Apple's Animal Farm

I put together a list of recent articles showing Apple's incredibly arrogant behaviour. They really are the new evil empire

http://sites.google.com/site/badapplecorp/

This is more than a bit silly and baiting. It's rediculous to say that because one company does something bad that the sins of the other should be wiped clean. Just because Apple is a devil it doesn't make MS a saint and there are no apologies needed.

But the facts really are that iTunes can sync with any device if the manufacturer bothers to make the plugin. Palm tried to avoid this by spoofing its USB ID *illegally*. Ask mose why Palm can't make its own kick ass sync/music management software.

Second, I can't believe you defended the film industry against Apple. Apple may be working for itself, but what it wants is always more pro-consumer than the RIAA or MPAA. If it were up to those industry groups we'd be paying for every time we listen to a track we payed for.

And that leaves Apple's only sin: a rediculous App Store that destroys hard work with silly rules and censorship. I think it's illegal and unethical, and needs to be busted open. But whining about other stuff that's not there isn't going to fufill your goals.

I beg you, please crash Apple on the app store issue the way you did with MS and its antitrust issues. But don't venerate MS in the process. They've done nothing to warrant regret.

Apple is a consumer electronics company, this differs to an IT company in that the products are designed to provide an eco-system that's useful to consumers. Their product development model is fundamentally different, at Apple the techs build what the designers tell them to as with many consumer electronics companies, elsewhere the geeks aren't qualified to know what to design so they provide options & choices instead.

The point is whilst a little choice is good, too much is confusing and counter-productive (hence LINUX's low consumer market share). Apple take responsibility for their eco-system and that means weeding out conflicts that could jeopardise the user experience either now or in the near future.

Of course the Orwellian analogy does serve one purpose – it reinforces the idea that you're worth oppressing (sorry, you're not!)

McD

Sorry Mr. Fortt but you are way off base.

Of course all companies want to defend their turf. And the good ones do it aggressively AND legally. Apple does it aggressively and legally, Microsoft did it aggressively and illegally and that has been established by a court of law.

There is no such thing as an "iTunes monopoly". That is a non-sequitur. You can't accuse Apple of monopolizing iTunes just as you can't accuse Coca Cola Inc. of monopolizing Coke.

You can't accuse Apple of establishing a monopoly in iTunes-type services and devices through illegal means. All they did was sell a product that everyone wanted. If a competitor tried to set up an iTunes competitor, did Apple do anything like the following? 1. Force the recording labels to not do business with the competitor. 2. Force the ISPs to block web access to the competing site. 3. Make non-DRM music managed through iTunes unplayable to anything other than iPod. 4. Force retailers to not sell iPod competitors. These are all illegal methods of establishing a monopoly and Apple did nothing of the sort.

Microsoft, on the other hand, to establish the Windows monopoly, did the following court-documented actions: 1. Forced the PC manufacturers to offer only Windows. 2. Microsoft made it artificially difficult for MS Office competitor sotwre to run smoothly in Windows. 3. And Microsoft falsely claimed that Internet Explorer was an 'integral, inseparable part' of Windows so that they could kill Netscape. All these actions are illegal and Microsoft was convicted of crimes for them.

Finally, Google Voice. Let's answer the following question: Does iPhone have a monopoly in the market called 'smart phones'? Other than iPhone are there other smart phones that carry Google Voice? Is Apple forcing these other outlets to stop making Google Voice available? The answers are: No. Yes. No. Apple does not have the ability to prevent Google Voice from being released to users who want that service. If you want Google Voice, send a message to Apple -chuck your iPhone. You have other alternatives. IF THERE WERE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVES, then yes, Apple is probably committing a crime just like Microsoft did with Windows and Office.

I suspect Apple is making a mistake if they decide to block Google Voice, but stupidity is not a crime. Except if it leads you to launch unnecessary wars that kill hundreds and thousands of people.

I think what everyone seems to be missing here is that the itunes app store's purpose is for people that have bought an iphone to purchase apps to enhance their iphone experience. If google creates an application that enhances that experience, and people buy it, apple still gets a cut of the money. Why should apple care if google created it or if John Doe created it? If it works and enhances the user experience to a point where mass amounts of people are buying it, more props to them.

The problem comes when Apple blocks an application because of who created it. I think we can all agree that Apple didn't block Google voice because of "Dual functionality", they blocked it because Google made it, plain and simple. That's the issue at hand.

32bit good 64bit bad! lol

Apple lovers need a hug…and they need to shut up. Apple is doing the same thing period! Get over it. So what if its a different platform its the same thing keeping everyone else out while they reap the internet song buying gig. Just go back to your brightly colored monitors and half eaten apple logos and meditate it all away or something, and just except the fact that money is a powerful motivator and Apple is no different!!

Ask how much of Apple Microsoft ownes…

The only error I see in this article is the statement that "Time Machine is an awesome feature". I would be if you could back up to a network drive, and set a limit to number of days or size of backup partition. Then it would be awesome.

People are finally getting to see just how EVIL Apple is!

http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

Its not about adding value or convenience to our lives, its about getting as much of your money in their pockets as they can. Their only responsibility is to make more money for its shareholders period. They are not better than any other corporation in that respect. They will do whatever they can get away with as will any public company.

Your aritcle was not as inciteful as you may have intended in comparing Apple to Microsoft. For example, how many companies has Apple ever put out of business? Since when is there no choice to use another company's product(s) that compete with Apple's products or services offerings? Is Microsoft able to compete in this space itself since they own the computing world? Lastly, aren't there any number of companies that can build their own music devices in addition to their own internet music store? I don't look forward to reading your next article.

ellen, what the fuck does that have to do with the article? Gender has nothing to do with discussing apple and microsoft, and nothing he said was gender biased. go back to your bridge troll

Apple has said very clearly that while it is still looking at Google Voice, it cannot allow apps that do certain things on the AT&T network because of their deal with them.

Honestly…and iTunes is entertainment software. It's not an operating system…when Apple starts strong arming PC manufacturing companies telling them what to distribute…then you might start having a point.

As it is, it seems like you are upset that Apple makes it software AND hardware and can do whatever it wants in those realms. It doesn't have to let Google put an app on it's phone if it doesn't want to.

The comparison of Microsoft's earlier behavior with Apple's current is almost unavoidable and yet wholly incorrect. Microsoft was a monopoly of an entire relevant market (i.e., the market for operating systems) while Apple owned only a portion of a number of different yet interrelated markets (i.e., the markets for music purchasing, music downloads, music players, and mp3 players). As such, trying to compare the former with the latter does not work for a number of reasons, chief among them being that when Microsoft exercised its monopoly power, consumers had essentially no alternative; this is not true of Apple.

Apple is not forcing any person to use iTunes: it doesn't even come pre-installed on the vast majority of computers. Moreover, no one is forcing people to download from iTunes (or download music at all, for that matter): one may still purchase music via CD's or Amazon or any other site that sells DRM-free tracks. Similarly, no one is forced to use an iPod or iPhone to listen to said tracks: I know of at least a handful of other media players and countless mp3 players which interface with them that could be used.

As I see it, the only thing that Apple has done is made and marketed a product which people crave. As such, there are now more than 150 million of the devices. The same thing Apple does with the iPod almost every other manufacturer of mp3 player does with their product: the Zune doesn't sync with iTunes and neither does an iPod sync with Windows Media Player. That does not prevent people from transferring the files (unless said files have DRM, something neither manufacturer can really control) so to argue that either instances creates monopoly power is frivolous and misguided. Apple may well be a monopoly by virtue of the fact that they own so much of the market but they do not have the same monopoly power that Microsoft previously wielded.

This whole article has been mute since the day Apple sold their first computer. Apple from DAY ONE has controlled their soft/hardware, products. That is why the Mac OS has ALWAYS controlled it's OS (except for a brief experiment with licensing in the 90s that failed). And until semi recently (iTunes) has never allowed any Mac software for use on Windows.

Anyone with an ounce of knowledge about Apple's history would know this is their culture – serve and protect our own products.

So, when you look at APPL history, no one should be surprised they want to control their Apps, iPhone, iTunes, etc. Lastly, as far as I know Apple has never tried to force anyone to buy an iPod, iPhone, use Safari or use iTunes – users have other options. MSFT forced users to use IE on their own OS. If Palm wants to sync to a music store, here's a new idea – how about Palm making their own damn music store to compete with iTunes instead of being lazy then crying about it.

Stop being a shill for Google, buy an Android phone. Move on, nothing to see here.

Ellen? Is that you?

"I went to read a blog and it was all like…xyxyxyxyxy…"

If I owned a small programming shop, and then gave my source code out to others in order for them to have the chance to design applications for my hardware, I would naturally apply some restrictions for those applications.

Any application submitted to me that might jeopardize the success of an already implemented, proprietary software that I include on my hardware would not be accepted… what's un-ethical about that? How could I be wrong or un-ethical to avoid self-inflicted competition? What's wrong with that?

If (hypothetically) another developer tried to use the Apple App Store to market their own version of iTunes, what's wrong with Apple not supporting that idea? It's their hardware. I don't see the issue.

Since Apple creates the hardware and software, they can do what they want. Why should they be MORE open than they want to be? If you don't like it don't buy their products. Microsoft felt since 90% of the world uses their OS, they can bully everyone around. Wrong.

Yet another all male blog. Half the people using computers are women. So much for fair and balanced. What a waste all this commentary is.

Good point, Jon. You're right! "Absolute power corrupts — absolutely."

It's not hard to tell. Only the good guys are Montessori – aliens.

This article is ridiculous. It's akin to saying, "I'm sorry for the ribbing we gave you Mr. Nadoff. It appears that some other Wall St. moguls cheated, lied and stole from us too. We're not really punishing them, so we kind of owe you an apology."

Microsoft is a monopolistic cut-throat monolith of a company that once would do anything to quash their competition (probably still would if they thought they could get away with it).

Apple isn't nearly as large as Microsoft, but they are displaying some of the same tendencies. They certainly muscle other companies out of using their music software (just look at iTunes and the Palm Pre).

Regardless of whether we recognize and penalize Apple for their behavior, what Microsoft did in the 90's and early 2000's was no less deplorable. Any excuse to the contrary only serves to reinforce their negative actions.

Yeah, what's interesting about this is how much leeway we give to those we like. By virtue of its beautiful products and likable brand, Apple gets to get away with stuff that less cool companies cannot.

We can debate why and whether it should be that way, but it is.

Microsoft and Apple are the same kind of companies, greedy and possessive.

Get a life and use free and open source software instead many works on OSX and windows. And if you still need an OS use linux it runs on virtually any hardware platforms, it's fully open and much more secure than the other two platform

Interoperability and openness are strategies for areas in which you don't have marketshare. Once you have influential marketshare, bullying and end-to-end closed solutions are the strategies. MS, Apple, Cisco, Oracle, Healthcare, Oil, all go through it. We should be surprised when Apple does it, nor should we let MS off the hook because they still do it. They are companies and they are doing their jobs.

Grow up. Seriously.

There is nothing about Apple that you require to live a long and healthy life (well I suppose, for you, they give you something to write about…)

Apple run their affairs in a way the deem appropriate to their business. If people don't like it, don't use their technology. Go buy an Android device instead. You have choice, remember? Isn't that what America tromps around the globe fighting for? Choice, free market, democracy. If you want to cast your vote, do it with your money.

It takes some hubris to apologize on behalf of an entire region, unless of course, you meant "Good Morning Silicon Valley," even though you don't write for MN any more…

You went to the feds?

Of course, it also takes hubris to say that Apple is lying to the FCC – unless you can back it up with documentation. I didn't see the link to anything but their press release about the FCC – do you have some record of actual communication to the developer that the app was rejected?

I will work harder.

Microsoft has learned? Tell me about last year's Document standards went in many countries. Oh that Friken right! They hired some of their Microsoft partners to fill seats of the board members in several countries! Thinkity Think Think! And Apple If they keep putting fences up, they will lock out the choice option & like in 80's, if it becomes a expensive proprietary app on the platforms they make.. someone's going to open up an alternative with no restrictions *cough Android *cough *cough.. it will open up the 'appmosphere' to an alternative.

@Mark in Stanhope, NJ
Your key phrase is "companies that aren't harming people". Microsoft was, and Apple now is. Screwing customers and competition is sometimes more profitable than making a better product. That is the failure of free markets and the need for regulations. The economic goals are progress through competition that benefits citizens, not profit that benefits companies.

Apple has a long history of trying to control third party developers in the early days of a new platform. This approach is a direct extension of Jobs paranoid attitude towards IBM in the early days of Apple. For example, when Macintosh was first released third party developers had to fill out an application in order to get access to developer info. Anyone who mentioned IBM in the resume portion of their application was rejected without explanation. Usually these paranoid activities by Apple have ended up working against shareholder interests in the long run, but still this approach to controlling their platforms persists. Having said all that, in the present case it may actually be AT&T that is behind the Google Voice rejection.

Out of all the companies, Apple is the worst at playing well with others. This is not a new phenomenon. iTunes is required bloatware!

You can do ANYTHING on a PC that you can do on an Apple, and then some. And for a LOT cheaper.

Windows is a lot more accepting to 3rd party products than apple ever is and ever will be.

I hardly find anything Orwellian about Apples response. I sincerely doubt that any other cell phone maker / provider would have acted any differently letting Google change so much of the interface and other fundamental aspects of their cell phone. You won't see Microsoft allowing such things on their XBox 360 & Zune. Nor would you imagine Palm being so open with the Pre or Sony their cell phones and other electronic devices, etc… So this really seems to be more of an appeal towards open source rather than anything else, wouldn't you say?

You should apologize to Microsoft for going to the feds. Using the violence of the government against companies that aren't harming people is always wrong. If you don't like a company then don't buy their product. Government is violence.

I don't like Microsoft but I wouldn't send a gang of thugs for them because that's wrong. Next time choose peace and not violence.

I think the posters here are extremely biased

The number of false acusations they made is asstounding,
Here they even said that Microsoft should be the enemy
Even though it seems that Microsoft has learned its lesson and now apple is taking its place.

When are people going to grow up and be
Held accountable for what they say
On the other hand i
Like reading comments that are so
Evidently wrong.

First posters say that apple has the
Legal right to restrict what is allowed to
Encroach upon their capital and hurt their
Share holders, by way of
Halting other companies to have apps that
Like Google voice 'mimic' what the
Iphone already inherently does. In
General Apple seems to be fair when blocks apps from
Holding a place in the store but in
This case it seems that they have gone to far.

The problem with most forums like this is that the most aggressive, and provocative posters often receive the most attention even thought their comments may have very little merit. The majority of posters here seem to be highly biased towards Apple and continue to use poorly constructed and erroneous arguments. I will try a reply to a few of them:

To charlie, jacksonvill fl:
You are quite correct why shouldn’t a company try and protect their platform from competing companies. But i believe that we have been down this road before, also did you not read the article i believe it even told us where this has happened. Right, it was Microsoft. So i believe you are asking why shouldn’t Apple be allowed not follow the rules that Microsoft had to adhere.

To Sacto Joe, Sacramento, CA:
Quote:
“You know, Microsoft has done PLENTY that's far less up front and far more damaging to competition.
So spare us the crockodile tears for poor little Microsoft.”
First of all you could you give us some examples for which I assure you i can give match one that apple has done that is equally damaging.
P.S. nice caps, and spelling of ‘crockodile’

To RA Roth, Atlanta:
Quote “Right, it's MS that wanted to block other browsers from being preloaded.”
This is quite true, but since when does Apple come with other web browser preloaded. Please think about what you are writing before you make yourself out to be a fool.

The only reason it seems that most people believe that this article is propaganda, and holds no merit. Is because the majority of apple users are busy getting their faulty Graphics chips in their laptops, or power adapters sent in for repair, and thus have time to complain about how Microsoft is evil and Apple a saint.

I also love how people continue to bring up the point about how Microsoft computers crash and apple computers don’t, and the same with viruses and malware. My PC has never crashed since I have bought it, nor have many that I have bought before. I have seen mine and my friends Mac laptops however GSOD (crash) consistently. And for both of these points the only reason it seems that PC’s are unstable, due to crashing and viruses, is due to statistical manipulation, since there are many more PC’s than mac’s obviously there are going to be more that crash, but in actual fact the percentage is much lower, the only reason people think it is otherwise is because when a PC crashes it usually sends a message to Microsoft pertaining the conditions for the crash so that they may fix it. When a mac crashes it just says “Sorry” and gives no detail as to why it crashed and no way for Apple to fix the problem.

The fact that Apple is being unethical does not make Microsoft's transgressions any less serious. A pox on both of them.

Nice article there. I always figured those two were exactly the same, the only difference is one is ahead of the other. Theres little that people can say to say that Apple wouldnt follow in Microsoft's footsteps given the chance. Their marketing strategies and product lines may be different – but I feel that they are cut from the same cloth. (no i havent read AF yet, judging by the responses – i figured i should)

OK, first off …

Browsers weren't free until MS decided to lump IE in with the OS for free. That's tolerable if your main income comes from your OS and Office Suite. That's not tolerable at all if your only business is your browser, aka Netscape.

MS also attempted to co opt every single Internet standard there was, via the standards bodies or by fobbing off manadatory technologies in their PCs to try and capture the market from below (ActiveX, .asp, .net, etc.)

That's a whole other level of evil than Apple. You can still develop apps for the iPhone, just not ones that directly compete with Apple applications. Prior to this point, could you say that ANY smart phone manufacturer allowed apps – period – on their phones, let alone competitive apps? I lived through the PDA age and there wasn't a single PDA manufacturer that didn't have restrictions on what could be put on their machines.

Secondly, the iTunes stream is independent of the OS. You can develop your own music browser/player, and your own online store, and you can tie it to whatever competitive hardware you want to support. Hell MS could port their entire Zune chain to Apple if they wanted to. Given that Apple has done the reverse, this might actually be a good idea.

"The ultimate mission of all companies is no different than that of all individuals;" …

Why? Companies are not individuals, so I am not sure why they should share anything in common.

… "survival and growth."

What? Survival is not the "ultimate mission" of individuals. How can it be? Individuals do not survive. Even if we confine ourselves to this life, many of us consider our "ultimate mission" to have something to do with securing the future for our children, to say nothing of our neighbors and our societies. Many have died for these things. Based on our common experience of human behavior, then, survival is not the ultimate goal of individuals in this world.

I chose to respond to this because I think it reflects a serious problem with the way we view companies in our society as well as a serious misunderstanding of human behavior.

The "ultimate mission" of a company is pretty obvious to me: to serve the society and people that make it possible for the company to exist in the first place. I think that, by holding "companies" to a lower moral standard than that to which we hold ourselves, we are less well served by them.

I don't mean by this that "companies" should not or will not be selfish. As I argued before, selfishness is inevitable with human beings. What I mean by this is that the selfishness of a company should be limited by the same rules we use to limit our own selfishness. That's not a great deal of restriction, fortunately, but it is enough to prevent individuals from destroying each other. Is it tough to strike the balance? Sure, but so what? Life is complicated.

Finally, I think that to depict individuals as ultimately selfish in this way is to deny history and the common experience. It is, in my view, an attempt to depict human beings as operating at the low level at which we have allowed businesses to operate. That's not the way it is, and it in my view it smacks too much of an attempt to justify low business practice.

goggle is a rival and direct competitor to apple and so must be watched at all times. it is competing with apple in phones,OS and mobile apps market. its poison pill applications should be restricted to its android market if it has confidence in its works. paid agents and envious people should please allow us to enjoy the innovations from a truly creative company like apple

I think you made your point, but just to put things in a little bit of perspective… I don't know of a cell phone maker that provided an open platform for anybody but themselves or the service provider up until the iPhone came along.
So, saying that a particular application being rejected because it competes with the core functionality of the device that it is on is splitting hairs in my opinion. The fact that there are 60,000+ apps available is a far more compelling argument in favor of what Apple is doing correctly. They could have easily done what had been done in the cell phone arena for the last 15 years and shut out everybody.
It is akin to being confined to an 8×8 cell, and being released to roam, but complaining that there is one place on the planet you're not allowed to go to… really? are we that petty now?
I think its better to just appreciate the fact that we're not confined to the usual cr*p that was given to us through the carriers for so many years…

Great and creative writing, and looks like it stirred up quite a storm of responses. I enjoyed reading the article as well as the comments, pro and con.

AMEN!

The ultimate mission of all companies is no different than that of all individuals; survival and growth. Growth is achieved by providing us (the consumer) with superior product. Survival is assured by protecting self interest.

Indeed, Apple, Google, Facebook, and RIM are all guilty of the same thing. The Hollywood studios and the once mighty record companies that we now feel bad for, did as well in their day. As we gravitate to the offerings that these companies provide they act to preserve their own interests. There is nothing wrong with that and we should expect nothing different.

There have always been alternatives to all of the products that heavyweight corporations offer us yet we insist on flocking to the best or most popular and then complain when the monoliths we have created behave in entirely predictable ways.

I for one say thank you to these innovators. The stature they achieve comes from being the best at what they do. Each in their turn, opens a new door and takes us to new places. We are the ones who through our patronage vote them to their turn as king of the hill. Their reign is limited by competition and a new king is always around the corner as Microsoft understands all too well.

http://www.thevirtualentrepreneur.info

Apple to Apple… I'm just not cool enought to have an iPhone (which every other person seems to carry), so I'll wait for a decent Android phone with (I hope) no strings attached.

I don't know of any other phone that lets you put anything on it that you want. In fact before the iPhone, the phone companies had their way in tightly controlling the features of the phones on their network.

You could have guessed Apple's corporate culture from the aggressive marketing BS that they put up since 2nd Jobs era. Pathetic…

Quote: "It has tried to strong-arm Hollywood into selling content on terms mostly favorable to Cupertino."

Can you imagine the nerve of a corporation trying to land a deal that benefits itself?

Note: I generally agree with this post, Apple is becoming heavyhanded and they better be careful, but I just thought this was a funny quote.

Apology accepted!

http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

It's Apple's system, their rules. Too bad if you don't like it.
I like my iMac AND my 3 PC's too. I use OS-X, Win 7, and Ubuntu and it's a good time to be a computer user as far as I can see. All of them do exactly what they're supposed to and they do it well.

I have the iPhone and need to reinstall all the apps again and again every month. Many bugs and missing features. They do control the market and it is a risky proposition to develop software for the iPhone. It will backfire one day on Apple.

Children, let Apple do what they want with their software and hardware. It's great it's wonderful and it's THEIRS. Let it be.

By the way no one force you to use a mac or an iPhone, if you, Jon, is so happy with MS by all means use their products and who cares.

Could someone please tell me who it is that forces the world to use Microsoft software. From the comments I've read people must be forced to use it! I have no problems with any Microsoft products I've used.

Like convicts escaping from a life sentence in a harsh prison- we will do anything and accept any conditions to be sure we don't get sent back to Microsoft!

"Apple blocking perfectly good software that competes with its ideas. When you tried this sort of thing, Microsoft, we called you a bully and went to the feds."

It wasn't that Microsoft was blocking software that competed with its ideas… Microsoft didn't even have a browser until it saw that the Internet was becoming a new open platform. It wasn't until that point that Microsoft decided they needed to co-opt the technology and tie it to Windows somehow further entrenching users into the Windows ecosystem. (People like to complain about the iPod+iTunes system, but even today, Microsoft still goes one draconian step further, Zune+Zune MarketPlace+Windows.)

And I hate to point out that the iPhone OS developer agreement clearly states that duplication of a core features/functions will not be allowed (along with other restrictions). Developers are told this before they sign-up in the iPhone Developer Program. If you don't agree to it, you don't need to develop for the iPhone. And comparing the likes of that with what Microsoft tried to do to so many competitors by wielding its monopoly position in the desktop market, is far fetched at best. The iPhone is a small player in a much larger market; there are many other platforms to go develop for if you're interested in that space. That wasn't the case when Microsoft threw its weight around in the '90's.

Your comment to a post below, "it's not just one application. It's a growing pattern of behavior.", has no merit. This is not a growing pattern, the only thing that is growing is the hype surrounding it. In fact, Apple has gotten better and less lenient over time. This "rejection" got blown out proportion due to the fact that it was a Google application. And up to this point in time, IT HAS NEVER BEEN STATED WHY IT WASN'T PUSHED THROUGH! If it's an application that is "on the fence" of possibly breaking a restriction, then of course it's going to take longer to review. And when it comes to Google, I'd make damn sure they weren't sending out my users personal information.

@Steven, Arlington: "Microsoft built a better browser with IE3 and Netscape couldn't compete"

Nobody had a problem with Microsoft shipping a browser with Windows. The problem was and the reason why Netscape couldn't "compete", was because Windows had a nasty habit of not listening to system preferences or resetting them spontaneously so that IE ran in place of competing installed browsers.

"The fact that Apple has the power to say what can and can not go on a general computing device is very disturbing"

Huh? Replace "general computing device" with Apple iPhone. It's one thing to write an OS and development API for third party hardware, it's a completely different story when it's a proprietary platform. Apple makes the hardware, the software and development tools. ITS THERE'S!!! They spent the money on developing the whole thing. IT IS THEIR PRODUCT, OF COURSE THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO SAY HOW IT'S USED AND WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE DONE ON IT. If they hadn't given the go-ahead, there wouldn't be any 3rd party applications what-so-ever, it could've remained a completely closed system forever.

"In Windows, Netscape was allowed to exist and build a browser. In the Apple ecosystem, Netscape would have died and no funding and Marc Andreesen would not be rich. Apple is worse than anything Microsoft has done"

And how is that different from Mac OS X? It isn't. Apple gives developers free-range in Mac OS X to develop whatever they want. Apple even shipped both Netscape and IE on their computers for a few years. And by the way, Netscape did die, not because of Apple's evil ways, but because of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices.

It's apparent you don't know much about the history of any of these companies from other than listening/reading pro-Microsoft FUD.

well I think that Apple is wrong for not letting Google place this app. we have a very large Apple shop, in terms of quality over the last year it has declined by 50%. Yeh 50% of the equipment we have purchased has had multiple failures and hardware issues. Apple is a pain to deal with in this respect, and doesnt care if your out of business for days or weeks. I personally have been through two iPhone's because it "stopped" working.

Ok regardless it is still a dam good product but not what it was two years ago. I am sure Apple takes the same competitive measures as any large compnay, they wouldn't be here if they didnt, behind the scenes or not.

In this case though it is a very interesting question as to why (since it is an OS) you cant install different browsers (it can be done by the way) and other tools such as Google's, take off the blinders, this is the same thing Microsoft within the limits of the law they violated, cant change that.

I dont care who it is, big companies do what they have to meet board and stockholders expectations.

It's amazing that Apple is "Evil" for rejecting one application and Microsoft rates an apology because clearly trying to dominate the Internet (and other things) by using one monopoly is the same as controlling software available on a phone. How does rejecting one application signal falling innovation and expression? To me that's hyperbole at its best.

Oh, and the Animal Farm reference doesn't fit very well. Apple has to be the humans or the pigs and in the end they were all the same: a different political philosophy that led to the same hard world.

From Jon Fortt: It's not just one application. It's a growing pattern of behavior. And on the Animal Farm reference: That's exactly why I think it does work.

The difference between Apple and Microsoft has never been that the people are better or worse. Most companies act the same way. The difference is in the effect of their actions. Microsoft has so much more influence than Apple in some markets that their actions lead to monopoly violations more often than Apple's. That's all. They are not more evil or less evil.

This is important – it is the basic understanding that led the Founders to create a government with checks and balances. Given the opportunity, most human beings will act selfishly. We should abandon the notion that such things involve morality and accept ourselves as we are, knowing that there is nothing wrong with that.

We have to build our systems to govern ourselves, certainly – but to pretend moral outrage at normal human actions is ingenuous, to say the least, and not at all helpful.

Umm, Apple doesn't restrict applications on the Mac, did you mention that? Why do you think that is? Apple never said the iPhone OS was a completely open developing platform, they did in fact state THAT THERE WOULD BE EXCEPTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS. If you make a statement like that, then you're a fool to assume that it's a free open range.

Microsoft Windows was in fact an open development platform, in which Microsoft themselves tried to stifle innovation in whatever market it thought it needed to control by pushing out all other competing products. That is a big difference in what Apple has done with the iPhone platform. They said right from the get-go that they would not allow the replacement/duplication of core functions and features. This was well known and understood by everyone. Even the pundits claimed this was the single reason the iPhone was going to stomped on by Android devices; because Android is in fact an open development platform.

Microsoft was proven to be malicious in its attempts to kill off competing technologies and applications that were developed by 3rd party Windows developers. And not before they were ever released, but years later, after markets began to form around them.

For those of us who worked on the Apple II, and the Mac with the "toolbox" I can only say… well yeah.

It's why Jobs went off and made the NeXT. Which is what OSX is. However everything else is locked down hard and tight.

Just like it always has been.

Wow… Apple afficionados appologizing to Microsoft? That's the kind of backlash you'd expect from something like Vista…

Another anti-Apple story from Fortune. What a shock.

I suppose Google should allow Apple to insert code into Google's search results pages which supplant Google's content with Apple's.

My, the Apple Kool-Aid is really high end for some people today. There is no difference between coupling IE to Windows and coupling iTunes to the iPhone OS. The argument made earlier about "being able to" use other systems is specious at best. You were always able to use other browsers on Windows and "uninstall" IE if you had enough technical savvy, but most people don't, just like most people don't have enough technical know-how to use their iPhone on another music download service. I think the worst part of this is that you Apple people are finding a reason to justify the same activities by your computing superheros that you revialed the supervillan for in your comic book existances.

Very well said. – Arunabh Das

I think that the bottom line here is that we don't do well with nuance, we gravitate towards the tyranny of the ALL or NONE so the book on Apple has to be EVIL or the New Microsoft.

Similarly, Google has to be the open good guys, except for the fact that the primary ways they capture eyeballs and monetize them aren't truly open.

The truth, in other words, is a bunch of half truths, something that I blogged about in:

APPLE is EVIL, You're All Fanboys & other half-truths.
http://bit.ly/10vtVn

Check it out if interested.

Mark

My first problem with apple(and att) is that, i paid $600 for the iphone, stayed with att for 2 years and still i can unlock the phone and use it as i please? oh come on, havent i paid you back. And now this? stopping a perfectly good app? what kind of freedom is this? i am glad the FCC has gotten involved and i hope someone gives apple a nice dressing down like aheadmaster to a rowdy. dont get me wrong,i like my iphone but dont interfere with how i use it. I am sure that there is more than what meets the eye with the resignation of Eric Schmidt from the apple board.

Its such a joke how Apple is being compared to MS in this article and by the comments posted. You work in an office, no real choice but to run Windows. The choice is taken from you. Even if you wanted Linux or a Mac, doubtful that your IT would support it notwithstanding your arguments why it would be compatible. So that is a monopoly.

So now take the iPhone/iTunes. You don't want to be stuck in the App Store, don't buy an iPhone. Get a BB, or Android, or Pre, or a non-smart phone, or an old rotary land line. Its just not the same. If you don't want to buy music/movies from iTunes, don't get an iPod. Even though they have the market share, its just not the case that its your only option. Go buy something from Sony or Creative and get your music at amazon.

So, you don't have to agree with how apple vets their apps or demands that studios make content available in a certain way/for a certain price. But to argue that you have no other choice is pathetic. When you buy apple, you pay for the experience–that's always been the case.

IT'S ALL ABOUT QUALITY ASSURANCE WHICH MS HAS ZERO OF.

Please, do not insult intelligence of your readers. The Windows OS is a single de-facto standard platform which PC industry needed to develops. Whatever company will win the platform war is in a position of market dominance and this position can not be allowed to be abused. It is like an electric plug shape. Whatever company plug shape was selected as a standard, this company is not allowed to prohibit other companies to use this plug in their devices. Apple is no in a position in any of its products as the industry standard despite it's impressive market share in some areas. So their responsibility to the users of their technology is much different and their attempt to leverage the popularity in this areas is just common acceptable practice of the companies trying to solidify their market position.

Hey "Tom, New York, NY" you're an idiot. Learn how to operate and maintain a computer you doofus.

I think that it is very important to note that the Microsoft monopoly trial really was a rich-mans fight. Microsoft built a better browser with IE3 and Netscape couldn't compete and enlisted all of its friends to gang up on Microsoft. Second, it is important to note the new power of the EU and why American companies needed to come to the side of Microsoft.

Now we have Apple. The fact that Apple has the power to say what can and can not go on a general computing device is very disturbing. At least with Microsoft, it was always an open API that allowed for a vibrant ecosystem. Over time, it makes sense to move common things from utilities into the platform. We saw this with memory managers, font manager, printer drivers, etc. But, now we have Apple. Let's say I want to replace the iPod music playback in the iPhone – I can't – Apple has all the say. In Windows, Netscape was allowed to exist and build a browser. In the Apple ecosystem, Netscape would have died and no funding and Marc Andreesen would not be rich. Apple is worse than anything Microsoft has done. The second they allowed an API and a system to be created, they opened up the general computing platform.

Now, the EU wants Microsoft to remove IE from Windows and give choice. Well, the EU doesn't understand that the semantics of the "OS" are all the applications, not the memory manager or scheduler. However, since Silicon Valley did not come to Microsoft's defense, it is now time for the EU to require Apple to allow any mobile browser to replace mobile safari. Allow any music player to replace the iPod music application. It is time for them to allow any address book.

Google has many of the same problems. Just because they are a service, doesn't mean they can force people to use AdSense. Because of the Microsoft bundling precedent has been set, they now need to unbundle their service. So, I want to use AdCenter from Microsoft to put ads on the Google search page. It is time for the EU to force Google to stop its monopolistic bundling practices.

The argument and discussion we must have is about the ability to bundle applications and services with your products. It is about overturning all of the decision against Microsoft so Google, Apple, TiVo, or whomever has the freedom to innovate. However, with the bundling precedent set, we now must look at everything Apple and Google and RIM and Palm are doing and allow choice and force the unbundling of applications from their systems.

I've never understood the "two legs good, four legs bad" Apple followers.

Tom from New York says, "My Windows PC crashes every two minutes, takes twenty minutes to start up, requires an IT support staff to do simple things. If I don't like it, I'm screwed."

Really, Tom? What vintage is your PC? Early '90s?

My 2006 dell laptop with Windows XP has NEVER crashed as far as I can recall, boots up in just a few seconds (although who really boots up from scratch anymore?) and has never been infected. It was ready to use when I took it out of the box, no need whatsoever for IT support.

And it was half the price of a Mac.

Silly, Kool Aid drinking, Steve Jobs worshipping sheep.

Apple was NOT right in rejecting Google Voice. They clearly stated that they did it because it competed with one of their products. It had nothing to do with piracy btw. I wouldn't mind Apples decision if a user could legally install Google Voice by a means other than the app store, but Apple doesn't allow that. Like in my earlier analogy with buying a new car, apple is forcing buyers to use the "stock stereo" after they bought the “car”.

If tomorrow (or say Windows 7)Microsoft stopped selling its OS to other computer manufactures, started selling Microsoft built machines with that OS, and limited who was allowed to develop for its mobile version (runs only on Microsoft built devices) people would cry foul. They would cry foul loud and fast! Anti-competitive they would shout. All they would be doing is what Apple is doing… If Apple is allowed to do these things then why when Microsoft tries to control their environment do so many people cry wolf about anti-competitive practices. Microsoft does not equal open source. They do not need to be promoting other peoples software over their own (the EU’s IE issues), they don’t need to work with everything (it’s better marketing for them to do this but they do not have to). If we want to punish one then punish them both when they break “the rules”.

Apple is sure done right thing by rejecting google voice. They were clear stating the reasons to do so. An iPhone developer would understand that. Apple is perfect to eliminate piracy. See the way people are profitable since the app store. If third party app other than app store content then look at security breaches and other spywares. Apple is only evil to those who want everything to be free. Now think you create a product and you see how its been sold for free in the grey market, you wont then support piracy. Grow up stop piracy and you will see the economy boosting up.

All these apple fanboys need to get their heads out of Apple's ass and realize what exactly this article is about. It's not about forcing Apple to support the competition. It's about Apple going out of its way to suppress competition so that it keeps control over the users property. It's like buying a certain car and they force you legally to use the stock radio. If I buy an iPhone I should be able to do whatever I want to it, software and hardware, and offer the mod to others for a price without worrying about apple releasing software update that is designed to destroy my work. It wouldn't be so bad if there were 3rd party alternatives to the iPhone OS or app store or whatever else, but apple uses legal muscle to suppress the competition. The iPhone does NOT belong to Apple. It belongs to the people who have spent the money to buy it. Apples right to complete control should end the moment the consumer buys it and attempts by Apple to force that control onto users should be met by legal action.

If it is not bully then what? I never installed any software for my previous cell phones but Apple forced me to install iTunes and iTunes not much user friendly and runs slow. Where is the innovation to simplify background process of iphone. It’s all about to maintain monopoly.

Which begs the question to the author … Who then is your corporate hero who will always do the consumers bidding and in the process shoot their business model on the head?

It's one thing to draw the line when a competitor infringes on your model and block them. It's a whole other thing to 'cut off their air supply' and prevent their very existence in the marketplace. If you know your history, you'll recognize the quote.

From Jon Fortt: This is a good argument for letting Microsoft control what software can run on Windows, and what devices can connect to it.

MSFT is a convicted monpolist – the one that destroyed Netscape and web browser stds. Monopolies are illegal when companies are intentionally targeted and destroyed. Has Apple played tough – yes. Fair? – yes.

From Jon Fortt: Apple doesn't control the distribution of apps for OS X. Apple also doesn't stop programs from running on your Mac just because it already makes something similar, i.e. banning other browsers because Macs come with Safari.

Right, it's MS that wanted to block other browsers from being preloaded.

On the Google issue you have mention of AT&T's deal with Apple, why is that? Even if you beleive that Apple nixed the app isn't it a conflict of services btw this app and Apple's chosen service providor?

Jon,

No analysis; just whining (and bad whining at that).

FWIW, you might review MSFT history – one reported comment:

From a MSFT exec to a defeated exec: "…The only mistake you made was to trust us (MSFT).

Nice one Jon! It's hard to write a tongue in cheek article like this one, and you pulled it off. Well done, a fun read.

Sure – let's open up the iPhone just like Windoze! We all love the viruses and worms and spyware on our Windoze desk tops SO much that we all want the iPhone to be just as useless ….

Hey Apple: Do NOT change a thing. I would rather have you vetting Apps so I know that the software I install on my phone will not break in or steal my bank passwords.

My Windows PC crashes every two minutes, takes twenty minutes to start up, requires an IT support staff to do simple things. If I don't like it, I'm screwed.

My Apple iPod does what I want to do instantly. I select a song and it plays. I select an app and it works. If I'm not happy with it, I can always select any of a thousand other MP3 players, including Microsoft's.

Microsoft only claims that some animals are more equal than others. With Apple, they really are.

Its the same old song everyone has been singing since the beginning of the Google Voice decision. All companies try to keep their creations within boundaries. Free innovation and open software works, but for profit, companies need control.

Why should Apple allow any software other than iTunes to control their hardware? If Apple could achieve a large share of the online music industry from its superior products, why should it just give it away? Let someone make something better and win.

You first want a company to create something amazing and then give it up for its competitors, so that THEY may profit from it, even though they did not help create it? That just doesn't make sense.

From Jon Fortt: This is a good argument for letting Microsoft control what software can run on Windows, and what devices can connect to it.

I think the critique of the App Store approval process is fair. However, I would not agree with the critique as to iTunes and Apple's "bullying" Hollywood over content. If you recall, Apple pushed for non-DRM music and specifically went after studios to embrace digital movies. Both to consumer benefit.

From Jon Fortt: True. I'm referring to Apple's efforts to control music pricing. For a long time Apple refused to let companies charge anything other than 99 cents, though they wanted to charge less for some songs and more for others. Apple also wanted to get all movie studios on iTunes on its terms, something that didn't happen in part because Hollywood chafed at Apple's desire for pricing control.

This article is really only about Google Voice, and nothing more. Apple has a brand to protect (sorry Microsoft. your brand went downhill when you released ME 2000, webTV, windows mobile, Ultimate TV, Zune, Vista, msn.com, promoted Steve Ballmer, etc.). You don't see Porsche cross-pollunate with Kia or GM…

Is this really a story?

This is the same model they have been using for their desktop business. They keep tight control on the hardware and software…in the end the user’s experience is better. iPhone vs. 99.99% of other smart phones, iPod vs. any other mp3 players and OSX and hardware vs windows. It works.

You want to be out there in the Wild West? Go grab a box and Linux, buy another smart phone, pick up a Zune, write your own sync scripts and stop wining about it.

It’s not the Mac/iPhone/iPod users that are crying about this, it’s the anti-apple journalists, the super geek PC users and any company that wants a piece of the market Apple helped refine, but can’t come up with a way to do as good or better.

Sorry but the concept of throwing Windows on any box and having zero control of the software or hardware that it works with, is why it’s such a nightmare to run a PC for most computer users.

From Jon Fortt: Apple doesn't control the distribution of apps for OS X. Apple also doesn't stop programs from running on your Mac just because it already makes something similar, i.e. banning other browsers because Macs come with Safari.

Jon, why do I get the feeling you like socialism? Does Fortune have final say over your finished product? So you follow their rules and collect a paycheck from them? This article seems to apply to you and your employer as well? Write that article…

From Jon Fortt: Socialism? Did you read Animal Farm?

Let's not forget RealAudio.

Apple's iTunes selling on terms most favorable for Apple? The fight was the labels and studios want to charge MORE – that's MORE money paid by the consumers. Apple has always tried to keep that cost down.

So in other words, you are saying that Apple has been bullying the labels to charge less per song so the consumer would benefit. A bunch of jerks those Apple folks are!

Apple doesn't need to support competitors' iPod clones. 3rd party software can do that.

Does Nikon support Canon lenses? No. Is the photograph world in a panic about that? No. Same thing with iTunes and iPod clones.

Yeah, that iPhone.. with 65,000 apps approved already, is really stifling development! Apple approves apps based on the development guidelines (which each developer receives) not to restrict idea's but to insure operability and less end user frustration and a better experience. A goal to which many vendors should strive better to achieve!

John… Why is your writing style similar to a drama queen that attends some mediocre junior college who lacks and/or needs attention?

Pretty much all I read was "OMG! Apple! … and then OMG! Microsoft! (sigh)(scoff) … OMG!"

Apple is a superior company that makes a superior product and markets itself as such. Apple wants to control the end user experience to keep it a pleasant one. Half of everyone is retarded (FACT) and Apple wants to be able to help those people that are retarded the best way they can, but not through offering support of modifications of how its supposed to be done. Google is great and all… but isn't it quite possible that Google just wasn't good enough?

From Jon Fortt: Napoleon is always right.

Actually, this article can only written by someone who does not know much about the history of Apple, IBM, Microsoft, H-P and so on.

Apple has always been protective of its software. Any and all companies in Silicon Valley is protective of its software.

Not able to sync with other devices? That is either an honest mistake, pure ignorance or an intentional fib? There is a ton of software one can use to get music off iTune onto your favorite device. You just cannot synchronize with it like your device is an iPod.

Anti-competition? Bully? Did Apple try to take over the computing world with Safari as compared to IE?

As for the Google Phone application, yes, it is an application that behave just like the iPhone phone application. Consumer may want that, but is it fair to a business? Does Toyota allow BMW software to run on it?

By the way, Word runs on Mac, so does Apple's own iPage and they are direct competitors. Where is your anti-competition claim now?

There is nothing wrong with consumer complaining but it becomes problematic when an article like this shows up with false information to mislead readers.

I am so tired of people trying to run Apple's business for them. Microsoft runs on almost all pc's shipped. Apple's phone is Apple's phone and Itunes was developed by Apple so why should they give other devices access. If Dell or any other pc company had developed their own operating system and sold their systems with that operating system installed instead of windows no one would have been outraged at those companies the way they were with microsoft. No one insists that a patron of Mcdonalds be allowed to eat food from another restaurant in a mcdonalds. Apple has a responsibilty to its shareholders to lawfully be the most profitable company it can be. I do not think the law states that once a company develops an idea or product that all other companies should be allowed to profit from that idea or product. Instead we have laws that protect ideas and products (copyrights patents)

You know, Microsoft has done PLENTY that's far less up front and far more damaging to competition.

So spare us the crockodile tears for poor little Microsoft.

Yeah that damn iPhone is sure giving inovation a beating….

It is about time the media stopped fawning over apple and started treating it like any other company.

Apple needs to be held to the same standards as others.

There is one difference, though. Apple's stuff, even when they're being evil, is still worth using.