8 ms·

Is Apple Evil?

105 points by larrykubin 17y ago

JacobAldridge 17y ago
At what point do they run into the restrictions that came up in the Microsoft / IE situation? Do they need to be more dominant first?
- wmf 17y ago
  Do you mean antitrust scrutiny? It seems like Apple's cream-skimming strategy allows them to be really profitable without ever getting large market share.
- sgk284 17y ago
  They need a monopoly... which they are nowhere near having. Even then an AppStore isn't anti-competitive (if anything, it embraces and thrives on competition).
seldo 17y ago
I don’t know why they’re doing it. It’s hard to see how it makes them more money. (Curating all those apps must be expensive, not to mention the lost sales from the unapproved ones.) It seems like a 30% cut of any app sold for your operating system would far outweigh the cost of approving those sales.
- akeefer 17y ago
  Apple, at least, claims they don't make much money there. Per their latest quarterly call: "iTunes and App Store are still running 'a bit over break-even.' We’re investing a lot in these stores – that’s where the revenue is going." http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/25/apple-q1-2010-results/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/25/apple-q1-2010-results/
  - pyre 17y ago
    Wouldn't "W're investing a lot in these stores" translate into "lots of fixed costs are being spent building ourselves a platform to profit off of this?"
    - cakesy 17y ago
      No necessarily. It could also mean they see it as a loss leader, driving more iPhone/Touch/iPad sales. So they will not directly profit from these stores, just like they don't make much money from selling music.
  - electromagnetic 17y ago
    What happens when they stop needing to invest huge amounts of revenue into their stores? Major profits. Example: I buy a B&B and use the revenue from my rentals to expand the property to get more rooms (IE higher revenue) and I invest that too. 10 years down the road I could have the biggest hotel in the country, making record revenues but nearly zero profit, and then I stop expanding. I'm then raking in multi-millions from one-stop sales and my business will have operated exactly the same as iTunes and the App store. Apple has the potential to make huge amounts of money off of iTunes and the App store. They're just delaying this to expand their market hold and look benign. "How can Apple possibly be evil?" you hear people ask; "They barely profit off their stores," they say. 10 years down the line, when no one cares anymore, no one will bat an eyelid when Apple is taking in over a billion dollars from its iTunes and App store sales.
- rikthevik 17y ago
  The app store money is a huge deal, no doubt. This control gives them veto power over every piece of software on the iPad lets them create a seamless user experience. People are used to computers crashing and being impossible to use. I think people will pay a lot of money for a computer that doesn't require a CS degree to operate. I'm sure Apple does too.
- protomyth 17y ago
  30% of 0.99 - credit card fees - bandwidth cost credit card fees on small amounts are heinous
whalesalad 17y ago
I think people are confusing corporations succeeding in a capitalist market with "evil". This is AMERICA, where we compete for everything and anyone can do anything, as long as they can do it better than someone else. Apple is not evil. They're a company that likes to make money, and likes to make devices that people blow their loads over. I worked at apple for a while... they gave me some cool things like a free bus pas ($50 in Hawaii) every month to encourage use of public transit. They're certainly not evil, not any more evil than Google, Microsoft, HP, IBM, the list goes on... They're just the most successful. And it always sucks at the top, because everyone is trying to bring you down. Imagine all the companies that are trying to get at Apple's trade secrets, it's no wonder they have such intense security.
- Sanguinez 17y ago
  Companies can be successful and making a lot of money without taking away their users' freedom. It doesn't make them evil, but it makes me loose any interest in their products.
- jacobolus 17y ago
  Who said anything about secrecy or getting at their trade secrets? Aaron is sad that Apple’s long-term strategy, as far as he can tell, is to build locked-down platforms where they take control away from device owners. This makes those of us who like to tinker – who believe in constructivist education and free culture and open systems and decentralized power – sad, because the more successful these devices are, the more they threaten to undermine those values.
  - mos1 17y ago
    Our lives are full of devices that could be general purpose, but were made more specialized for ease of use, maintenance, battery life, or w/e. I don't understand why so many people are getting their panties in a knot because somebody is selling another non-general-use device with a processor. And I know that hyperbolic rhetoric is fun, but let's be realistic. This is not undermining constructivist education, free culture, decentralized power or open systems in any meaningful way. If you really think it's accomplishing all that, go take your medication.
lurkinggrue 17y ago
They are not evil, just a bit Authoritarian. That dosn't settle well with many geeks but shiny can overcome that in some.
- gwern 17y ago
  I disagree; I think Apple's alignment is more Lawful Evil.
  - cakesy 17y ago
    Microsoft are evil because, well, pick one of a 1000 cases where they have chosen the evil option. From lying about their products, destroying good companies, stifling competition, driving up the costs of PCs, forcing propreitary formats, Internet explorer, etc... Google are evil becuase they gather large amounts of data about us, and us it for various purposes including targetting ads. Apple are evil for DRM abuses they used to use on their music store, and they still use on their devices, like the iPhone/Touch. They could make things easier. All depends on how you look at it.
  - lurkinggrue 17y ago
    Hmmm... that would explain a lot.
stanleydrew 17y ago
It’s clear that Apple plans for the iPhone OS to be the future of its product line. I don't like that they are making such a big push with the iPhone OS either, but how is it "clear" that Apple plans to make it the foundation of its future product line?
- netcan 17y ago
  Thinking of it, I'm surprised that they haven't made more moves in that direction yet. Can you think of anyone you know who would be better off with an Iphone like OS for their primary machine? Streamlined & controlled app installation. No file system access. No virtual desktop. No desktop at all. I know several. The reality is that most people still feel awkward with computers. They have to ask for help. They qualify sentences with "I don't know computers." It's not just about what they can do (they can usually get their work done), it's about how that feels. It feels crap. I seriously think that if you put an iMac sized iphone in front of them with a Word app and such, they would feel a lot better with it. They wouldn't need to ask for help. They wouldn't feel like they don't understand. They would be able to get their work done just as well. In fact, an iPad with 3g & a keyboard dock is almost there. Maybe it is there. Why should Apple want the world of computing to look like this? They are good at that world.
robg 17y ago
What if they're simply aiming for a bigger slice of the PC market? They came to dominate smartphones (and Music distribution) well-after the fact by simplifying everything. I don't see why the PC market is any different. Apples were always supposed to be easy to use and they've made software installations and updates much easier by controlling the process. 8% of the market leaves plenty of room for improvement and I'd bet a majority of users would gladly give up freedom for simplicity. http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2010/01/while-pc-market-rebounds-apple-slips-into-5th-place-in-us.ars http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2010/01/while-pc-market...
akeefer 17y ago
I think it's perfectly clear why they're doing this: because they think it provides a better consumer experience. That, in turn, is what translates into more money and more sales. (I believe they said on their conference call earlier this week that don't make much off their cut of app sales). The iPhone and iPad are not computers: they're extensible consumer electronics devices. The iPhone sells so well precisely because it just works, and it's really hard to screw it up relative to a computer. How is creating a consumer electronics device evil? Because people want it to be a computer? Because it'll somehow erode the market for full-fledged computers? Because they're attracting developers to their closed system? How is this any more evil than Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft making their game consoles relatively closed systems? We should all keep in mind that computers as such are a usability and maintenance disaster for 95% of the population who has no idea how to deal with viruses, install or remove software, resolve crashes or incompatibilities, or even navigate a file system so they don't lose their documents. Maybe I'm too cynical about computers and give Apple too much of the benefit of the doubt, but their devices are good precisely because they exert so much end-to-end control, and computers are broken for so many people precisely because they're so open.
- robg 17y ago
  The more I think about the iPad, the more it looks like a computer to me and one that would satisfy a large segment of the PC market. I'm just not sure why Apple isn't marketing it as one and selling a package that includes the dock and keyboard and maybe even speakers. It's a PC but one that you can easily take with you, turn on quickly, and do stuff on the go. In a weird way, the history of the Tablet seems to have them responding that it's not a Tablet PC. But I see no reason, practically, why it couldn't be exactly that. Otherwise, I agree with you completely. And looking at their 8% market share of PCs, there's a lot of room for them to improve in that category and do very, very well. They've already shown that simplicity sells.
  - benatkin 17y ago
    > selling a package that includes the dock and keyboard I think many of those who are fine with it being their main computer will be fine without a keyboard. Also, it wouldn't be Apple's style. It reminds me of how the MacBook Air doesn't come with an optical drive.
gr366 17y ago
I don't know the answer to this, but have we seen evidence that Apple's commitment to OS X is waning? They seem to have discussed multiple product lines today, one of those being the "computer" market, and the others being part of their new "mobile device" markets, namely iPhone/iPod Touch and the new tablet. I do know that as far as tech support, I've had to help my girlfriend out a ton with her MacBook (curse you spinning beach ball), but the extent of support I've had to provide for her iPhone has been, "switch it off and switch it on again." Perhaps Apple is distinguishing between full-fledged computers (for those who have the technical skill and desire to tinker) and consumer devices that are, yes, tightly controlled but less likely to get screwed up by your average person who likes to email, browse the web and watch videos.
- tjmc 17y ago
  I think that's the key point - this is a great "computer for dummies". A machine your grandparents could use. I don't need an iPad in the same way I don't need a car with built-in radar to help me reverse. But there are plenty of people who do need that help. I'm happy for the choice to be there, just as long as I can still buy an open machine. Personally, I don't see Apple giving up on that area.
dannyr 17y ago
"That’s not to say the iPad won’t sell, or that I don’t want one. The scariest thing is that I think it probably will. ... I love Apple products. I’m a huge Apple fan. I’d buy an iPad right now if I could." This is why Apple will continue to do what it is doing right now. People complain about its controlling policies. People call them "evil". But these very same people will not back up their words with action and continue to buy products made by an "evil" company. As long as Apple continue to hit its peak in stock price, as long as it earns record-breaking profits, as long as it sells millions of products, it will not change its ways. To the author, you can blog all you want about Apple's policies. The only thing that matters is for you to turn that into action. If you think Apple is "evil", don't buy its product. Stop patronizing "evil".
- wmf 17y ago
  I am boycotting the iPhone/iPad (I have the open N900), but I don't have any illusions that it will change anything. In a world where 1% of the people create all the innovation, boycotts by innovators are pointless. For the past ~20 years the masses have been effectively subsidizing tinkerers/hackers/developers by buying open PCs even though they didn't really need them; now that has come to an end and it looks painful to those former beneficiaries.
  - pyre 17y ago
    It's not 'coming to an end.' Business users will still use laptops. No one is going to be writing novels or creating complex spreadsheets on an iPad. 'The masses' will need a computer that can do those other things well (for school or such), and they don't have the budget to buy a general-purpose PC/Mac + an iPad + an iPhone.
    - DougBTX 17y ago
      That's not as clear as it sounds. Most people don't write novels or complex spreadsheets. For short stories and simple spreadsheets, the dock plus a wireless keyboard And iWork Touch might suffice. My hope that there will always be an open Mac is based on the thought that they need to sell something on which to write apps. Hopefully they keep one of these devices in laptop form factor.
volida 17y ago
The are betting on their platform which should be more than enough for the average user, therefore the lack of Flash. Whether that will fire-back to them remains to be seen. It probably wont for the time being. But why is everyone making so important issue the need for Flash? Except playing videos (for which there are alternative) I don't see much other use. The average user doesn't care what OS you give them as long as you are meeting their expectations. As long as Safari is full compliant with the web standards I don't care about anything else. Anyhow, if this is going to be a successful product other hardware makers will follow and you will be able to install Windows.
- dandelany 17y ago
  But why is everyone making so important issue the need for Flash? Two reasons: 1. It's Apple, everything is supposed to just work. As a web developer, I not a huge Flash fan. But if I'm on my iPhone or iPad and I get the "missing plugin" brick, I'm pissed: I'm missing out on content. Steve Jobs wasn't telling the whole truth when he said it was the "real internet". and 2. Flash was introduced almost 15 years ago. The fact that Apple is today announcing a magical device with a touchscreen and a blazing fast mobile processor, but one that cannot run a plugin that my grey Gateway 2000 Pentium I desktop had no trouble with just seems backwards. I don't know if it's an Apple problem or an Adobe problem, but it's what you get when you mix two companies with closed software standards.
  - volida 17y ago
    Your points are valid, but I don't see how they affect the average web user. I'd be iterated too if there was a missing plugin. But most pages don't depend on flash so the odds of that happening are less. With the upcoming compilation of Flash to native applications developers will be able to tunnel their apps through the App Store. Not perfect but for Flash game developers it's not so bad.
ecq 17y ago
"And the iPhone OS will only run software that they specifically approve. No Flash or other alternate runtimes, no one-off apps or open source customizations. Just total control by Apple. It’s a frightening future. I don’t know why they’re doing it." I'll tell you why. because Apple's number one priority is the user experience. You need that kind of control if you want the best possible user experience. And it works for them and their users. 99.999% doesn't give a shit about your concerns. That's the reason why iPhone sales trumps Nexus One/Droid/etc.
- pyre 17y ago
  > I'll tell you why. because Apple's number one priority is the user experience. You need that kind of control if you want the best possible user experience. If Apple applied their logic to the Universe (or at least Earth) we would all be living in an episode of Leave it to Beaver to 'improve the user experience.' What if you don't want to live in a Leave it to Beaver universe? Too bad.
  - CamperBob 17y ago
    When Apple starts paying off legislators and bribing judges to outlaw the possession of Linux- and Windows-based PCs, you'll have a point. I don't see that happening, do you? Nobody is forcing you to live in Leave It to Beaver-land; you're just bitching because your cable company added an oldies channel that carries it.
    - pyre 17y ago
      Huh? I just took Apple's logic and applied it to an extreme. I didn't say that the extreme example applies to the real world. You have to scale down the extreme example to fit it into the real world. The 'universe/world' here the equivalent of the 'iPad/iPhone.' Trying to claim that I'm really saying that Apple is controlling the world is either disingenuous or the result of an ill-fitting tinfoil hat.
    - cageface 17y ago
      What happens when the only way I can read a book I want to read or listen to an album I want to hear is through Apple's channel? It's the combination of a closed delivery system and their increasing dominance of digital content that's worrisome.
greenlblue 17y ago
Any time there are ideological stakes and interests there are bound to be "evil" plans to preserve them. In the end it's going to be consumer choice and as long as Apple keeps their customers comfortably numb I don't think they are going to change their ways to be friendlier to the developer community.
s3graham 17y ago
I'm not buying it. Agreed, Apple is certainly trying to close things down, but there's sufficient competition in the space that I don't see the "frightening future". If pads take off now, there'll be a decent Android GoogPad, WinMo ZunePad, with Amazon selling no-DRM media, etc. and you can decide if you want a slightly less sexy design in exchange for device functionality/flexibility.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
derefr 17y ago
The important thing to remember here: there will always need to be a platform to run your IDE on to develop the closed-platform apps. Even In a completely locked-down world, the platform SDK has to be running on something.
jsz0 17y ago
As long as Apple doesn't do anything to harm alternative platforms I admire their determination to provide the most elegant, usable, consumer devices possible. I want the most usable device possible and I'm willing to accept some limitations to get it. It's a choice that's just as valid as buying the most hardcore Linux/OSS device you can find because you want the maximum flexibility and freedom.
gsmaverick 17y ago
If you think it's so bad then don't buy it. As long as you continue to buy Apple products you are supporting their policies.
dnsworks 17y ago
The real evil I see with Apple is the App Store. It's very anti-competitive. Since you can only sell ipod/ipad applications through their store, they own a monopoly on it. This is problematic because it's a model that will never allow any competition. If I wanted to start a store that takes only a 5% or 10% commission of every ipod/ipad application sale, I am unable to do this. Apple is preventing me from selling other people's software more competitively than they can. Imagine if Walmart told all video game manufacturers that they were no longer allowed to distribute through any other channel besides Walmart.
- philwelch 17y ago
  That's a bad analogy. A better analogy is, "Imagine if Microsoft told all video game manufacturers that they were no longer allowed to sell Xbox games without having them approved by...oh, wait." (If console games were small enough for digital download to be feasible, do you really think Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo would let you buy them at every damn store? Would they even bother putting drives in the machines anymore?)
  - dnsworks 17y ago
    Don't you get the feeling that Apple is trying to phase our their OS X model towards a more iphone-like ecosphere where they can own everything? I do.
    - philwelch 17y ago
      If they had done anything with the Mac, then maybe. But they haven't, and they have little reason to if only because they need to sell Macs to iPhone/iPad developers.
ronnier 17y ago
>It’s a frightening future It's not that frighting, use Windows.
- neilk 17y ago
  I think you mean "Ubuntu".
  - ronnier 17y ago
    Either one, my point is that other options exist.
tzury 17y ago
Dear Mr. Jobs, You have just announced the most restricted personal computing platform ever! evil, even with a slick look remains evil http://twitter.com/tzury/status/8312812934 http://twitter.com/tzury/status/8312812934
awa 17y ago
I don't think it would be long before somebody is able to root the device and install a version of linux or android on the device. The nook was rooted within days and the iPad would be definitely more tempting to hackers to tinker with.
zppx 17y ago
How will developers create new applications for the iPhone OS without the Mac? Just think about this question to see how this article is utterly nonsensical. Contrary to what the Apple apologists are saying Apple do not have "user experience" as it main concern. What is really happening is just a transition, Apple is becoming more and more a digital content distributor and less of the hardware/software company that it was in the past will remain, but it will not be obliterated, and the iPad is just a materialization of this police of a company that is trying to win more money in this market.
kenshi 17y ago
The iPad and other closed systems (PS3, Xbox) don't magically make Windows PCs, Macs, Linux or the Web go away. As developers we have more choices than we have had in a very long time in terms of picking the platforms we want to develop for. Every platform has its pros and cons, as a developer you get to choose what's important to you when picking a platform to target. People who want to write software will always pick open systems. People who aren't techies or creatives just want technology to serve a purpose (users of information appliances), and just want things to work with the minimal amount of fuss. Locking things down simplifies a lot of things for end users. The panic over every platform that gets released that isn't suitably open, just makes me think of this Alan Kay quote: "In fact, let’s not even worry about Java. Let’s not complain about Microsoft. Let’s not worry about them because we know how to program computers, too, and in fact we know how to do it in a meta-way. We can set up an alternative point of view, and we’re not the only ones who do this, as you’re well aware." Source: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039523 http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039523
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
joeycfan 17y ago
Yes, because they lock down their products. You should be able to install on your iphone anything you want.
lssndrdn 17y ago
it’s not hard to imagine Apple doing their best to phase out the Macintosh in the next decade, just as they phased out OS 9 I completely disagree. There's a need for high end machines for image, sound, and other professionals who use these machines because they are really good. Sure, some people who would have bought a iMac will end up buying an iPad instead because really all they need to do is surf the web and check their mail. But from there to discontinuing Mac OS X altogether it's a big leap of the imagination which I find unfounded.

105 points by larrykubin 17y ago

At what point do they run into the restrictions that came up in the Microsoft / IE situation? Do they need to be more dominant first?

wmf 17y ago
Do you mean antitrust scrutiny? It seems like Apple's cream-skimming strategy allows them to be really profitable without ever getting large market share.
sgk284 17y ago
They need a monopoly... which they are nowhere near having. Even then an AppStore isn't anti-competitive (if anything, it embraces and thrives on competition).

seldo 17y ago

I don’t know why they’re doing it. It’s hard to see how it makes them more money. (Curating all those apps must be expensive, not to mention the lost sales from the unapproved ones.) It seems like a 30% cut of any app sold for your operating system would far outweigh the cost of approving those sales.

akeefer 17y ago
Apple, at least, claims they don't make much money there. Per their latest quarterly call: "iTunes and App Store are still running 'a bit over break-even.' We’re investing a lot in these stores – that’s where the revenue is going." http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/25/apple-q1-2010-results/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/25/apple-q1-2010-results/
- pyre 17y ago
  Wouldn't "W're investing a lot in these stores" translate into "lots of fixed costs are being spent building ourselves a platform to profit off of this?"
  - cakesy 17y ago
    No necessarily. It could also mean they see it as a loss leader, driving more iPhone/Touch/iPad sales. So they will not directly profit from these stores, just like they don't make much money from selling music.
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  What happens when they stop needing to invest huge amounts of revenue into their stores? Major profits. Example: I buy a B&B and use the revenue from my rentals to expand the property to get more rooms (IE higher revenue) and I invest that too. 10 years down the road I could have the biggest hotel in the country, making record revenues but nearly zero profit, and then I stop expanding. I'm then raking in multi-millions from one-stop sales and my business will have operated exactly the same as iTunes and the App store. Apple has the potential to make huge amounts of money off of iTunes and the App store. They're just delaying this to expand their market hold and look benign. "How can Apple possibly be evil?" you hear people ask; "They barely profit off their stores," they say. 10 years down the line, when no one cares anymore, no one will bat an eyelid when Apple is taking in over a billion dollars from its iTunes and App store sales.
rikthevik 17y ago
The app store money is a huge deal, no doubt. This control gives them veto power over every piece of software on the iPad lets them create a seamless user experience. People are used to computers crashing and being impossible to use. I think people will pay a lot of money for a computer that doesn't require a CS degree to operate. I'm sure Apple does too.
protomyth 17y ago
30% of 0.99 - credit card fees - bandwidth cost credit card fees on small amounts are heinous

whalesalad 17y ago

I think people are confusing corporations succeeding in a capitalist market with "evil". This is AMERICA, where we compete for everything and anyone can do anything, as long as they can do it better than someone else. Apple is not evil. They're a company that likes to make money, and likes to make devices that people blow their loads over. I worked at apple for a while... they gave me some cool things like a free bus pas ($50 in Hawaii) every month to encourage use of public transit. They're certainly not evil, not any more evil than Google, Microsoft, HP, IBM, the list goes on... They're just the most successful. And it always sucks at the top, because everyone is trying to bring you down. Imagine all the companies that are trying to get at Apple's trade secrets, it's no wonder they have such intense security.

Sanguinez 17y ago
Companies can be successful and making a lot of money without taking away their users' freedom. It doesn't make them evil, but it makes me loose any interest in their products.
jacobolus 17y ago
Who said anything about secrecy or getting at their trade secrets? Aaron is sad that Apple’s long-term strategy, as far as he can tell, is to build locked-down platforms where they take control away from device owners. This makes those of us who like to tinker – who believe in constructivist education and free culture and open systems and decentralized power – sad, because the more successful these devices are, the more they threaten to undermine those values.
- mos1 17y ago
  Our lives are full of devices that could be general purpose, but were made more specialized for ease of use, maintenance, battery life, or w/e. I don't understand why so many people are getting their panties in a knot because somebody is selling another non-general-use device with a processor. And I know that hyperbolic rhetoric is fun, but let's be realistic. This is not undermining constructivist education, free culture, decentralized power or open systems in any meaningful way. If you really think it's accomplishing all that, go take your medication.

lurkinggrue 17y ago

They are not evil, just a bit Authoritarian. That dosn't settle well with many geeks but shiny can overcome that in some.

gwern 17y ago
I disagree; I think Apple's alignment is more Lawful Evil.
- cakesy 17y ago
  Microsoft are evil because, well, pick one of a 1000 cases where they have chosen the evil option. From lying about their products, destroying good companies, stifling competition, driving up the costs of PCs, forcing propreitary formats, Internet explorer, etc... Google are evil becuase they gather large amounts of data about us, and us it for various purposes including targetting ads. Apple are evil for DRM abuses they used to use on their music store, and they still use on their devices, like the iPhone/Touch. They could make things easier. All depends on how you look at it.
- lurkinggrue 17y ago
  Hmmm... that would explain a lot.

stanleydrew 17y ago

It’s clear that Apple plans for the iPhone OS to be the future of its product line. I don't like that they are making such a big push with the iPhone OS either, but how is it "clear" that Apple plans to make it the foundation of its future product line?

netcan 17y ago
Thinking of it, I'm surprised that they haven't made more moves in that direction yet. Can you think of anyone you know who would be better off with an Iphone like OS for their primary machine? Streamlined & controlled app installation. No file system access. No virtual desktop. No desktop at all. I know several. The reality is that most people still feel awkward with computers. They have to ask for help. They qualify sentences with "I don't know computers." It's not just about what they can do (they can usually get their work done), it's about how that feels. It feels crap. I seriously think that if you put an iMac sized iphone in front of them with a Word app and such, they would feel a lot better with it. They wouldn't need to ask for help. They wouldn't feel like they don't understand. They would be able to get their work done just as well. In fact, an iPad with 3g & a keyboard dock is almost there. Maybe it is there. Why should Apple want the world of computing to look like this? They are good at that world.

robg 17y ago

What if they're simply aiming for a bigger slice of the PC market? They came to dominate smartphones (and Music distribution) well-after the fact by simplifying everything. I don't see why the PC market is any different. Apples were always supposed to be easy to use and they've made software installations and updates much easier by controlling the process. 8% of the market leaves plenty of room for improvement and I'd bet a majority of users would gladly give up freedom for simplicity. http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2010/01/while-pc-market-rebounds-apple-slips-into-5th-place-in-us.ars http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2010/01/while-pc-market...

akeefer 17y ago

I think it's perfectly clear why they're doing this: because they think it provides a better consumer experience. That, in turn, is what translates into more money and more sales. (I believe they said on their conference call earlier this week that don't make much off their cut of app sales). The iPhone and iPad are not computers: they're extensible consumer electronics devices. The iPhone sells so well precisely because it just works, and it's really hard to screw it up relative to a computer. How is creating a consumer electronics device evil? Because people want it to be a computer? Because it'll somehow erode the market for full-fledged computers? Because they're attracting developers to their closed system? How is this any more evil than Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft making their game consoles relatively closed systems? We should all keep in mind that computers as such are a usability and maintenance disaster for 95% of the population who has no idea how to deal with viruses, install or remove software, resolve crashes or incompatibilities, or even navigate a file system so they don't lose their documents. Maybe I'm too cynical about computers and give Apple too much of the benefit of the doubt, but their devices are good precisely because they exert so much end-to-end control, and computers are broken for so many people precisely because they're so open.

robg 17y ago
The more I think about the iPad, the more it looks like a computer to me and one that would satisfy a large segment of the PC market. I'm just not sure why Apple isn't marketing it as one and selling a package that includes the dock and keyboard and maybe even speakers. It's a PC but one that you can easily take with you, turn on quickly, and do stuff on the go. In a weird way, the history of the Tablet seems to have them responding that it's not a Tablet PC. But I see no reason, practically, why it couldn't be exactly that. Otherwise, I agree with you completely. And looking at their 8% market share of PCs, there's a lot of room for them to improve in that category and do very, very well. They've already shown that simplicity sells.
- benatkin 17y ago
  > selling a package that includes the dock and keyboard I think many of those who are fine with it being their main computer will be fine without a keyboard. Also, it wouldn't be Apple's style. It reminds me of how the MacBook Air doesn't come with an optical drive.

gr366 17y ago

I don't know the answer to this, but have we seen evidence that Apple's commitment to OS X is waning? They seem to have discussed multiple product lines today, one of those being the "computer" market, and the others being part of their new "mobile device" markets, namely iPhone/iPod Touch and the new tablet. I do know that as far as tech support, I've had to help my girlfriend out a ton with her MacBook (curse you spinning beach ball), but the extent of support I've had to provide for her iPhone has been, "switch it off and switch it on again." Perhaps Apple is distinguishing between full-fledged computers (for those who have the technical skill and desire to tinker) and consumer devices that are, yes, tightly controlled but less likely to get screwed up by your average person who likes to email, browse the web and watch videos.

tjmc 17y ago
I think that's the key point - this is a great "computer for dummies". A machine your grandparents could use. I don't need an iPad in the same way I don't need a car with built-in radar to help me reverse. But there are plenty of people who do need that help. I'm happy for the choice to be there, just as long as I can still buy an open machine. Personally, I don't see Apple giving up on that area.

dannyr 17y ago

"That’s not to say the iPad won’t sell, or that I don’t want one. The scariest thing is that I think it probably will. ... I love Apple products. I’m a huge Apple fan. I’d buy an iPad right now if I could." This is why Apple will continue to do what it is doing right now. People complain about its controlling policies. People call them "evil". But these very same people will not back up their words with action and continue to buy products made by an "evil" company. As long as Apple continue to hit its peak in stock price, as long as it earns record-breaking profits, as long as it sells millions of products, it will not change its ways. To the author, you can blog all you want about Apple's policies. The only thing that matters is for you to turn that into action. If you think Apple is "evil", don't buy its product. Stop patronizing "evil".

wmf 17y ago
I am boycotting the iPhone/iPad (I have the open N900), but I don't have any illusions that it will change anything. In a world where 1% of the people create all the innovation, boycotts by innovators are pointless. For the past ~20 years the masses have been effectively subsidizing tinkerers/hackers/developers by buying open PCs even though they didn't really need them; now that has come to an end and it looks painful to those former beneficiaries.
- pyre 17y ago
  It's not 'coming to an end.' Business users will still use laptops. No one is going to be writing novels or creating complex spreadsheets on an iPad. 'The masses' will need a computer that can do those other things well (for school or such), and they don't have the budget to buy a general-purpose PC/Mac + an iPad + an iPhone.
  - DougBTX 17y ago
    That's not as clear as it sounds. Most people don't write novels or complex spreadsheets. For short stories and simple spreadsheets, the dock plus a wireless keyboard And iWork Touch might suffice. My hope that there will always be an open Mac is based on the thought that they need to sell something on which to write apps. Hopefully they keep one of these devices in laptop form factor.

volida 17y ago

The are betting on their platform which should be more than enough for the average user, therefore the lack of Flash. Whether that will fire-back to them remains to be seen. It probably wont for the time being. But why is everyone making so important issue the need for Flash? Except playing videos (for which there are alternative) I don't see much other use. The average user doesn't care what OS you give them as long as you are meeting their expectations. As long as Safari is full compliant with the web standards I don't care about anything else. Anyhow, if this is going to be a successful product other hardware makers will follow and you will be able to install Windows.

dandelany 17y ago
But why is everyone making so important issue the need for Flash? Two reasons: 1. It's Apple, everything is supposed to just work. As a web developer, I not a huge Flash fan. But if I'm on my iPhone or iPad and I get the "missing plugin" brick, I'm pissed: I'm missing out on content. Steve Jobs wasn't telling the whole truth when he said it was the "real internet". and 2. Flash was introduced almost 15 years ago. The fact that Apple is today announcing a magical device with a touchscreen and a blazing fast mobile processor, but one that cannot run a plugin that my grey Gateway 2000 Pentium I desktop had no trouble with just seems backwards. I don't know if it's an Apple problem or an Adobe problem, but it's what you get when you mix two companies with closed software standards.
- volida 17y ago
  Your points are valid, but I don't see how they affect the average web user. I'd be iterated too if there was a missing plugin. But most pages don't depend on flash so the odds of that happening are less. With the upcoming compilation of Flash to native applications developers will be able to tunnel their apps through the App Store. Not perfect but for Flash game developers it's not so bad.

ecq 17y ago

"And the iPhone OS will only run software that they specifically approve. No Flash or other alternate runtimes, no one-off apps or open source customizations. Just total control by Apple. It’s a frightening future. I don’t know why they’re doing it." I'll tell you why. because Apple's number one priority is the user experience. You need that kind of control if you want the best possible user experience. And it works for them and their users. 99.999% doesn't give a shit about your concerns. That's the reason why iPhone sales trumps Nexus One/Droid/etc.

pyre 17y ago
> I'll tell you why. because Apple's number one priority is the user experience. You need that kind of control if you want the best possible user experience. If Apple applied their logic to the Universe (or at least Earth) we would all be living in an episode of Leave it to Beaver to 'improve the user experience.' What if you don't want to live in a Leave it to Beaver universe? Too bad.
- CamperBob 17y ago
  When Apple starts paying off legislators and bribing judges to outlaw the possession of Linux- and Windows-based PCs, you'll have a point. I don't see that happening, do you? Nobody is forcing you to live in Leave It to Beaver-land; you're just bitching because your cable company added an oldies channel that carries it.
  - pyre 17y ago
    Huh? I just took Apple's logic and applied it to an extreme. I didn't say that the extreme example applies to the real world. You have to scale down the extreme example to fit it into the real world. The 'universe/world' here the equivalent of the 'iPad/iPhone.' Trying to claim that I'm really saying that Apple is controlling the world is either disingenuous or the result of an ill-fitting tinfoil hat.
  - cageface 17y ago
    What happens when the only way I can read a book I want to read or listen to an album I want to hear is through Apple's channel? It's the combination of a closed delivery system and their increasing dominance of digital content that's worrisome.

greenlblue 17y ago

Any time there are ideological stakes and interests there are bound to be "evil" plans to preserve them. In the end it's going to be consumer choice and as long as Apple keeps their customers comfortably numb I don't think they are going to change their ways to be friendlier to the developer community.

s3graham 17y ago

I'm not buying it. Agreed, Apple is certainly trying to close things down, but there's sufficient competition in the space that I don't see the "frightening future". If pads take off now, there'll be a decent Android GoogPad, WinMo ZunePad, with Amazon selling no-DRM media, etc. and you can decide if you want a slightly less sexy design in exchange for device functionality/flexibility.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

derefr 17y ago

The important thing to remember here: there will always need to be a platform to run your IDE on to develop the closed-platform apps. Even In a completely locked-down world, the platform SDK has to be running on something.

jsz0 17y ago

As long as Apple doesn't do anything to harm alternative platforms I admire their determination to provide the most elegant, usable, consumer devices possible. I want the most usable device possible and I'm willing to accept some limitations to get it. It's a choice that's just as valid as buying the most hardcore Linux/OSS device you can find because you want the maximum flexibility and freedom.

gsmaverick 17y ago

If you think it's so bad then don't buy it. As long as you continue to buy Apple products you are supporting their policies.

dnsworks 17y ago

The real evil I see with Apple is the App Store. It's very anti-competitive. Since you can only sell ipod/ipad applications through their store, they own a monopoly on it. This is problematic because it's a model that will never allow any competition. If I wanted to start a store that takes only a 5% or 10% commission of every ipod/ipad application sale, I am unable to do this. Apple is preventing me from selling other people's software more competitively than they can. Imagine if Walmart told all video game manufacturers that they were no longer allowed to distribute through any other channel besides Walmart.

philwelch 17y ago
That's a bad analogy. A better analogy is, "Imagine if Microsoft told all video game manufacturers that they were no longer allowed to sell Xbox games without having them approved by...oh, wait." (If console games were small enough for digital download to be feasible, do you really think Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo would let you buy them at every damn store? Would they even bother putting drives in the machines anymore?)
- dnsworks 17y ago
  Don't you get the feeling that Apple is trying to phase our their OS X model towards a more iphone-like ecosphere where they can own everything? I do.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    If they had done anything with the Mac, then maybe. But they haven't, and they have little reason to if only because they need to sell Macs to iPhone/iPad developers.

ronnier 17y ago

>It’s a frightening future It's not that frighting, use Windows.

neilk 17y ago
I think you mean "Ubuntu".
- ronnier 17y ago
  Either one, my point is that other options exist.

tzury 17y ago

Dear Mr. Jobs, You have just announced the most restricted personal computing platform ever! evil, even with a slick look remains evil http://twitter.com/tzury/status/8312812934 http://twitter.com/tzury/status/8312812934

awa 17y ago

I don't think it would be long before somebody is able to root the device and install a version of linux or android on the device. The nook was rooted within days and the iPad would be definitely more tempting to hackers to tinker with.

zppx 17y ago

How will developers create new applications for the iPhone OS without the Mac? Just think about this question to see how this article is utterly nonsensical. Contrary to what the Apple apologists are saying Apple do not have "user experience" as it main concern. What is really happening is just a transition, Apple is becoming more and more a digital content distributor and less of the hardware/software company that it was in the past will remain, but it will not be obliterated, and the iPad is just a materialization of this police of a company that is trying to win more money in this market.

kenshi 17y ago

The iPad and other closed systems (PS3, Xbox) don't magically make Windows PCs, Macs, Linux or the Web go away. As developers we have more choices than we have had in a very long time in terms of picking the platforms we want to develop for. Every platform has its pros and cons, as a developer you get to choose what's important to you when picking a platform to target. People who want to write software will always pick open systems. People who aren't techies or creatives just want technology to serve a purpose (users of information appliances), and just want things to work with the minimal amount of fuss. Locking things down simplifies a lot of things for end users. The panic over every platform that gets released that isn't suitably open, just makes me think of this Alan Kay quote: "In fact, let’s not even worry about Java. Let’s not complain about Microsoft. Let’s not worry about them because we know how to program computers, too, and in fact we know how to do it in a meta-way. We can set up an alternative point of view, and we’re not the only ones who do this, as you’re well aware." Source: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039523 http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039523

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

joeycfan 17y ago

Yes, because they lock down their products. You should be able to install on your iphone anything you want.

lssndrdn 17y ago

it’s not hard to imagine Apple doing their best to phase out the Macintosh in the next decade, just as they phased out OS 9 I completely disagree. There's a need for high end machines for image, sound, and other professionals who use these machines because they are really good. Sure, some people who would have bought a iMac will end up buying an iPad instead because really all they need to do is surf the web and check their mail. But from there to discontinuing Mac OS X altogether it's a big leap of the imagination which I find unfounded.