How Apple could become the most hated company

Rogifan

macrumors Core
Original poster
Nov 14, 2011
20,714
22,743
Don't normally agree with Rocco Pendola, but I do here. There may be a strategic acquisition that makes sense for Apple. Maybe it's something like Netflix or Square. But I think Cook is more interested in running a great company than building an empire. Perhaps this is why a recent CoreBrands ranking has Apple in the top 10 most respected brands in the world, with none of their competitors or any tech company in the top 10.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12559533/1/how-apple-could-become-americas-most-hated-company.html
 

deluxeshredder

macrumors 6502a
Nov 30, 2013
558
9
Apple had 1 (one) disastrous product release (albeit a major one) over the last 15 years. How many major tech companies have such a track record?
 

Rogifan

macrumors Core
Original poster
Nov 14, 2011
20,714
22,743
Apple had 1 (one) disastrous product release (albeit a major one) over the last 15 years. How many major tech companies have such a track record?
I just wish the DO SOMETHING crowd would give it a rest already. Mark Gurman is practically whining daily on twitter about it being April and no new products from Apple yet. Yeah I'm sure he's bored because 9to5Mac has little to write about. But he should know by now that Apple beats to its own drum, has its own timelines and certainly doesn't care whether Apple rumor sites have stuff to write about.
 

thejadedmonkey

macrumors G3
May 28, 2005
8,000
544
Pennsylvania
Apple is a creepy Facebook-esque company. iMessage stores all of your messages on Apple's servers. FaceTime goes through Apple's servers (it was never opened as Jobs promised). All of your photos are sync'd to Apple's servers via Photostream - automatically, in a way that would make Zuck jealous. Apple is just as creepy as Facebook. They just have a hardware business model to hide behind.
 

turtle777

macrumors 6502a
Apr 30, 2004
679
15
Apple is a creepy Facebook-esque company. iMessage stores all of your messages on Apple's servers. FaceTime goes through Apple's servers (it was never opened as Jobs promised). All of your photos are sync'd to Apple's servers via Photostream - automatically, in a way that would make Zuck jealous. Apple is just as creepy as Facebook. They just have a hardware business model to hide behind.
You don't have to use FaceTime, Photo streaming or iMessages. You can have a great experience with Apple products and still avoid all of that.

That doesn't work with Facebook.

-t
 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
Perhaps this is why a recent CoreBrands ranking has Apple in the top 10 most respected brands in the world, with none of their competitors or any tech company in the top 10.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12559533/1/how-apple-could-become-americas-most-hated-company.html
Good article.

Apple is a creepy Facebook-esque company. iMessage stores all of your messages on Apple's servers.
As opposed to AT&T's servers?

FaceTime goes through Apple's servers (it was never opened as Jobs promised).
Too much FaceTime, or, not enough?

All of your photos are sync'd to Apple's servers via Photostream - automatically, in a way that would make Zuck jealous. Apple is just as creepy as Facebook. They just have a hardware business model to hide behind.
Your shared photos, that, presumably, you want to share with the rest of the world? I don't follow your logic at all.
 

thejadedmonkey

macrumors G3
May 28, 2005
8,000
544
Pennsylvania
Your shared photos, that, presumably, you want to share with the rest of the world? I don't follow your logic at all.
It's very easy to set it to automatically upload photos. To Apple's servers. They're not public, but they're not yours anymore, either.

You don't have to use FaceTime, Photo streaming or iMessages. You can have a great experience with Apple products and still avoid all of that.

That doesn't work with Facebook.

-t
Well, I mean you can have a great life without Facebook too...
 

chrono1081

macrumors 604
Jan 26, 2008
7,453
1,441
Isla Nublar
It's very easy to set it to automatically upload photos. To Apple's servers. They're not public, but they're not yours anymore, either.



Well, I mean you can have a great life without Facebook too...
They are absolutely yours. I'm not sure where get that idea.

How else is iCloud supposed to work without a "cloud" to put your data in? Synching to devices everywhere isn't going to work without a server somewhere.
 

thejadedmonkey

macrumors G3
May 28, 2005
8,000
544
Pennsylvania
They are absolutely yours. I'm not sure where get that idea.

How else is iCloud supposed to work without a "cloud" to put your data in? Synching to devices everywhere isn't going to work without a server somewhere.
If you're somehow implying that Facebook has a comprehensive profile on you, but Apple doesn't, you're terribly wrong.

And I'm not saying that iCloud is supposed to work without a server, nor am I saying that it shouldn't require a server. All that I am saying is that Apple reserves the right to...

  • create, develop, operate, deliver, and improve our products, services, content and advertising
  • collect information ... for ... services, and advertising
  • We may also use personal information for internal purposes
  • Apple may make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers
  • Apple shares personal information with companies who provide services such as information processing, ...[or] managing and enhancing customer data
  • You acknowledge and agree that Apple may, without liability to you, access, use, preserve and/or disclose your Account information and Content to ... a third party ... to protect the rights, property or safety of Apple, its users, a third party...
  • Apple reserves the right at any time to modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional terms or conditions on your use of the Service.

If you're not legally inclined, this means that Apple is allowed to store any and all information you submit, indefinitely, for use however they see fit, and if they want to use it for a specific purpose not allowed, to modify their terms at any time so they can do whatever they want with your data.

Point being, if you're a heavy iCloud user, but not a heavy Facebook user, Apple probably has a more comprehensive profile on you than Facebook does - including an SSN, credit score, call logs - which can equate to friends, political affiliation, etc. - and your income bracket.

That is why I dare call Apple a "a creepy Facebook-esque company". As I said before, the only difference between Apple and Facebook is that Apple has a hardware business model too.
 

Rogifan

macrumors Core
Original poster
Nov 14, 2011
20,714
22,743
Apple is a creepy Facebook-esque company. iMessage stores all of your messages on Apple's servers. FaceTime goes through Apple's servers (it was never opened as Jobs promised). All of your photos are sync'd to Apple's servers via Photostream - automatically, in a way that would make Zuck jealous. Apple is just as creepy as Facebook. They just have a hardware business model to hide behind.
You're not required to use any of those services/features are you? An iPhone works perfectly fine if you never use any of them. If you think the cloud is creepy, then I guess most tech companies are creepy in your eyes.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,865
Midlife, Midwest
Apple is the anti-Facebook.

Apple's interest in me, as a customer, is met by them making products and services that are so cool, I keep coming back and buying more of them.

Facebook's interest in me is as a product they can sell to their real customers - the companies that pay to advertise with them. I become more "valuable" to Facebook, if Facebook can weasel more information about me to sell.

I'm happy to do business on Apple's terms. If Apple makes a product I don't like, its really very simple - I don't buy it. I don't have that choice with Facebook. Even after you've deleted your account, they can keep on selling your data over and over.

Comparisons between Apple and Facebook need to be understood in those terms - because they are the only ones that matter.
 

roadbloc

macrumors G3
Aug 24, 2009
8,779
211
UK
I'll add my 2p. It is rare I give any article on the internet time of day. The article in question is no exception. After two pages I still don't know how Apple could become the most hated company. It feels like opinionated ********. For example-

Mark Zuckerberg let his success and riches go to his head. He spends billions of dollars to construct an empire and then tells Facebook users they ought to rejoice on the road to His dominance. They're going to live better lives because He thinks the things Facebook's doing are -- um like -- the coolest things in the world.
How does the author know Zuckerberg has let his success and riches go to his head? How does he know Zuckerberg wants people to rejoice on the road to his dominance? Why can't Zuckerberg say the things he is doing with FB are the coolest things in the world? FB is his creation, he is obviously passionate about it. He isn't exactly going to present a keynote and say "well what were doing isn't that cool actually" is he? As far as I'm concerned, as much as I disagree with some of FBs business practices, Zuckerberg is enthusiastic about keeping FB alive now and in the future. This sort of personal speculative nonsense makes me sick. Somebody got paid to write that opinionated two pages of rubbish.

As for Apple, well, they do what they want regardless of what the press says. Just like most companies really. If people haven't learned that by now, they never will. Any company with a large amount of "power" (customers) is often hated. Google is hated, Facebook is hated, Microsoft is hated, Apple is hated. Not everybody can like something. That is how the world works.
 

whooleytoo

macrumors 604
Aug 2, 2002
6,559
628
Cork, Ireland.
I just wish the DO SOMETHING crowd would give it a rest already. Mark Gurman is practically whining daily on twitter about it being April and no new products from Apple yet. Yeah I'm sure he's bored because 9to5Mac has little to write about. But he should know by now that Apple beats to its own drum, has its own timelines and certainly doesn't care whether Apple rumor sites have stuff to write about.
It's kind of funny the standard to which Apple is held sometimes. It's not just "release a updated/upgraded product every x months", but "create an industry-disruptive product, which redefines the market every x months". Regardless of what you think of them, the iMac, iPod, iTunes Store, iPhone and iPad have all have had a huge impact on their respective markets/sectors.

At the same time, it's understandable. We may be starting to reach a more settled point where we don't need to upgrade as often (other than having an iPad Air, my other devices.. Macs, iPhone etc. are all a few years old). My Mac for instance is 3 years old, non-Retina, running 10.6.8 and I'm blissfully happy with it. It's fast, stable, runs several VMs so I can work & test in OSX & Windows simultaneously.

Would I like newer devices? Certainly. Do I need them? Not at all. Until these ones start failing, the only way Apple will get more money from me is either a massive upgrade, or a brand new product. So it becomes easier to see why analysts are obsessive about 'new stuff' from Apple, particularly given they entirely focused on growth, not current market position/status.
 

Rogifan

macrumors Core
Original poster
Nov 14, 2011
20,714
22,743
It's kind of funny the standard to which Apple is held sometimes. It's not just "release a updated/upgraded product every x months", but "create an industry-disruptive product, which redefines the market every x months". Regardless of what you think of them, the iMac, iPod, iTunes Store, iPhone and iPad have all have had a huge impact on their respective markets/sectors.

At the same time, it's understandable. We may be starting to reach a more settled point where we don't need to upgrade as often (other than having an iPad Air, my other devices.. Macs, iPhone etc. are all a few years old). My Mac for instance is 3 years old, non-Retina, running 10.6.8 and I'm blissfully happy with it. It's fast, stable, runs several VMs so I can work & test in OSX & Windows simultaneously.

Would I like newer devices? Certainly. Do I need them? Not at all. Until these ones start failing, the only way Apple will get more money from me is either a massive upgrade, or a brand new product. So it becomes easier to see why analysts are obsessive about 'new stuff' from Apple, particularly given they entirely focused on growth, not current market position/status.
One thing I wish is that Apple would space out product releases more. It's looking like this year again everything they're doing is going to be pushed to the second half of the year as it seems unlikely we'll get any major product announcement before WWDC. I hope WWDC is jam packed and if it runs several hours so be it (Microsoft's Build keynote lasted 3 hours).