to perform superfast uploads and downloads to YouTube." - why even bring it up if it is impossible?

You stated secondly that, "Not only let the iPhone work on any carrier, but put *two* SIM card slots on the iPhone and let users set which applications use which services. (Your phone could be Verizon and your browser Sprint!)" which is an implied statement that Verizon and Sprint use SIM cards (by virtue of tying the two sim card argument with the Verizon and Sprint scenario used as an example). If it were only theoretical then why not state, "if Verizon and Sprint used SIM cars....".


That was a quote from the article that this thread is here to discuss. Did you read it. If so I would imagine that you would gave recognized it. If not why are you participating in a discussion about it. That seems kind of like joining in a discussion about a book that you never read.

P Mentior
Aug 11, 2009, 03:05 AM
In New Zealand, we already have it - you can switch between Vodafone and Telecom or 2 Degree's if you want. We have no legal requirement for unlocking phones - Apple just did it because Vodafone's policy is 'unlocked phopnes'. Obviously AT&T demanded it, and apple complied.

If you want to moan to someone about or take legal action, then the people you should be speaking to are AT&T - not apple.

I don't know how the telcom industry is in New Zealand but are you sure that there is two separate chipsets? I believe that the author is suggesting using two SIM cards simultaneously not just the ability to unlock the phone and use it on a different carrier as I understand that you are saying Vodafone does in your location.

Upon further investigation I have found that there are phones that support dual SIM cards. I still don't really see it as a way to increase your mobile internet bandwidth as it would be like trying to use two different internet connections at the same time on your computer. While I'm sure that there are ways to do it, normally the computer will just use the one that has the most bandwidth not both at once.

macintoshtoffy
Aug 11, 2009, 03:19 AM
I don't know how the telcom industry is in New Zealand but are you sure that there is two separate chipsets? I believe that the author is suggesting using two SIM cards simultaneously not just the ability to unlock the phone and use it on a different carrier as I understand that you are saying Vodafone does in your location.

He offered it as a possible solution, not as *THE* solution. The real solution would be to unlock the phones and allow people to buy them outright or get them at a subsidised rate by joining up to a plan with a contract (which are normally a 2 year one).

mikes70mustang
Aug 11, 2009, 11:58 PM
that looks like a drunken troll bait thread that someone would post on here.

Tower-Union
Aug 12, 2009, 04:27 AM
Ok now that I have your attention :D

First off, I'm posting this as a chronic Mac user, 20 years and counting.

Secondly I really do think this blogger makes some good points, and I want to foster discussion around them, NOT TROLLING (please note: knee jerk fanboi reactions count as trolling :p)

http://calacanis.com/2009/08/08/the-case-against-apple-in-five-parts/

Read, THINK, discuss.

*LTD*
Aug 12, 2009, 07:47 AM
Here's your answer. ;)

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/09/the-case-against-apple-is-just-as-much-a-case-for-apple/?awesm=tcrn.ch_4JEz

Excerpt from the conclusion:

And that’s really the key point: The majority of users. We can bitch as much as we want about Apple’s shortcomings, but by and large the public couldn’t care less about any of it, nor do they even know about any of this stuff. Does my sister care that Apple rejected Google Voice? No, she’s never heard of Google Voice. As far as she knows, all is well in the Apple universe because she turns on her iPhone and boots up her Mac and they work, giving her an experience that she finds superior to competitors’ products.

The fact remains that as long as the company continues pumping out high-quality products that offer this great user experience, people will buy them. Calacanis believes that cheap and stable products from Microsoft and Google will undercut Apple, but that seems to be the same thing that people have been saying for years about Apple’s products. Macs are too expensive, iPods are too expensive, the iPhone is too expensive — people are still buying them. And they’re doing so at or near record levels, which is stunning in this economy.

There is no case against Apple, for the simple reason that none really exists, and there is currently no real reason for one to exist.

The Reverend
Aug 12, 2009, 12:02 PM
here is something for thought.

"Questions:

1. Do you think Apple would be more, or less, successful if they adopted a more open strategy (i.e. allowing other MP3 players in iTunes)?

2. Do you think Apple should face serious antitrust action?

3. Do you think Apple’s dexterity and competence forgive their bad behavior?"

-------------
my thoughts

1. Apple would be more profitable!.. if it found a method to protect their products , while being open enough with the OS to reach the people that need more from them then the average user. I think most people may not really care or know, how they get their music.. as long as they get it! Most users are simple people and would only ever use a small amount of the App's and features actually available now and likely never use the open nature in the OS...... that Techie users understand, love and need daily. and techie users make a goodly chunk of Apple sales now.

2. YES, I have been an Apple employee .. and in retrospect knowing what I know now about internal polices and practices. Apple should be investigated on several levels of business. Not just how it protects or sells it's products. Apple has become a company on a multi-national level, like Microsoft and others who's level of influence has become abusive and maybe worse. Steve Jobs' Apple, has a need for control over all aspects of the world it's touch's and that need is not concerned about anything but control. It shows in the contracts with it's vendors for parts for all the product parts that make the iPods and other bits of hardware Apple has made in other countries like China. It shows in the contracts it has with all Apple employees; ever notice that Apple has almost no union labor on any Apple campus or factory worldwide? The list goes and on.. at every level. Yes, a government investigation I think would do them some good and perhaps, it could be a win win for all; if Apple see the error of their ways.


3.No, I think that it's Apple’s dexterity and competence that gives them some of the sense of control and that could be their undoing. To much control is just as bad as to little. Being competent and dexterous is useless, in the face of overwhelming odds. Apple could use some good old fashion common sense and stop controlling long enough to see that the world has changed since 1985. People don't want to be controlled more then ever before.. Technology and access to information is a Freedom that personal choice has granted us all with. No company like Apple or Microsoft should dictate what information or technologies we use and how we use them.

:eek:

Phormic
Aug 13, 2009, 12:11 AM
I'm confused as to why the nerd community is suddenly up in arms about Apple's closed vertical integration, built on open standards, business model.

Isn't this the same model the company has doggedly persisted with for the better part of thirty years? Why is this such a surprise?

And by the looks of things, it' a business model that's working very, very well.

MorphingDragon
Aug 13, 2009, 04:13 AM
Umm the iPhone is on multiple carriers or even unlocked in other countries.