On Friday , we republish an article from our sibling publicationComputerworldin which that issue ’s Mike Elgan lay out the reasons he palpate Apple is today ’s Microsoft and the industriousness ’s fresh “ grownup bully . ” If you made it all the way to the close of the bit , you ’d have register the writer ’s claim that he was actually writing insupportof Apple , not to criticise it . But it sure did n’t come across that style toMacworldreaders , who flocked to the discussion train of thought for the article in our forum .
And I ca n’t say that I blame them . Although I got the point the clause was hear to make , I get many of its supporting arguments to be either unpersuasive or just obviously wrong .
Apple the monopolist?
Elgan protrude by equalise Microsoft ’s forced bundling of Internet Explorer ( IE ) on Windows PCs back in the ’ 90s with Apple ’s requirement that you install iTunes to apply an iPod . The obvious difference here is that the iPod is a computerperipheral ; like many peripherals , you necessitate to install software on your computer to use it . If you do n’t like that software , you have a choice whether or not to buy that peripheral . Do n’t like iTunes ? Do n’t buy an iPod ; there are a number of other good players — seriously — out there . That ’s a far vociferation from Microsoft telling PC trafficker that if they wanted to betray their computers with Windows — in other words , back then , if they want to actuallyselltheir computers — they had to cluster IE . And let ’s not forget that the big issue with IE was that Microsoft was using its OS monopoly to muscle the ( much better and more democratic at the time ) Netscape browser app out of the market place . I ’m trusted there are at least half a dozen other ways in which this analogy fall on its face .
Elgan ’s related to argument , that Apple including Safari on its own products is analogous to Microsoft forcingothervendors to admit Microsoft ’s web web browser if they wanted to extend Windows , is simply nonsensical .
While we ’re on the “ ram to use ” issue , the author ’s third chip of evidence is that Apple does n’t get you “ reformat [ your ] iPod and install something else . ” Ignoring for the moment that there ’s a consecrate group of people who ’ve develop a version of Linux for the iPod , what other portable medium player — allow alone any other consumer electronics gadget — lets you reformat it and put in your own OS ? The Zune ? The Yep ? originative players ? Sansa products ? No , but perhaps there ’s a wassailer out there somewhere that lets you install BeOS . ( And responding to the argument that the iPod , its software , and iTunes are three portion of a single mathematical product with “ that ’s what Microsoft suppose about Windows and IE ” is equally slaphappy . )
Sorry, dad?
Elgan then moves on to the the old technical school - pundit crutch that gets dusted off whenever someone need to criticize iTunes and the iPod : If you corrupt a non - iPod player , any euphony you purchased through iTunes wo n’t play on that actor .
It ’s true . But it’salsotrue that if you own a Zune and then purchase a instrumentalist from Apple , any medicine you buy through the Zune Marketplace wo n’t play on the iPod . And if you own a Plays For Sure ( ha ! ) role player and then grease one’s palms a Zune or an iPod , any euphony you buy for the former wo n’t play on the latter . The problem is DRM , not the iPod or iTunes or Apple . ( And , in fact , Apple offer DRM - liberal euphony , that works withanyplayer , from any label that let them — and the company is fight formorelabels to do so . Meanwhile , Microsoft is adjudicate to lure the entertainment industry by touting more - restrictive DRM . )
Sticker shock?
The clause then turn to Apple ’s recent annunciation that iTunes will allow you make ringtones out of purchased music for $ 0.99 ( plus the cost of the full song ; in other Christian Bible , you get the vocal and your customized ringtone for $ 1.98 ) . Elgan baffle the undermentioned question : “ How on Earth can Apple severely charge the same amount again for the ability to find out just 30 seconds of the song — the same length as the free iTunes samples ? ”
Now , I personally conceive it ’s ridiculous to have to pay to make a ringtone out of euphony you ’ve antecedently purchased . ludicrous . But given that paying for ringtones is The Way Things Work , agree to the music industry , it ’s only fair to consider that linguistic context when adjudicate Apple ’s promulgation . The simple retort here can be word as , “ How on Earth can the carriers badly institutionalise $ 2.49 forjustthe ringtone — and not even the part of the track thatyouchoose — even if you ’ve already purchased that euphony ? ” Yep , the least you ’ll bear with most carrier is $ 2.49 ; if you ’ve already purchased the Song dynasty online or on a atomic number 48 , and we assume you make up , say , $ 0.99 , you end up paying a sum of $ 3.48 . In that context , Apple does n’t await so bad , does it ?
Again , the veridical problem here is the music industry , not Apple . As for the iPhone and ringtones , some multitude say Apple should just allow you simulate standard euphony files over as ringtones the way some phone manufacturer do ; for instance , the several Sony - Ericsson phones I ’ve owned have all get me do this . The difference of opinion here is that Sony - Ericsson is n’t a euphony retailer and does n’t have to maintain a good relationship with the music labels .
Elgan then bring up the iPhone ’s $ 200 terms drop ; this has been debated to decease online , in the news , and ( especially ) in theMacworldforums ; I do n’t conceive it needs to be revisited here . In any instance , I ’m not indisputable what it has to do with Apple being a “ bully . ”
Apple the copycat?
The rest of Mr. Elgan ’s support for his thesis lie in of a series of representative of how Apple has “ copied ” other innovators rather than innovating itself — the gist of this line of reasoning being that the society is simply doing what Microsoft has done so many times by “ imitating ” Apple ’s OS innovations .
The example he yield ? LG ’s KE850 and its “ full - concealment , sense of touch - filmdom , on - covert keyboard ” that was around before the iPhone was even declare . The fact that multi - touch , gesture - base interfaces have been around in various laboratory for over a decade . And the Zune ’s WiFi , available since last year .
Well , trusted . And there were computers before the Apple II , graphical UIs before the Mac , and music players before the iPod . Apple ’s production are n’t innovative because no one ’s see the technology before . Apple ’s products are advanced because no one ’s made such engineering science useable and widely available before .
To wit : You do n’t grease one’s palms an iPhone because it has a touch screen . You buy an iPhone because its touchscreen , its hardware , and its technology work together the way no other phone ever has . Because its interface is straits and shoulders well than any other sound on the marketplace . Because it ’s operational where similar product are n’t . Because it ’s so cursedly coolheaded .
I do n’t think anyone will indicate that there are n’t several examples over the past decade of Apple taking existing ideas or technologies and refine them or box them in mode that make them far more appealing and utile than they had been previously ; the company has become quite skilful at doing just that . But the paint here is that when Apple adopts technologies , or uses them in novel ways , the outcome is almost alwaysbetter ; Apple stillinnovates . How many time have you hear someone say , “ You know , Apple had this OS innovation year ago , but it never worked well ; Microsoft really got it right … ” ?
He keep going Apple ?
I could spend time pluck apart some of the other statement in the article , but the gravid problem I had with Elgan ’s piece is that after suffer so many things Just unvarnished Wrong , he then goes on to talk about how he actuallysupportsApple , despite all of the Bad Things he recited . Although I ’m sure Apple welcomes support from ( almost ) any origin , after reading the article I felt as if I ’d just watch someone tell me what they thought of a political nominee ’s position base on his opposer ’s attack advertizing — and then said , “ But I ’m voting for him anyway . ”
The valiant justification for this posture is that the writer feel the “ evil monopoly hype , court cases and public posturing directed for so long at Microsoft drained energy and resourcefulness from the entire industriousness . ” In other words , there ’s nothing haywire with Apple being , in his words , a monopolist , aper and bully ; it ’s how things ferment , and trying to make it otherwise is counterproductive .
Maybe he ’s right . The irony here is that the inherent theme behind the clause — that Apple has develop , in several industry , to the degree where it wields considerable superpower — isn’t unreasonable . It ’s possible to make just such an argument and admit a balanced word of Apple ’s arise influence and how the companionship apply it ( and may use it in the time to come ) . alas , this was n’t that article , and equating Apple to the Microsoft of the ’ 90s through poor analogies is n’t the direction to go about it .
UPDATE 9/14/2007 : Clarified Zune Marketplace compatibility with Plays For Sure player .
