Apple's recent anticompetitive behavior? Whats your opinion of the Apples new policy?

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by wikoogle, Mar 8, 2010.

  1. wikoogle macrumors 6502a


    Jun 12, 2009
    I recently saw a poster here write this...

    That wasn't the first time I've heard statements like this. I've heard other people here claim they boycott MS products because they were sued and deemed anticompetitive for bundling Internet Explorer with every copy of Windows sold.

    My first question is, does anyone here actually boycott companies for stuff like that? And if so, are those posters simply uninformed about some of the darker things that Apple has done?

    For one, Apple's paranoid security procedures and alleged torturing of one of the engineers designing the iPhone drove him to commit suicide! And to compensate, his family was later given $44,000 and his girlfriend was given a Macbook!!!

    Also don't forget the recent admission that yes, indeed three of Apple's factories producing iPhones had been using child labor.

    And honestly, some of the stuff they've been doing recently (preventing Google Voice and Opera's Internet Browser Apps from being sold on the App Store because they are competitors), is a hell of a lot more anticompetitve than what was Microsoft was sued for (bundling Internet Explorer with Windows). I honestly don't see why that's that different from Apple bundling Safari with the iPhone.

    It would be much worse if Microsoft actively locked out competiting browsers from running on their operating system, which is something Microsoft has never done, but seems to be the path that Apple is heading with their blocking of the Google Voice App, and the uphill battle the Opera Internet Browser App is facing.

    If Apple indeed goes that route, would people here still defend them for it?

    If Apple isn't intending to go that route, why is Opera having such a tough time getting their Internet Browser approved. And why did Apple stick language into their new App Store policy that lets them block Apps for no other reason than that those Apps are also ported onto competing devices?

    I would like to get an honest discussion going here about what constitutes anti-competitive behavior (what Microsoft is frequently berated for here), and whether or not Apple is guilty of this.

    Apple owns a huge chunk of the smart phone market. They pretty much own a monopoly on the iPod Touch market. And they have recently started to block Apps from competitors from being sold on the App Store.

    I'm particularly suspicious with one aspect of their recent press release on the front page of this very site outlining new criteria that Apple will be using to block Apps from being solid on the App Store...

    I get very suspicious about language like that. I'm all for removing chaff from the App Store.

    But when a policy opens the door to blocking Apps for no other reason than that they are found on competitor's devices, I get very suspicious.

    It sounds like Apple levering the popularity of the App Store to prevent developers from porting successful Apps they make over to the Nexus One and other competing smart phones.

    Will Apple go that route? Why would they include that language if they aren't atleast entertaining the idea.

    Will people here continue to stand by them if they do, while attacking competitors for far less anti-competitive actions?
  2. vant macrumors 65816

    Jul 1, 2009
    God you sound like a troll.

    First of all, Apple is the only computer manufacturer to audit their factories. No other computer manufacturers care about child labor and other labor issues. Apple is taking steps to remedy the situation, Dell/HP/Sony/Acer/Asus do not care.

    Foxconn was responsible for the death of the employee, not Apple.

    If you ran a grocery store and sold your own fruit juice, would you allow a competitor to sell his fruit juice at your store? Shouldn't it be up to you? If you build cars like Ford does, would you allow Toyota engines to be optional in your lineup?
  3. cmaier macrumors G4

    Jul 25, 2007
  4. wikoogle thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Jun 12, 2009
    You completely missed my point.

    I'm not blaming Apple for what happened. I'm questioning the people that attack Sony and MS for things one of their employees said or did or some point when Apple has some skeletons in it's closet of it's own.

    And more importantly, I want to start a discussion about what constitutes anti-competitive actions.

    People here frequently attack Microsoft by bringing up that lawsuit when they were sued for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows (I honestly don't see why that's that different from Apple bundling Safari with the iPhone. It would be much worse if Microsoft actively locked out competiting browsers from running on their operating system, which is something Microsoft has never done, but seems to be the path that Apple is heading with their blocking of the Google Voice App, and the uphill battle the Opera Internet Browser App is facing ).

    It sounds like Apple levering the popularity of the App Store to prevent developers from porting successful Apps they make over to the Nexus One and other competing smart phones.

    If Apple indeed goes that route, would people here still defend them for it?

    If Apple isn't intending to go that route, why is Opera having such a tough time getting their Internet Browser approved. And why did Apple stick language into their new App Store policy that lets them block Apps for no other reason than that those Apps are also ported onto competing devices?

    From some of the reactionary posts here, it seems like I already have my answer.
  5. vant macrumors 65816

    Jul 1, 2009
    OJ Simpson is a murderer.

    Wait you missed my point, I was trying to say that he was a good football player.

    Oh and wrong section.
  6. wikoogle thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Jun 12, 2009
    Lol, some of you guys are making yourselves look like idiots.

    Take a reading comprehension course.

    For the last time, I'm not attacking Apple about the factory suicide thing. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy illustrated by some of the fanboys here by attacking competitors.

    And I'm pointing out Apple's new App Store policy, which seems to open the door for something I don't think even the stauntest Apple fanboy here wants.

    If Apple starts blocking or worse yet, deleting Apps from the App Store (say Doodle Jump) because they got ported over to the Google Nexus, don't say that you had no idea they could something like that. Their new policy gives them the ability to do precisely that.

    From a strictly business standpoint, Apple could well go that route in order to leverage the popularity of the App Store into discouraging developers from making Apps for the Andriod Platform
  7. silenahilena macrumors member

    Feb 13, 2010
    No, I completely know what you're saying -- especially about the human rights thing. When ANY company is unaware of what happens to their customers that is could be some of their responsibility or when a company is resorting to child labor, it should DEFINITELY be checked out and considered. It's a completely rational thing to think about, really. I'm a pretty live and let live person, though. If people want to boycott Apple products because of the suicide and because Apple was using child labor -- then, yeah, I think it's a valid reason to boycott the company. However, from my understanding, Apple addressed the problem of the child labor (not sure about the suicide), so it was a good thing that they do that. Let's hope that they won't continue to do so, so this won't be an issue again. However, if they ignore the problem of child labor...then yeah...bad signs.
  8. cmaier macrumors G4

    Jul 25, 2007
    There's no hypocrisy if the things you listed aren't true. You might as well claim people are hypocritical for supporting Apple despite the fact that the company supports forced busing of Communist schnauzer puppies into minority neighborhoods. There's no hypocrisy when no one wants to boycott Apple for doing things that didn't happen.
  9. soms macrumors 6502


    Dec 10, 2007
    Child labor? Give me a break. Name one 3rd world country that DOESN'T have children working in factories. If I recall correctly there were only 3 "kids".

    Would you rather have them working on the street and making no money?
  10. silenahilena macrumors member

    Feb 13, 2010
    Child labor happens in every country, not just third-world countries - which are supposed to be called developing countries. The reason is because the term "third-world country" just sounds abysmally wrong if you think about it. Essentially, it means they're from another world, so it's not like they matter. We live on Earth, which is basically one world. *rolls eyes*

    I don't think it matters in what country child labor happens or what company, knowingly or unknowingly, provides the backbones for it -- child labor is wrong. Sure, you could argue the closed-minded "at least they're working." But the fact is that they're getting taken advantage of when they should be fairly compensated for their work. It's just not...right.

    Also, whether the kid was 16 and had to be 17 to work -- it's still a professional company and every company has to abide by legal rules, too. It's just the facts and rules.

    Anyways, it's a good thing that Apple publicly addressed the problem when other companies tend to hide the problem of child labor.
  11. wikoogle thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Jun 12, 2009
    What's not true? I linked to the news articles to back up my claims.

    Checking into who is being employed at Apple's iPhone production factories seems like something Apple should have done ever since the iPhone began being manufactured three years ago. If Apple took no oversight over how the iPhone was being manufactured until recently, that's their fault. It's commendable that they finally fixed it. But that doesn't change the fact it should have been fixed in 2007.

    Anyways, my point was that it's stupid to boycott Sony for something one of their lawyers said, while Apple's contractors have done far worse things.

    Seriously, don't act like Apple bears absolutely no responsibility for the subcontractors that they hired to test and manufacture their products.

    And don't act like Apple bears no responsibility for the high level of secrecy employed around their products.

    Both stances are dishonest...

    This was THE department that was testing and modifying the iPhone prototypes. Don't act like Apple had no oversight of what was being done there.

    Apple is not stupid. There is absolutely no way that location was tweaking with the iPhone prototype without atleast some Apple employees overseeing exactly what they are doing.

    Are you seriously telling me that you believe Apple subcontracted out a company to test the iPhone prototype, and wasn't keeping a close eye on what they were doing over there?

    Anyways, I don't care. Because these issues, hopefully have been addressed in full.

    My concern is the anti-competitive practices that Apple is still engaging in. I see no good reason why Google Voice or the new Google Navigation App should be blocked from the iPhone. And I certainly see no good reason to block Opera or other competitors.
  12. neutrino23 macrumors 68000

    Feb 14, 2003
    SF Bay area

    Go back and read the history of MS. They had a history of crushing smaller companies. It was a blood sport for them.
  13. vant macrumors 65816

    Jul 1, 2009
    If it hasn't hit you yet, APPLE IS THE ONLY COMPANY WHO AUDITS THEIR FACTORIES. If Apple proceeded like Dell/Sony/HP/Etc. they wouldn't even know what kind of labor issues they were having. If anything, you are making Sony look bad by not auditing their factories.

    Foxconn IS responsible for overseeing Apple's test units. Apple did not tell Foxconn to harass or torture the employee.

    Example: If I hire a painter to paint my house within a deadline, is it my fault that the painter's company tortures him and harasses him if he doesn't finish on time? Under your presumption I should look bad and take the blame.

    Lastly, it's Apple's choice on what to include with its product. Just like it's Ford's choice to not include a Toyota engine or vice versa. Toyota's engine may prove to be more powerful and fuel efficient, but Ford wants to sell it's engine as first priority.
  14. tk421 macrumors 6502a

    Dec 7, 2005
    Los Angeles
    There are a couple good points you raise. Like whether Google Voice and Opera should be allowed on the app store. (I think they should)

    But I think the negative reaction you're getting is because you have these few good points buried in such nonsense as:

    A monopoly?! Like Ford has a monopoly on Mustangs and Amazon has a monopoly on Kindles?

    The other aspect that makes you sound like a troll (whether you intended to or not) is that the good points HAVE been discussed extensively on this site and others. There are plenty of people on MacRumors that are unhappy with something here or there that Apple does, such as their App Store policies.
  15. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604


    May 28, 2005
    Apple doesn't run a grocer store, but if they did, they would force their fruit juice supplier to only sell to them, and threaten to stop carrying their product if they sold to any other store.

    I'm pretty sure that Intel settled to the tune of multi-billions of dollars with AMD for the same tactics. I think you need to re-evaluate your grocery store.
  16. wikoogle thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Jun 12, 2009

    Vant, where is a link to your claims that Dell, Sony etc has no oversight over the factories they design to produce their products?

    That seems like a rather outragous claim you make, that Dell, Sony and HP don't check into how their products get made. Can you post a link to back that up? Clearly you're basing that claim on something, rather than making it up on the spot. Right?
  17. NT1440 macrumors G5


    May 18, 2008
    They do this yearly with their suppliers review reports.....
  18. vant macrumors 65816

    Jul 1, 2009
    These manufacturers are used by other electronics companies, yet Apple is first to report underage worker violations.

    Where does Apple do this?
  19. zipa macrumors 65816

    Feb 19, 2010

  20. highscheme macrumors regular

    Jun 10, 2009
    I've been using Macs for the past 15 years, and while I can't say I agree with your post as a whole—I do agree with it in spirit.

    Honestly, I love Mac's design, dislike Microsoft, like OSX etc. But I really do not like the way in which they have been changing since they have been growing as a company.

    I find myself for the first time since I started using Macs, considering the alternative.

    They have stopped caring about the high end user, and started catering completely to everyday consumers. As a business (I am a long term Apple shareholder), I think this has some merit, but I wonder if it doesn't hurt them in the long run. Why turn your back on the only people that never gave up on you? Now because of iPods and iPhones, its trendy to get a Mac, but believe me there was a time when it definitely wasn't.

    Now, they only offer a express card slot in the 17", they didn't offer Matte screens on all models of their "PRO laptops for awhile (still don't on the 13"?) etc. I mean seriously, it's all at the cost of a pretty design. Believe me, I love design too and value it greatly. I just think they take it too far to control the final look that they actually do sacrifice high end performance.

    Also, I think what they are doing with the App store is ridiculous. Makes me sick to my stomach, even though I own an iPhone.

    Spats with Adobe? W-T-F.

    Shutting down people that unlock their phone? I mean they bought the hardware I think they should be able to do what they want personally. Hate whenever *any* company does this kind of thing.

    Not allowing a Palm device sync with iTunes?

    I am not saying they need to make everything completely equal for 3rd party peripheral makers, but I do not think making big usage problems like this is good for Mac users in the long run—even if they don't know it.

    What I love about Apple is that they really do have overall good tasteful design and thought. They sometimes push the boundaries on things as well. However, they try to control everything so much, that it really hinders users who don't agree with them 100% (but do agree with them 90% let's say).

    Anyway, rambled away there a lot, but I really hope Apple doesn't continue to abuse the power they are gaining of late. I've been with this company so long, and in a lot of ways its the best time ever to be using MacOS. On the flip, I think we see Apple starting to walk down that road of big business that so many mac users fought against with Microsoft.
  21. Josias macrumors 68000


    Mar 10, 2006
    You should not have posted this in the MacBook Pro section, but I'd like to respond to this.

    Your question as to whether people writing they will boycott companies for immoral business conduct are for real, can easily be answered. No. People write "I will never buy from them again" on the Internet to gain attention. If they just wrote "I am highly discontent with this", no one would reply, but if they overstate it, they get attention. If they see a good deal for a product they want, 95% of them will cave in and buy it.

    Your sensationalist and overblown portrayal of the events surrounding the engineer who took his own life is not unlike what I just described. You literally write that they tortured him for losing an iPhone prototype. There is a long way between a false claim of a beating and torture. While the compensation that the family received may be laughable to some, I don't know what you're expecting. No one at Apple killed him, and no malfunctioning equipment or security issues cost him his life. He chose to jump off a building, and I don't see why Apple should be criticized for sending their condolences to the family, and some money as a way to help them cope with the loss of the houses bread winner.

    Child labor in factories is an issue for all companies that outsource production to Asia, and as many posters above have noted, Apple is one of the few companies to address the issue. Once again, you make it sound like Apple is run by a super villain master mind that decided to illegally employ children.

    Apples position on all its previous market and a ton of ones has changed drastically over the last decade. The reason they decide to block out certain software from the iPhone is because they don't want to trivialize it, which is the essence of competition - giving your own products an edge over those of the competitors. The iPhone is under threat of becoming obsolete since everyone else began copying it as soon as it was released in 2007, and Apple is simply trying to keep the iPhones reputation as something special.

    If Apple began acting like its competitors - by which I mean copying every product from a superior rival - I would not defend them, but as long as they use legal methods to defend their market share and the technology they innovate, I will remain supportive of them.
  22. Streethawk macrumors 6502

    Feb 25, 2010
    Manchester, UK

    Isnt it? :eek: I thought it was!
  23. ttopp macrumors regular

    Mar 1, 2007
    i can see where the OP is coming from but all companies do immoral things, apple is becoming more high profile thus its better news to report. i think its how they handle the mistakes that count as we all do make mistakes..

    the anti competitive nature of apple is such as that they built hardware and software for their own products. if they crossed into others hardware and made restrictions on what their software did on those machines then id agree with you or limited others hardware or forced other hardware to use only their software then yes apple would b a tyrant but they dont they say no to others software because they can as its their hardware those who dont like it can go elsewhere if they want to..
  24. ss957916 macrumors 6502a

    Jun 17, 2009
    Oh, well that's ok then. I suddenly support child labour so long as it's only three children per factory... I pay a premium for my Mac and, as such, expect them to be manufactured in an honest, humane way.

    These forums beggar belief. If anyone says anything about Apple that is less than favourable, they're labelled a troll. The OP may be confused in areas but he makes some good points (like Safari being bundled with Macs/iPhones).

    I do wish these forums would be a place for discussion, heated or otherwise, and not endless sarcasm, unwavering Apple worshipping and calls of 'trolling'.
  25. All Taken macrumors 6502a

    Dec 28, 2009
    I was wondering if Microsoft chose to only use Internet Explorer with it's own hardware, lets say.... the surface PC, then that would be perfectly acceptable as Microsoft has made both the hardware and the software? Do you see where I'm going with this one? :)

    Apple makes the hardware (iPhone & Mac) but it may surprise a few to learn that.... wait for it.... APPLE :eek: also make the software for those devices. What does this tell us in regard to an anti competitive discussion? It tells us that Apple can be as closed to 3rd party vendors or as open as it damn well pleases.

    It's APPLE whom own the right to the hardware and the software. Companies are often investigated for Anti Competitive behaviour because they sell either hardware OR software, companies that manufacture the whole deal if you like, are normally acting in accordance to the provisions and expectations already in place. Microsoft for instance has a duty to 3rd parties because the OS runs on.... 3rd party devices.

    The child labour is awful and has rightly been rectified. I take the stance that if you knew everything about the products you buy, you wouldn't buy them. - THINK (for the love of god) about what I have written in that last sentence before insinuating I would rather ignore what has happened.

    *As for the iPod Touch market - do you mean MP3 player market? If so then the monopoly is not present, purely for the fact that Apple (as far as I know) is not paying huge sums of money to subsidise other companies. Apple has dominated the MP3 world purely on it's own innovation - believe it or not that alone can create an 80% (example) market share for any company. Why castrate a company for manufacturing a desirable product that sells extremely well? (Acting within the provisions and expectations of the law) Is that not what business is? It's people like yourself that wish to hamper any innovation - if we followed your trail of thought then we would all be using the same product, the same system and the same technology for longer periods of time - Think Different.

Share This Page