Tech Monopolies
I’m no fan of Microsoft. My biggest beef with them isn’t their virtual monopoly on home computing, but the way they’ve used that monopoly to crush their competitors. One thing I think is funny though is that Microsoft is such a popular target for criticism that people tend to cut Apple a lot more slack than they might deserve.
For example, I won’t deny that Microsoft’s OS is full of bugs and oversights that make them easy targets for hackers and virus writers, but there’s a good reason for it. Microsoft’s software is designed to work on almost everything. So the end result is a bloated piece of shit that may have what’s necessary to run on your specific PC, sound card, video card, etc., but it’s going to end up coming with a ton of crap you don’t need.
This is true not only driver-wise, but feature-wise. Consequently, every time you hear about some new exploit that could allow hackers to steal your credit card number, the solution usually involves turning off some obscure feature that Microsoft threw in there for the 0.01% of users that demanded it. In Microsoft’s zeal to please everybody, they generally end up pleasing nobody.
Why doesn’t Apple have these problems? Well, aside from the facts that they aren’t an attractive target and that their OS is now built on a robust version of Unix, it’s a lot easier for them to cover all their bases since they do it all. Can you imagine the uproar if Microsoft’s software ran exclusively on Microsoft hardware? People would go nuts. Yet that’s the situation with Apple.
Apple has avoided much scrutiny in this regard since they’re nowhere near Microsoft in terms of users, but their ubiquity in the online and portable music business is about to change all that. With iTunes the most popular venue for legal music downloading and the iPod the most popular player, Apple has already started to flex their muscles by using firmware upgrades to block iPod users from playing any music downloaded using Real’s Rhapsody music store. Needless to say, now that Apple is joining the ranks of the flash music players as well, I think we can expect the backlash to heat up even more.
I’ll admit I’ve always sided more with the PC end of the spectrum, but I would be lying if I didn’t admit that Apple’s operating system, hardware, and services are a thousand times cooler than anything Microsoft offers. But if it’s wrong for Microsoft to bundle their browser and media player with their OS, isn’t it just as wrong for Apple to bundle their OS and hardware or their music store and music player?
25 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
sorry, but this is two different scenarios. apple is not keeping anyone from developing software for its platform, or locking out other software developers. apple’s media player or browser can be easily detached - just drag the thing into the trash.
if you want choices on the mac they are there for you. the unix core and well documented api allows you to write the software you want.
if you don’t like apple’s ipod practices, get another mp3 player. they all work on the mac.
this is a red herring/strawman argument.
Comment by nova silverpill — January 11, 2005 @ 1:02 pm
strawman: Almost certainly an argument coming from a mac devotee . I agree whole heartedly with greg on this one. Apple is about to have their arse handed to them on a platter, as more and more people move to that platform (and rightly so since Windoze is such a piece of shite). Especially now that so many windoze users are using the iPod, I’ll bet any money that a lot of those L^Husers will be switching to mac for their next PC purchase. And as more and more L^Husers switch to mac there will be more and more trojans and viruses appearing on that platform as well. It appears to be imminently more secure than any windoze box, but it will be targeted and security breached, by user error if anything, rather than by the inherent insecurity of the OS or any of its components.
I am a firm proponent of freedom to choose, which is why I always stayed away from apple (well, since the mac came out anyway, I used to build apple II clones way back in the late ’70’s and early ’80’s. I battled with Windoze on and off for 10 years or so before I finally swore off it for good and switched all of my boxen to linux (which I’ve been running since the 0.8x kernels anyway, god only remembers when that happened). Before that I played a lot with a bunch of other unices for PC including Interactive (I think it was) and qnx (a really kewl real time unix like OS that i kind of abandoned when I started playing with linux; if they’d have opened up their source in the early ’90’s they would have been a much better linux today, but who was to know that at the time.
Unix is the best choice of OS we have at the moment, and OS X is probably the most user friendly implementation, although that is arguable, but there are other options, most notably linux (gnome or kde desktops are usable for any newbie). Whenever a CFN (complete Fscking Newbie) asks my advice about what type of comfuter to buy, I always recommend a mac, if they can afford it. Next I recommend a cheap clone running linux (usually RedHat Fedora Core 2 these days).
But, the original argument applies, Apple should have themselves a new arsehole torn, for this kind of behaviour. If I had an iPod (which I wouldn’t because I know that it’s just a bloody music marketing machine) I’d be seriously pissed off about thier lack of support for alternate music formats.
I see the day coming soon, when Steve Jobs will be viewed as the same sort of know nothing know-it-all that Bill Gates is, by a large contingent of Apple users, at least.
Comment by mrf — January 11, 2005 @ 2:05 pm
The thing is, Microsoft is primarily a software vendor, and Apple is primarily a hardware vendor.
The fruit company makes software to add value to its hardware and get people to buy it, not the other way around.
Comment by Mikhail Capone — January 11, 2005 @ 5:52 pm
It really isn’t any more ethical for Apple to do it than for Microsoft to do it. But, if this makes any sense, perhaps it’s more unethical when Microsoft throws their weight around, simply because they’ve got so much weight to throw around. It’s sort of the same reason why it’s just irritating when some schmuck at work says terrorism suspects should be thrown in jail without trial, but it’s deeply disturbing when John Ashcroft says the same thing.
Still though, Steve Jobs = Marketing genius, but also kind of a maniac. Honestly, if he had Bill Gates’s job, I’d be much more concerned.
Comment by briantologist — January 11, 2005 @ 6:42 pm
But like I said at the beginning of the post, the way you use your monopoly is what’s so important. What makes Microsoft so awful isn’t their ubiquity, but the way they use their heft to crush the little guy. They’re a tech version of Wal-Mart.
Comment by greg — January 11, 2005 @ 6:53 pm
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Apple is without it’s problem. I just think that for a mega corporation, they are a lot farther from the “execrable” end of the spectrum than most (like IBM sometimes, and Toyota sometimes..).
Apple has given back a lot to the Open Source community with Darwin, KHTML/Safari and various other little contributions. They have hired full-time and part-time some OSS coders who probably would be doing technical support in some ISP otherwise, and they invest a lot in design and innovation - unlike microsoft - and that makes for a healthier “pathetic excuse for a market”.
Also, when they have really good ideas, everybody else copies them and we all benefit :D
Comment by Mikhail Capone — January 11, 2005 @ 8:11 pm
You got that right. Yeah, you said it in the post: Since they’re trying to be all things to all people, they end up being anywhere from a so-so thing to a seriously crappy thing for most people.
You know I’m nearly puritanical in my devotion to Apple, but even putting that aside for a moment, what’s really exciting to me about them is exactly what Don Mikhail said: Their innovation, generally in terms of design and user interface (they frickin’ invented the graphical user interface, lest we forget) has at times almost singlehandedly changed our thinking about the products we use. I’m thinking of when they made the first iMacs, and all of a sudden every product on the market was made of clear plastic and available in six different colors. Also MP3 players, which were measured in Megabytes rather than Gigabytes before the iPod.
I just wish they were a little cheaper. Though the new weeMac is pretty frickin’ affordable.
Comment by briantologist — January 12, 2005 @ 6:58 am
Okay… Apple did not invent the GUI. If anyone can take credit for it it would be Xerox. But the freaking mouse was invented in 1963, so people had a pretty good idea of what a GUI was long before the Mac came out.
There were plenty of hard drive based MP3 players before the iPod. I think Creative probably had the first, but the Archos may actually have come out first. The reason the iPod took off is that Apple users are accustomed to paying much higher prices for their periphrials than other people so they didn’t balk at the price tag. Then they used excellent marketing to make it desireable to everyone else. The truth of the matter still is though, that unless you are dependent on iTunes I can name at least 5 and possibly 10 players that are acutally better than the iPod.
Apple is hardly any more inovative than Microsoft. Really what innovation have they truly done? Everything they’ve done was already being done somewhere else first. Even the look of their computers were being done by DIY PC builders before they did it. And the Not Invented Here syndrome runs rappent. When are they going to put a second button on the mouse?? What they are good at is marketing to their users and what is commonly reffered to as the Steve Jobs reality distortion field (i.e. The invention of the GUI, firewire, the MP3 player, a desktop OS with a unix back end).
The funny thing is, everyone is making this seem like it’s a Microsoft vs. Apple battle. When it’s not. Apple’s new competition is linux. I’ve been running linux exclusively for almost a year now and have to say that for your average geek it’s a better option than OS X now. In fact some estimates say there are more linux desktops out there than Mac desktops (there are probably 10x as many linux installs as mac installs, but most of those are servers). Linux is what could kill Apple, not microsoft.
That being said, I like some apple products. Their powerbooks are pretty nice, but until they get a g5 I can’t justify buying one when an athlon 64 mobile is so much more powerful. I am interested in the mini mac however. It will be a good upgrade to my fiance’s iMac. As good as linux is, it still isn’t quite to the point where it’s for everyone like OS X is.
Comment by Andrew — January 12, 2005 @ 8:52 am
i know nothing about all this crap. all i know is that i hate every PC i’ve ever tried to use… and i love all of my Mac products which have never given me any problems at all…
monopolies suck, but Mac has never felt like an abuser- every aspect of their product and company seems to be created for the benefit of the customer, not for the benefit of the company. that’s the way all things should be done.
oh yeah… and they got Errol Morris & Dan Clowes to do a commercial for them… it used to be online, but i can’t find it anymore.
Comment by tom — January 12, 2005 @ 9:28 am
if that was the case, then they would have many more customers. They are very good at meeting the needs of a very small subset of all customers. Unfortunately some of use like to add parts to our PC’s on a whim, build our own computers, and buy things cheap. Apple just doesn’t allow that.
Comment by Andrew — January 12, 2005 @ 9:50 am
“if that was the case, then they would have many more customers. They are very good at meeting the needs of a very small subset of all customers.”
well, they know who their customers are, and they fulfill their needs. if Microsoft is the “Wal-Mart” of computers, then Mac is the smaller independent chain that continues to make the best products for it’s niche customers- it doesn’t need the other customers.
complaining about them not offering something for everyone, is like complaining about Sub Pop not releasing any hip-hop albums.
of course, with any company, expansion is inevitable. if apple plans to go after more customers, then i hope they don’t forget about us in the niche who’ve been loyal to their great products.
as for adding on stuff- i’ve never had any trouble adding and expanding things to my computer.
Comment by tom — January 12, 2005 @ 12:22 pm
You really can’t compare apple to a mom and pop store, or something like sub pop. It’s a publically traded company and is therefore required by law to do whatever it can to maximize it’s shareholders returns. If the shareholders decide they need an expanded customer base and jobs refuses… jobs is the one to go. One of the pitfalls of going public i’m afraid.
I didn’t say it was impossible, just not as easy. My webserver is currently using a case and a power supply from the pentium II I bought when I was a freshman, running an abit motherboard and a AMD duron underclocked to 400Mhz. It’s using a $5 video card and a hard drive I salvaged from somewhere. Now my fiance’s iMac is just about at the end of it’s life. We have added more RAM to it, but putting in a new hard drive isn’t exactly what i’d call easy. And we’re stuck with the processor and video card. It isn’t impossible to add things to (you can get external drives and wireless) but it sure isn’t like my PC’s.
Comment by Andrew — January 12, 2005 @ 1:07 pm
i understand they’re much bigger than that… but it is possible to be a large company and still serve the people. as for the Sub Pop analogy, i wasn’t comparing the actual companies, i was comparing their product-lines and dedication to quality, style, understanding of their customer base,etc…
maybe a better analogy would be Microsoft is to Wal-Mart, as Apple is to Whole Foods. but analogies can always be picked apart by nitpicky trivialites, i’m just making a very general comparison.
you’re talking about an iMac… they weren’t intended to be added onto like “real” computer. get a G4 or G5 and it’s much easier to continue adding on stuff and upgrading for years.
Comment by tom — January 12, 2005 @ 1:49 pm
I’d say Linux is a much bigger threat to Microsoft than it is to Apple, specifically on the server side of things. In my own experience as a lifetime Mac user who made an abortive attempt to switch to Linux, I quickly felt I was in way, way over my head, and when the laptop I was gonna buy from a friend of mine mysteriously crapped out days after he installed Linux on it, I was secretly relieved for just that reason.
All that aside, one of Linux’s big appeals is that it’s free and will run on anything, making it probably the cheapest available OS. In other words, its combination of economy, a lack of bullshit, and its being totally user-configurable is a big plus to people who really enjoy configuring every little element of their computer. This crowd is generally not the kind to buy Apple’s products. At least they’re not the Mac users I’ve met.
Comment by Briantologist — January 12, 2005 @ 2:23 pm
Can’t really afford one of those. That’s why I’m upgrading my computers myself. If I could afford to go out and buy a Mac I could buy a top of the line PC and not worry about doing the upgrades. That being said, there is still a much smaller amount of hardware avaliable for that G4 or G5 than I could ever get for my PC.
I don’t know that you can call linux a threat to microsoft on the server side, because frankly I think it’s already ahead. Where it’s really stealing on the user side is from people like sun, HP, IBM, SCO and other proprietary unix.
Like I said, it isn’t quite there yet on the desktop. Although, I feel pretty confident I could take a pretty polished distro (Mandrake, SuSE, or Ubuntu and get it set up for anyone to use easily in a few hours. they will have no problem using it for the basic tasks. However, if you need to install a new app or configure your firewall you might have some problems.
Comment by Andrew — January 12, 2005 @ 3:09 pm
Apple behaves in ways that echo Microsoft’s self-protective maneuvering. For instance, what happens to support for older OSes when new versions come out? Until this year, it was still possible to find plenty of software that would run on Windows 98, and Microsoft had continued to support its software back through Windows 98SE. Apple has a history of conveniently forgetting that its customers all can’t afford to go out and buy the next new release of its OS. Also, there has been some controversy over Dashboard, which many feel is just a “bundled” version of Konfabulator. If anything these practices should bother you more because Apple is the David to Microsoft’s Goliath. Suppose Apple did eventually become a behemoth in the home computing field. Disgruntled Mac users would never be able to say that Apple changed and became evil because the trend toward selfish practices would have been apparent all along.
I’m not going to cry for Apple; they’ve been their own worst enemy. By the way, there is a very cool website that traces the development of the first Mac, written by the people who created the Mac.
Comment by E-Rock — January 13, 2005 @ 6:51 am
A very interesting article, however, I think it is based on the misapprehension that the separation of software and hardware vendors in the MS world is the norm and their combination in Apple is new. In fact, this is not the case; traditionally, computer hardware and software has always been developed and sold by the same company (see this article of mine for a comment on this). The MS situation is the unusual one, historically speaking. That doesn’t mean that Apple can’t run afoul of antitrust laws, of course, but I think it will be a long, long time before it will be possible to claim that anyone is a monopoly in the digital music hardware or software arena; the market is too new and too fluid for any court to want to touch it.
Comment by Mike Stiber — January 13, 2005 @ 9:57 am
See, that’s pretty much the breaking point right there. You’re absolutely right — for the day or two my that my Linux box worked, I was easily able to do the basic stuff on it. E-mail, web browsing, and word processing was a snap, and was stable as hell and super fast. I really dug that part of it. But when it came to downloading a second web browser and installing it, I was right back out in the cold, and waiting for my knowledgable friend to show back up and bail me out. You’ve really gotta want to overcome the learning curve to master Linux, and I learned a valuable lesson that day: I don’t. Which makes Apple a fine fit for me.
Comment by Briantologist — January 13, 2005 @ 10:07 am
Making this argument makes about as much sense as arguing about invesions and WMDs in Iraq. It doesn’t matter what you think, the powers that be will make their own decisions.
Yes, large corperations will always suck, but we will never be able to live without them.
I personally applaud the efforts Apple has made to make a comeback. Their creativity and innovation have been outstanding.
Comment by Clint — January 13, 2005 @ 12:35 pm
PS
The new Apple iMac got a “5 out of 5″ rating from PC magazine.
Comment by Clint — January 13, 2005 @ 12:37 pm
if it’s wrong for Microsoft to bundle their browser and media player with their OS, isn’t it just as wrong for Apple to bundle their OS and hardware
Uh, no. If Apple had a virtual monopoly (about 95 percent of the market in OS, then it would absolutely be wrong to bundle their hardware and OS, and it would clearly without question violate antitrust law. But that is not the case. You see Microsoft has that virtual monopoly and that’s why they are wrong (and violated the old antitrust laws). Talk about comparing apples and oranges (nice).
You may have a point regarding iTunes, but I would have to know what the market share of iTunes is to other onlin music sites. Don’t think it is anywhere close to what MS has in operating systems.
Comment by Cincinnatus — January 13, 2005 @ 3:21 pm
As good as linux is, it still isn’t quite to the point where it’s for everyone like OS X is.
Kinda ruins your point. Linux is for geeks. Apple is for people who want a nice, beautiful running machine but don’t really care how it works. Sort of the difference between a kick-ass modified, tricked-out Mustang and a fast-as-hell, straight off the factory floor Mercedes.
Comment by Cincinnatus — January 13, 2005 @ 3:24 pm
I don’t think it’s an issue of Apple being anticompetitive. I think it’s an issue of quality and ease of use.
I use pcs regularly, used Mandrake and RedHat as well, but for a lot of my work, I use my Apple. I would buy another one in a heartbeat.
Linux is great for troubleshooting, and is excellent for webserver and firewall needs.
The truth is that Windows has improved, but it is still a poor operating system, and many people writing for it write crap that is buggy.
Talk to Linux folks (And Mac OSX is very much like Linux under the hood), and they will tell you in exacting detail what the hell is wrong with Windows OSes.
Re anticompetitive stuff, Windows intentionally does things that makes competitors look bad, so weak people will run back to Windows. IE6 is a piece of crap, and yet to install some software, you actually have to upgrade to IE6. It’s bizarre. It is heartening that in the first week there were a gazillion downloads of Firefox. While you’re at it, try Thunderbird in lieu of Outlook Express, which is relatively shitty and unintuitive.
My opinion of Mac is that OS9 was buggy too, but when they went Unix on OSX, with a beautiful GUI, they really achieved something. If Linux looked and worked like Mac, and had the same apps, people would use Linux. In Europe, Linux is big, because people aren’t afraid of it, because Mandrake and KE3 work. People stick with Windows because of apps like Office.
Comment by bebimbob — January 13, 2005 @ 8:05 pm
the new flash driven iPods are PC compatible as is iTunes, so I don’t really see how this is keeping PC users from using them. Additionally, you have the ability in iTunes to convert any music file to .mp3, thus making it usable in any type of mp3 player.
to echo some of the above statements, the mac media players are easily trash-able and windows media works well on a mac, if you so choose.
apart from the very blase and unoriginal idea that all large corporations “suck”, this seems like a pretty uninformed rant. i agree with most of the stuff you generally post, but i think you’re off the mark here.
Comment by cali_ — January 14, 2005 @ 10:23 am
How many third-party portable music players work with iTunes (the software, not the store)? Since it’s now bundled with the OS, shouldn’t any music player be compatible?
Just as Microsoft gave users the “ability” to unbundle IE and Windows. Granted, it was a major pain in the ass that was more work than most computer users were willing to go through, but it was technically possible.
Since the Wal-Mart analogy was mine, lemme finish it off :
If Microsoft is the Wal-Mart of tech companies, then Apple is Target. They both roughly fill the same niche. If you wanna buy…say…a shirt, a DVD, a some toothpaste, and a cheese grater, both stores will get you want you need. With Target, their prices are a bit more expensive and it’s the only place where you can get a cheese grater with a handle that looks like a blue egg or something, but the upside is that they’re not the soul-crushing evil behemoth that Wal-Mart is.
Comment by greg — January 14, 2005 @ 2:05 pm