Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Platform Lock-Ins, A 3rd Party Dev's Opinion

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the no-sir-i-don't-like-it dept.

Technology (Apple) 411

Iftekhar writes "Wil Shipley, of Delicious Monster fame, has written a very candid essay on what he perceives as Apple's growing trend toward platform lock-ins. He writes: 'Why is the iPhone locked to a single carrier, so I can't travel internationally with it? There's really only one viable reason: Apple wanted a share of the carrier's profits, which meant giving AT&T an exclusive deal. Which meant, we get screwed so Apple can make more money. It's that simple. [...] As Apple gets more and more of its revenue from non-Mac devices, they are also getting more and more of their revenue from devices that simply exclude third parties. Consumers suffer from this. We suffer from increased prices and decreased competition and innovation. We suffer so Apple can make a few more bucks, when Apple is clearly not hurting for money.'"

cancel ×

411 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Dear Slahsdot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20719457)

Please, never publish a story with the word "cock-thirsty" in it again.

Ob. Penny Arcade ref. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20719717)

So let me get this straight... (5, Insightful)

ZipR (584654) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719465)

Apple is a company that's trying to maximize its profits? Wha????

Re:So let me get this straight... (5, Insightful)

weirdcrashingnoises (1151951) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719505)

It could be argued that alternatives (some being less "harmful" to consumer) would actually be better at maximizing profits, than using lock-ins.

Re:So let me get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20719763)

it could be argued that you are not the ceo of apple and nor do you have to answer to shareholders.

Re:So let me get this straight... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20719845)

I mean, seriously, who but Steve Jobs, peace and blessings be upon him, is even remotely qualified to talk about Apple? The rest of us should just wait silently for His Word.

Re:So let me get this straight... (5, Insightful)

Divebus (860563) | more than 6 years ago | (#20720037)

Customers are suffering? I've been suffering under Apple for many years and intend to continue, if you call that suffering.

iPod: Show me another company that develops an enormously popular product then continuously replaces it with major functional extensions and increasingly sexy devices in the face of almost no competition.


Show me another company with this kind of popular product that doesn't try to leverage the RIAA against its customers. If it was up to any other company, we'd be paying between $2.50 and $4.50 for legal music downloads and be able to listen to them three times - just like the RIAA wants. Oh... wait... no, we'd be getting music from all the torrent sites instead. All of it.


If anything, Apple is holding the prices down for mainstream music and allowing fair use of music like no other company - and at the same time showing the music industry how to keep EVERYONE from stealing from them. Apple is helping the artists in spite of the RIAA "cut open the golden goose" business model. They even host buckets of indie labels on ITMS.


However, the original model of encrypted music downloads is now harming the ability to move directly to other music playing devices. That's changing too - if only the record labels would lift the contractual requirement of encryption. Meanwhile, exercise your ability to move the music around with the pathways supplied by Apple in spite of the RIAA protests.


Even sticking to their guns in the computer industry, Apple is slowly getting noticed as a better choice than Windows. They could have sold out to the mainstream Lemmings but OS X users are almost universally much happier with their machines than Windows users. It's all about principal.

Customers suffering indeed.

Duh (5, Insightful)

DogDude (805747) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719467)

What an astute essay! Of course, it's about 20 years late, but hey, better late than never, huh?

Apple has been actively engaging in hardware/software lock-in for 20+ years. Nothing has changed other than this one particular person has started to remove his head from his ass. Yippee.

Re:Duh (0, Troll)

loftwyr (36717) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719669)

Wait a minute! Are you saying Apple's OS was locked in to a single hardware manufacturer even though there were thousands of clones out there? I mean IBM, Compaq and Gateway all make Mac clones running the latest OSX, right?

Lock-in, yea right...

Re:Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20719715)

I feel anything but locked in with OS X. I feel that my OS X coexists with Linux quite happily. OS X having built in support for bash and other unix/linux functions and OS X supporting most open standard formats, lets me move work back and forth without any problems. Apple can lock in customers to their hardware and OS all they want so long as they support open formats that let me move to another computer when needed. The world would be a better place if there was 6+ apple like companies that all supported the open formats.

Re:Duh (4, Insightful)

Leftist Troll (825839) | more than 6 years ago | (#20720053)

I feel that my OS X coexists with Linux quite happily. [snip] The world would be a better place if there was 6+ apple like companies that all supported the open formats.

If only Apple would start supporting open formats [technocrat.net] like ogg and odf, and stop wasting their time [blogspot.com] trying to sabotage their devices to break Linux compatibility, I would agree with you.

Re:Duh (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719761)

So does most any other company in existence. This isnt an 'Apple thing'.

The good news is that Apple has always made good products. ( well the Apple III not withstanding, everyone gets to make a mistake every so often :) )

Re:Duh (1)

krbvroc1 (725200) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719853)

Yeah, like this is supposed to be new? Apple has always been like this. It is their model, it is how they operate, it is their corporate culture. I remember back in the day when Apple was suing clone manufacturers and it was the same mentality. At the time I had to decide where to spend my money and how to get the best value. I ended up going with a clone manufacturer called Compaq. It allowed me to buy ISA cards or modems from multiple vendors versus the proposition of high priced single source lock-in with Apple. Apple lost its battle and the PC took over due to this open architecture and free/cheap licensing. Of course IBM was hurt too and they tried to lock-in with the PS/2 and the licensing fees for their new Microchannel bus (supposed to replace ISA). IBM fail the lock-in too because the free market for computer components was a great thing.

The only reason apple is successful with iTunes/iPod is they have hooked up with the DRM/lock-in industry of music distribution. There is a synergy there, for now.

Re:Duh (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719959)

Having your own hw/sw ecosystem is different from lock-in, so I'd agree with you but only for the latest developments with the ipod, closing back the kernel, getting rid of openfirmware (which booted linux very fine even from firewire which is cool) and some not very nice behavior in the past (like sherlock being a rip off of some 3rd party apps with no recognition).

Apple seems like Fiat: a good model, then years towards bankrupcy, then another model that saves the day, then back to sleep. The one time a model doesn't save the day, they're toast. Pity they don't share the same "let's take over the world" attitude of evil microsoft.

Still... (4, Informative)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719483)

...it's Apple's choice. No matter how dumb or greedy it seems. As consumers, we get to vote with our wallets and optionally grumble. Where I live, there's no AT&T, so Apple makes no iPhone sales here. I'd love to buy for my family — that'd be 5 units — but without a carrier, it's just a glorified iPod and there's no point.

It does sting a little... we've got a lot of Macs between us and consider ourselves loyal Apple customers... oh well.

Re:Still... (4, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719627)

It's true and Apple has always sold itself on the premise "buy this thing with the Apple logo and you will be a happier person! And you will have friends too!"

For many people, the attraction to Apple ends when they find out that they can't easily do something that's important to them. For some, like those people who wear "Abercrombie and Fitch" t-shirts and never realize that it's just an ordinary t-shirt, are happy because someone told them they would. [Think placebo effect] (Yes, there is a tiny minority that actually use Apple because they are actually more productive in what they do with it...)

But by and large, too much of the digital world out there depends on being inter-operable with the larger world which is basically Windows and software written for Windows.

(FWIW, I don't fit into any of those general categories... I'm a Linux-primarily user... I work with Mac and can hack on it pretty good... I work with Windows because I have to. But when it comes to doing the things I want to do, Linux simply works better and safer for me.)

Re:Still... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20719955)

Now, drink your Cool-aid and STFU.

You know what? (3, Insightful)

Icarus1919 (802533) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719489)

You know what? I'm sick of this sort of thing. Guess what guys, Apple is in it for the money! They're not running a charity here. Yes, they locked in with another company, it's their prerogative. When you create a product you get to decide if someone is going to exclusively sell it, that's the way it works. No one is forcing you to buy the iPhone. Yeah, it's a create phone, but other phones get the job done just fine.

Re:You know what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20719599)

No. He's a Third party dev, so to him, it's not a create phone at all. That's the whole point.

Re:You know what? (1)

Icarus1919 (802533) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719649)

*Cough* I meant great phone. Need to use preview more often.

Re:You know what? (5, Insightful)

astrashe (7452) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719675)

That was pretty much my reaction to it as well.

If you want freedom, go with open source. Write code for linux phones, support that ecosystem, make them better. But don't whine about Apple being what it is.

Re:You know what? (4, Funny)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719797)


You know what? I'm sick of this sort of thing. Guess what guys, Apple is in it for the money!

The problem is there's a lot of Apple fanboys who are slowly coming to that conclusion, though fighting it tooth and nail. These people believe Apple exists to make them happy, not to make money.

Re:You know what? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20719847)

And the poor bastard who wrote TFA will be proclaimed jackass of the week on rabid fanboy site daringfireball.

Re:You know what? (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719913)

It's not about Apple making money. We all know Apple is a company, and companies like money, and I don't think many here would claim that's a bad thing. The point is how Apple is going about it. I use a Mac, and a large part of the reason for that is code written by Wil Shipley and his former employees. Without OmniGraffle and OmniOutliner, I would have a lot less reason to use a Mac. OS X is nice, but it's third party software that makes it really superb. Take that away, and you have a much less useful platform. The more Apple locks down their devices, the less useful they are. My Nokia phone lacks a few features, but I've been able to get third party software that makes up for that. If I replaced it with an iPhone and found it lacked features I need (actually, the iPhone lacks pretty much all of the features I actually use on a phone beyond making phone calls, but that's not the point), then I have no way of adding them. This means that I will not be buying an iPhone, irrespective of how shiny it is. This means that Apple has lost a potential sale due to their lock-in policy.

People think Apple is their friend (2, Insightful)

pestie (141370) | more than 6 years ago | (#20720239)

The problem is that people think Apple is their friend. This is no doubt a testament to their marketing skills, but the fanboy crowd really needs to get their collective head out of their collective ass about this. Apple is a publicly-traded corporation, with all the financial responsibilities that entails (i.e. they are obligated by law to act in the best interest of their profits). The sooner people get it through their head that Steve Jobs isn't going to stop by their house and do a couple bong hits with them, the sooner they'll stop whining.

Same reason as hardware lock in (5, Insightful)

Oz0ne (13272) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719501)

Apple when dealing with third parties loses some control over the experience of using their devices.

They want to minimize this. It's bad enough they have people perceiving the iphone to have problems because of cell service outages, ridiculous billing from at&t, awful customer support at AT&T, etc. Imagine if they were having to fight that battle on more than one front?

It's silly, because it's not apples fault, but everyone (average consumer) will relate the bad experience to apple even if they are one of the more clear thinking ones.

Since their inception, they've kept control of their hardware, ensuring a consistent and good experience on their computer. This is their strength over microsoft. This is their strength over Dell. They can give you a good experience and manage it. They don't have anyone else to blame!

Re:Same reason as hardware lock in (2, Insightful)

s4m7 (519684) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719639)

It's bad enough they have people perceiving the iphone to have problems because of cell service outages[.]
Right, because I blame motorola for my verizon service sucking.

they've kept control of their hardware, ensuring a consistent and good experience on their computer.

Silly me, after paying $1500 for the damn thing, I was walking around under the mistaken impression it was my computer.

come on, fanboys. you can do better.

Eloquence. [thebestpag...iverse.net]

parent is right: property rights are endagered (1)

erlehmann (1045500) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719815)

free software, DRM, vendor lock-in:
it ll comes down to the conflict of property rights vs. immaterial goods rights.

Visual voicemail, upgrades, itunes (0)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719745)

Apple is not providing a generic PC phone, it's providing it's usual seamless enduser enviroment. If phones were unlocked then they would be used on other carriers without Visual Voice mail. Upgrade software would be spotty, itunes store might have some problem, etc...

So what, you might say, Let me have the downgraded experience if that's what I want. Well That's just the point. Apple does not sell downgraded, sort works, experiences. That is their brand image. 1) It just works. 2) every machine has 100% of it's high end features working. (e.g. when you buy an apple computer you get Firewire whether you want it or not--every one has it and developers can count on it).

So it's not up to You. It's up to apple.

Now I'm sure there are boatload of other reasons. Some of them might be to do with revenue sharing. But I think its also to promote the vendor's attention to the details apple likes. By giving exclusive contracts they can pick people who will make Edge work well and make visual voicemail work well. Maybe they can also pick people who wont create nightmare pricing plans. FOr example look at the discpline apple enforced with the Ringtones. while people complain about ringtone costing anything, apple simplified the whole pricing plan. 1) it's cheaper (verizon) 2) you can customize it (all of them) 3) and they don't expire (sprint).

Apple keeps control for it's reason of perpetuating it's brand image and making a profit when they only have small portion of the market and are taking expensive R&D risks.

Visual voicemail (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719953)

I'm kinda wondering what the big deal about visual voicemail is.

I mean, I get that the feature is great, and I'd love to have it myself. But it seems to me that it'd be pretty easy for any network to offer it to almost ANY phone, or at least a pretty close facsimile to a large majority.

Phones that can receive audio-video MMS messages have been around for many years. So why not just MMS the recorded voice file directly to the phone, when it's convenient? They already SMS you the notification, why not just send the voice too? Then you can see all your voicemail messages listed individually on your phone, and listen to them at will.

Technically it's better for the network, as the bandwidth cost is lower than playing the message over a voice call, and they can do it at less-than-realtime data rates too. They can still charge for the service however they like, and many customers would pay for the convenience. They could send extra info in the MMS, maybe even a basic speech-to-text summary (for a fee). They could also email it anywhere, as many VoIP providers do now.

Re:Visual voicemail (1)

OECD (639690) | more than 6 years ago | (#20720031)

I mean, I get that the feature is great, and I'd love to have it myself. But it seems to me that it'd be pretty easy for any network to offer it to almost ANY phone, or at least a pretty close facsimile to a large majority.

Of course. But it seems to take a company like Apple to actually do it. C.f. the iPod.

So don't buy it. (4, Insightful)

forsetti (158019) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719515)

'Nuff said.

Sounds like Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20719535)

Didn't some judge say that kind of behavior was illegal?

And when Apple is a monopoloy... (1)

Anderson Council (1096781) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719593)

...your comment may have merit. In the meantime, you are comparing having something shoved down your throat in one domain by a company holding a (virtual) monopoloy in another domain, with a product and service that has single-digit market-share in a crowded and highly competative field. The latter is called "choice", and as many have already pointed out, you have *huge* selection beyong the iPhone for your "smart phone" needs. -- ~AC

Re:Sounds like Microsoft (5, Insightful)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719661)

Didn't some judge say that kind of behavior was illegal?
Apple has a monopoly on a key business device? Really? Is Apple trying to keep out other cell phone makers out of the market? Are they trying to control a hardware platform/device they did not create? No. Just as with consoles, the maker of the device makes the rules and if you don't like those rules then don't buy the device.

Oh, for the love of Jebus (5, Insightful)

noewun (591275) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719541)

There's really only one viable reason: Apple wanted a share of the carrier's profits, which meant giving AT&T an exclusive deal.

Oh, Lord. Please point out to me the place in the U.S. where it's easy to buy an unlocked phone and take it from carrier to carrier, cause I'd like to live there. Then maybe I could cancel my contract without an early termination fee and sign up to another carrier without signing a contract. Look, Apple does some stupid shit, but blaming them for the terrible and non-competitive state of the U.S. cel phone industry is just plain stupid. We have, IMO, a de facto telecommunications monopoly in this country, and the reasons for that are a whole lot more complicate than 'Apple is teh sux0r!' The whole essay reads like someone who lives a fair distance from logic. And then there's this:

But recently, well... the generous view would be that Apple's screwing up. . .

No, the view among a small percentage of Slashdot posters and some people with blogs is that Apple's screwing up. The view of most rational people is they're doing just fine. Why didn't he just call the essay "I Hate Apple"?

Re:Oh, for the love of Jebus (5, Informative)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719691)

In the US, you can easily buy an unlocked phone (Amazon [amazon.com] or EBay [ebay.com] are good places to look), and any carrier will sell their services without a subscription plan, although they won't advertise it - it's mandated by law. It's also mandated by law that you can hold phone numbers when switching between carriers.

When I'm in the US, I use an unlocked cell phone bought in a foreign country, and a local GSM card, it's easy. The only thing to watch out for is that the US uses 850&1900 Mhz GSM, most countries use 900&1800. So make sure the phone is at least tri-band, or better yet quad-band.

Really there's nothing difficult about getting an unlocked phone in the US, it just isn't well advertised. And really it's not a bad deal to get the phone bundled with a long-term contract, if you're going to have to have a cell phone anyway.

Re:Oh, for the love of Jebus (1)

noewun (591275) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719787)

Thanks, dude. I didn't know how easy it was to get an unlocked phone.

Re:Oh, for the love of Jebus (3, Informative)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719901)

In the US, you can easily buy an unlocked phone

Precisely what I have done with my last few phones and I've never had any problems using it on AT&T/Cingular. I also used to have a RAZR that was locked with AT&T but needed it unlocked when I went to New Zealand & Australia. There are two things you can do to get your phone unlocked. Simply call your carrier and lean on them a bit and they may simply send you the unlock code. Or you can spend $20 or so with a service that will unlock your phone for you. It's typically a matter of having a cable that will connect your phone to your PC and some software that you run. You can find all sorts of unlock services on the internet - just search for your carrier & phone model.

Re:Oh, for the love of Jebus (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#20720073)

any carrier will sell their services without a subscription plan, although they won't advertise it - it's mandated by law.
Could you please elaborate on this? This is something I've never heard of. How do they sell their services, in that case? Where can I find more information about this? I like the idea of a cell phone, but hate the expensive plans that I see from carriers.

Re:Oh, for the love of Jebus (1)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 6 years ago | (#20720229)

Just go talk to an actual reseller--when they hit you with a plan, say "no, I want to pay month-to-month." You'll pay a bit more, probably, but no lock-in. They're required by law to provide services without requiring a time commitment.

Re:Oh, for the love of Jebus (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719909)

The problem is, they pull off the same prank in Europe now, and people don't even find that strange! Is Steve's reality distortion field really that good? I will never buy an iPhone if I can't get it without a SIM-lock and use it with the provider I chose.

Re:Oh, for the love of Jebus (2, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#20720181)

Look, Apple does some stupid shit, but blaming them for the terrible and non-competitive state of the U.S. cel phone industry is just plain stupid. We have, IMO, a de facto telecommunications monopoly in this country, and the reasons for that are a whole lot more complicate than 'Apple is teh sux0r!' The whole essay reads like someone who lives a fair distance from logic.
Right on the money, let's quote from our electronic freedom prophet:

A more common phenomenon

Locked cellphones have become common in North America as carriers claim that they sell "subsidized" phones in return for an exclusive commitment and long-term contract from consumers. While many consumers may like the opportunity to purchase a phone for a fraction of the full retail price, others would presumably prefer the freedom of an "unlocked" cellphone that would allow them to easily switch between carriers.

The freedom provided by unlocked cellphones is particularly useful for people who travel, since they can avoid roaming fees by converting their phone into a local phone in most countries by simply inserting a local SIM card. This approach is standard in Europe and Asia, where consumers would not tolerate a market comprised solely of locked cellphones.
    Michael Geist


So why is the iPhone carrier-locked? Because that's the way things are in the market where the iPhone was developed. Mystery solved!

Apple's dreaming at night... (0, Troll)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719547)

that it is Microsoft. A soon as they get more than 15% market share in anything (got forbid higher like with the Ipods), they start pulling stunts and tricks to lock-in people, hardware, devs..

Steve Jobs makes Bill Gates and Ballmer look like open source zealots.

Re:Apple's dreaming at night... (2, Insightful)

Scudsucker (17617) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719779)

that it is Microsoft. A soon as they get more than 15% market share in anything (got forbid higher like with the Ipods), they start pulling stunts and tricks to lock-in people, hardware, devs.. Steve Jobs makes Bill Gates and Ballmer look like open source zealots.

Holy super atomic hyperbole batman! The iPhone has been out for four months and hasn't come close to 1% of the phone market, so it's a wee bit early to be calling them monopolists. Would your ass like to speak up and make any other predictions while you are at it?

Re:Apple's dreaming at night... (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719891)

It was a general statement about a company's behavior. I wasn't talking about the iPhone in particular.

Isn't it ironic? (1)

Gilatrout (694977) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719549)

That Jobs wants Apple to be like Microsoft - Big and monopolistic, while Gates wants MSFT to be like Apple - Hip like like a Zune. (I also think Gates secretly wants to leave MSFT to Ozzie to come back and save the day just like you know who.)

keep it in perspective.... (5, Insightful)

User 956 (568564) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719561)

As Apple gets more and more of its revenue from non-Mac devices, they are also getting more and more of their revenue from devices that simply exclude third parties. Consumers suffer from this.

I wouldn't refer to anyone that can afford a $600 phone as "suffering".

Re:keep it in perspective.... (1)

grumling (94709) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719975)

Actually, he bought 18 of them!

Wow (1, Insightful)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719569)

Wow! Apple ... lock in? That's news to me.. lets see. I can run OSX on... a mac only. I can *legally* use an iPod with.... iTunes only... Where are the Mac Clones? Gone... Apple... Locked... No shit, Sherlock.

fuck y'all NERDS,GO and get some life (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20719575)

fuck y'all NERDS,GO and get some life

Translation (4, Informative)

Yurka (468420) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719595)

Apple maliciously wants to keep all the money from their products to themselves, instead of giving some of it to me, the struggling developer. Those filthy rich bastards.

Look, every purchase, be it a loaf of bread or an iPhone, is an exercise in weighing potential benefits of the thing acquired against the sum of money needed to acquire it. If for you the lock-in is a deal-breaker, don't buy. When enough people do that, Apple will listen. Before that - I wouldn't bet on it.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20720129)

I wouldn't call a millionaire "struggling"

Well this is just untrue: (4, Informative)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719609)

Why is the iPhone locked to a single carrier, so I can't travel internationally with it?

It's called roaming, and you certainly can with the iphone.

Re:Well this is just untrue: (1)

DaveCBio (659840) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719685)

And get the privilege of paying a $3000 phone bill - http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/10/the-3-000-iphone-bill/ [bloggingstocks.com]

Re:Well this is just untrue: (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719831)

And get the privilege of paying a $3000 phone bill - http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/10/the-3-000-iphone-bill/ [bloggingstocks.com]

Or not...

Did you actually read the blog in its entirety? He was given full credit for the full amount.

Re:Well this is just untrue: (1)

DaveCBio (659840) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719867)

It was a joke... some times the knee jerk reactions on this site are amazing.

No shit sherlock (4, Funny)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719615)

You mean the company's first priority is to make money? Say its not so! All this time I thought Apple was around to make people feel all warm and happy inside.

Re:No shit sherlock (1)

bentcd (690786) | more than 6 years ago | (#20720017)

You mean the company's first priority is to make money? Say its not so! All this time I thought Apple was around to make people feel all warm and happy inside.
It appears to me that Apple is trying to make money, by making people feel all warm and happy inside :-)

Essay doesn't mention the worst part (5, Funny)

mfender9 (725994) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719621)

I'm surprised the essay doesn't even mention the worst part, which is how Apple is forcing people at gun point to buy their products, so even though there are all of those other options on the market, you have no choice but to be locked into Apple's platform decisions against your will.

Wait...

Why was the deal an exclusive? (2, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719657)

There's really only one viable reason: Apple wanted a share of the carrier's profits, which meant giving AT&T an exclusive deal.

How does Shipley know this? It could just as easily have been that no mobile carrier would agree to allow the iPhone on its network (and to incorporate features like visual voice mail) unless it was under an exclusive license.

I'm not saying that's necessarily how it went down, but it's well known that Jobs cares little for the mobile carriers.

It's called business (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20719663)

Luckily for Apple however, there's enough idiots in the world to pay for their over-priced, under-featured, low quality products.

The amount of defects in Apple is quite astonishing and the software aint much better, yet people flock back to them again and again. Hell, the new iPods don't even look good - one of the few things usually going for Apple products and yet I bet they'll still sell like hotcakes.

People say it's Apple's UIs that do it for them, but anyone able to talk in an even slightly non-biased manner will realise that iTunes, one of Apple's primary products is pretty damn atrocious.

And you're still using Apple (4, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719665)

Because.... ???

Look. Go whine somewhere else. You've made your bed, go lie in it.

 

If you don't like it (5, Insightful)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719671)

If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you're a 3rd party developer, then don't develop applications for it. Vote with your wallet. Nobody is forcing you to buy the iPhone. Go buy a different smartphone that allows 3rd-party apps.

"Consumers suffer from this. We suffer from increased prices and decreased competition and innovation."

This might actually make sense if this were a necessity of life, but this is a luxury item we're talking about. I give this a big fat "SO WHAT?" What Apple decided to do with the iPhone was a business decision. Business decisions are made based on the potential to make the company money, either in the short- or long-term. Making customers happy is only important to a company when doing so will help the company make money. If a company makes its customers happy but doesn't make a profit, its competitors will drive it into the ground. This is the whole basis for capitalism: if you don't like one company's product, take your money elsewhere. Besides, everyone was warned well in advance that the iPhone would be closed to third-party apps. There was no surprise. Now, if the iPhone had originally allowed 3rd party apps, and then through an update removed that ability, then you would have a cause to complain.

But the whining I hear day after day about "oh no, the iPhone doesn't do [insert pet feature]! Woe is me!" has long passed the point of "annoying". Face it, even if all the current complaints about the iPhone were resolved, we'd find something else to complain about.

The instant I heard "We suffer so Apple can make a few more bucks, when Apple is clearly not hurting for money," the article lost all credibility. Nobody is making you suffer. And so what if they have money? Do you know where that money goes? Let's see...it goes to paying all the people who work for the company. It pays the CEO a big fat paycheck, which he then spends on yacht, which creates jobs. Or he invests it, which means that the money goes to fund some other project or initiative which gives other people jobs. Money sitting in a pile does a company no good.

Re:If you don't like it (1)

DaveCBio (659840) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719703)

It's the same cry for any "must have" product. If people feel some sense of entitlement and ownership of a brand/product they get emotionally invested. The 2 worst groups I have seen on the net for this are gamers and Apple users. Go against the flow with those 2 groups and be prepared to put on your asbestos jumper.

Re:If you don't like it (2, Funny)

tooslickvan (1061814) | more than 6 years ago | (#20720047)

It pays the CEO a big fat paycheck, which he then spends on yacht, ...

I'm pretty sure that $1 doesn't go very far on yacht purchases.

Not the first intl screwup (4, Informative)

also-rr (980579) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719689)

On powerbooks and macbook pros the wireless card is locked to channel 1-11. This is fine for the US but, unlike other cards, there is no way to unlock it when you go to Europe (where channels up to 13 are used). This can be a major PITA on a customer site... but at least a spare wireless card is cheap, unlike...

Apple are about the only company that ship the very restricted form of DVD drives. Most will let you read the _data_ from an out-of-region disk, meaning that you can use VLC or another libdvdcss2 solution to play the DVD. The drives that ship with Apple laptops (since late revision powerbooks) totally block reads for out-of-region disks so VLC won't work.

This sucks as it means that my legally purchased region 2 DVDs won't work. There is now a RPC1 de-region crack for macbook pro drives but it requires a copy of Windows to install.

So much for it just works. You would have thought their testing would have involved taking one over the pond for a week of business travel.

Re:Not the first intl screwup (3, Funny)

Wordsmith (183749) | more than 6 years ago | (#20720105)

So what you're saying is, it's only in America that ours go up to 11?

Re:Not the first intl screwup (2, Informative)

ratbag (65209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20720183)

On powerbooks and macbook pros the wireless card is locked to channel 1-11. This is fine for the US but, unlike other cards, there is no way to unlock it when you go to Europe (where channels up to 13 are used). This can be a major PITA on a customer site... but at least a spare wireless card is cheap, unlike...

My MBP (2.33Ghz Core2Duo) goes from 1-13 just fine, thanks (just clicked Airport, Create Network, Channel, 1-13 are offered). Can't comment on the DVD drive.

AT&T is the customer here. (4, Insightful)

CharAznable (702598) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719719)

As an iPhone owner, you are not Apple's customer. You are the product. The iPhone is a device that uses a shiny interface to deliver subscribers to AT&T, who is Apple's true customer in this deal. I've been an Apple user since 1986, but this time I think I'll pass.

APPLE should come out with mac osx86 for all...... (-1, Offtopic)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719753)

APPLE should come out with mac osx86 for all systems or at least have a head less mid-range desktop mac.

AIO don't work that well in the rest of the pc world. Also the i-macs only come with a ati 2600 pro video card with is slower at games then the cards in the older imacs.

The mini is to weak and over priced for what you get GMA 950, 80GB Serial ATA drive laptop drive, no Keyboard & Mouse Sets, Combo Drive, 1gb of ram 2x512, 1.83GHz laptop cpu $599? add $200 to get a SuperDrive 8x, 120GB Serial ATA drive laptop drive, and a 2GHz laptop cpu at $799?

The mac pro is over priced starting at $2200 and only 1gb of ram? also the FB-DIMMS at $300 a gig apple price OWC has them at $100 a gig, $150 for a 7300gt, and Add $249 to get a x1900 ati card?

thinking skills people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20719773)

oh boy... microsoft comparisons are awfully dimwitted ont this issue. the average consumer (busy life, 30 minute max. learning curve) has literally hundreds of cell-phone options that will work with current infrastructure/calling plans. MS on the other hand controls the vast majority of the populations computer needs with Windows. Anti-MS critics are aware of this responsability and don't react to phrases like 'vendor-lock' like a bunch of dorito clogs.

failzor5?! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20719783)

and 4broad 7or [goat.cx]

Yes, you can travel internationally.... (2, Informative)

ErikTheRed (162431) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719851)

... if you plan for it. I bought an iPhone for my wife (I kept my trusty Treo 650) and we went to Germany about two weeks later. Of course, I did call AT&T to discuss International rates and set us up on an appropriate plan for while we were there. I put us on a $6.95/month plan that dropped our per-minute fees by over 60%. I canceled it when we returned. Was still it expensive? Of course - our bill was a couple of hundred bucks when we got back - but that's no worse than with any other phone. We did know what we were getting into, though, and had planned accordingly. And more importantly, we could both send and receive calls while we were there - we both own our own companies and people have to get ahold of us. Ironically, her phone worked perfectly while my Treo had all sorts of problems (but to be fair, I'm pretty sure it's because of some frigtarded AT&T setup issues).

If you really need to cut costs when you travel internationally, buy a disposable phone or rent one or use the old phone you've got lying around when you're in the country you're traveling to. Otherwise, remember the Law of the Seven P's - Proper Previous Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance (not to mention sky-high phone bills).

Point taken, but maybe a bit shrill (3, Interesting)

Eponymous Crowbar (974055) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719875)

Apple took a risk with the iphone by releasing an expensive device with extra features that not everyone would consider essential. By taking the deal with AT&T, they probably reduced some of their financial risk. They also reduced their available market share since people may not be able or willing to switch to AT&T. I don't necessarily like their decision, but I don't think it was motivated entirely by corporate greed. As for the ipod, we all know the argument about controlling the end-user's experience in order to guarantee that everything works well together. Apple is extending that formula to the iphone. Like the ipod, there will be more and more ways to get around the limitations as time passes. It's cool to continue to call for the opening up of these devices because the payoff for a techie is huge, but it will take time. I don't think it will speed things along to resort to conspiracy theories or dismissal of Apple's motives in this case.

juvenile jerk or potent pundit? (3, Interesting)

Jeremy_Bee (1064620) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719907)

I find this article and the associated thread fascinating in that I am not a developer and until this moment, had no idea who Will Shipley was.

Coming at it from that angle, I found him to be a childish potty-mouthed sort of fellow who seems to be crying "Sour Grapes" really loudly. I imagine that he has some kind of techie internet-based fame that allows him to write this kind of thing and come across as insightful? As an article on it's own however, discovered without reference to background or source, it reads like a bunch of juvenile whining.

At best it seems only to state some very well-known "wrongs" and then just add a (mostly unspoken) OMG! at the end of each point.

I am guessing that this article is really a developers expression of personal frustration, that a lot of folks here (also developers) can identify with and thus nod your heads in unison, but to the uninitiated it just reads like a bad rant.

strange... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20719925)

I have never heard Microsoft ever preventing you from running some other company's browser or media player on a Windows machine, yet Microsoft is evil because they give you a free browser and media player with Windows. I have never heard Microsoft ever insist that you had to buy your PC from them, yet Microsoft is evil because most PCs are sold with Windows pre-loaded.

Apple is in every way more restrictive, but is the force of goodness and light.

I'll never understand fanboys.

Hm, not sure I buy his conclusion ... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719929)

We suffer so Apple can make a few more bucks, when Apple is clearly not hurting for money.

I don't suffer ... I don't own a single Apple product, and haven't since I retired my Apple //e decades ago. Suffering is relative. Now, if Apple had a de facto monopoly on cell phones I might feel differently, but there is such an incredible array of competing equipment out there I just don't see the point in whining about one vendor. Consumers will decide if the iPhone survives or not: obviously Apple is hoping for a repeat of their success with the iPod. Cell phones are a much more complex marketplace but, hey, time will tell.

Personally, I think that if Apple wants the iPhone to last, to have a substantial ecosystem develop around their hardware, they should open it up for third-party code. I believe they eventually will, once they've squeezed the last drop out of the early-adopter crowd.

Apple has always been a sleazy company (1, Insightful)

Simonetta (207550) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719935)

Yes, I too believed the endless Apple hype. Even twenty years ago before knowing anything about computers and electronics (they are the same thing, in reality).
    Then when I was an electronics student, the original Mac came out. What a media shitstorm! You would have thought that the sun danced in front of Dan Rather and cast of thousands in a sleepy little Portuguese village. Then people started exiting the Jobs reality-distortion field and real reports started circulating (but not being published as most computer magazines were dependent on computer company ad purchases and wouldn't report anything dispiriting about anybody's computer. Plus,there was no WWW then).
      Well this little box was an earth shattering copy of a Xerox Star and somewhat cheaper, but it had one problem. It couldn't, well,..uh.. do..anything actually. I mean after you wiggled the mouse around and clicked on some menu bars, well that was about it. That's what you got for your $2000. It even took five swaps to copy a floppy disk.
      The problem was that the machine had no memory. It had two banks of 64K chips to run the whole show. But there were holes and traces on the circuit board to hold the new 256K RAM chips. It wasn't long before hardware hackers (and there were many then) realized that by carefully removing the 64K chips and replacing them with 256K chips, the new Mac could perform almost as well as a CPM machine or even a RadioShack Trash-80. Apple would upgrade your new machine, but they charged two to three times as much as the cost of the 256K RAM chips themselves. And basically all they did was pop the top, unscrew the main circuit board from the box, pull some easy-on,easy-off connectors, put in the new board with the 256K RAM chips and slap everything back together. It took about 15 minutes, maybe, if the store was busy. But Apple charged many hundreds of dollars for this, uh, service.
      So lots of people, (first customers, the ones who took a chance and paid the big bucks for Apple's new machine) simply did this procedure themselves. Word filtered back to this asshole Steve Jobs that about this and he decided that: "Anyone who did a non-Apple upgrade of the Mac RAM could NOT be allowed to purchase upgrade ROMs that fixed all the little bugs in version 1.0". This was a big thing: ROM chip swap was the only way to upgrade the Mac OS and, back then, almost everybody was a hardware hacker. Popular computer magazines published schematics and code to home-build copies of the latest equipment and peripherals that were being reviewed and sold.
      Not long after that Jobs was thrown out of the company for being a greedy megalomaniac and pissing off the entire Apple community. But he never lost the uncanny ability to take people's money, give them second-rate equipment, and convince them that they were part of some 'insanely great' movement of which he was the guru through which the divine light of technology and coolness passed.
    So it comes as no surprise that one by one, millions of people come to learn what a greedy vicious little fraud this guy is. Do yourself a favor; don't buy stuff from this guy. You can always get the same functionality in better and much cheaper equipment elsewhere.

Re:Apple has always been a sleazy company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20720215)

I thought for sure this story would end with you eating poop.

Re:Apple has always been a sleazy company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20720315)

"You can always get the same functionality in better and much cheaper equipment elsewhere."
Yes, you can always buy a Hunday instead of a Mercedes Benz, you will have basically the same functuonality for a cheaper price. But you are comparing apples and oranges :)
You can't relly ignore the fact that most Apple customers love their stuff - mostly for reaons.
In a weird way, Apple delivers the very same feeling you have driving a Meredes Benz when you are using your iPod, iPhone or MacBook.
It may be sleazy, but not too many other companies cn do it.

Re:Apple has always been a sleazy company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20720317)

FUD, FUD FUD ....

Well this little box was an earth shattering copy of a Xerox Star and somewhat cheaper, but it had one problem. It couldn't, well,..uh.. do..anything actually. I mean after you wiggled the mouse around and clicked on some menu bars, well that was about it.
Unless you count the included WYSIWYG word processor and graphics programs that had no equivalent in the "PC" world

It even took five swaps to copy a floppy disk.
Version 1.0 of a product had flaws! OMFG!

Word filtered back to this asshole Steve Jobs that about this and he decided that: "Anyone who did a non-Apple upgrade of the Mac RAM could NOT be allowed to purchase upgrade ROMs that fixed all the little bugs in version 1.0". This was a big thing: ROM chip swap was the only way to upgrade the Mac OS and, back then, almost everybody was a hardware hacker.
BS. I know, because I did the DIY RAM upgrade, and then got the ROM upgrade and nobody ever said squat to me about it.

"growing trend"? (2, Insightful)

m2943 (1140797) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719957)

MacOS was very proprietary, and Apple went to court protecting whatever proprietary aspects of it could.

OS X may use some open source components and command line UNIX interface, but the administration tools, graphics libraries, development tools, primary scripting language, and user interface are entirely proprietary.

Apple likes to create the impression that this is because their tools are better, but there is little concrete evidence that Quartz, Cocoa, AppleScript, Xcode, or Objective C are better than their open source equivalents. The main areas where Apple clearly wins are design, marketing, and out-of-box experience.

Apple's strategy seems to always have been, and continue to be, to be as proprietary as they can get away with. Nothing wrong with that--they are a for profit company. But don't you forget that they are a company and do what maximizes their profit, not what maximizes your benefit. And don't you forget that companies are very effective at marketing and creating addictive products--Apple products feel good, but so do lots of things that aren't good for you.

"Consumer" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20719983)

Consumers don't suffer, only the sort that go to pay to buy the Apple stuff suffers.

One solution: (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#20719995)

As Apple gets more and more of its revenue from non-Mac devices, they are also getting more and more of their revenue from devices that simply exclude third parties. Consumers suffer from this. We suffer from increased prices and decreased competition and innovation. We suffer so Apple can make a few more bucks, when Apple is clearly not hurting for money.'"

It's plain simple: Don't buy or let the Chinese or othe electronics manufacturers clone the iPhone then people like you will be happy. Shhesh!

if only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20720005)

"Apple has engaged two of the most cock-thirsty and money-grubbing conglomerates in the United States -- the movie and record industries"

Wouldn't that be nice... "cock thirsty and money grubbing" describes a good whore.

Unfortunately, the movie and record industry aren't "cock thirsty", they want to screw you.

Continuing development (maybe) (1)

hedrick (701605) | more than 6 years ago | (#20720013)

We know what Apple has said. Unfortunately we won't know the reality for a year or so.

What they said is that they want to do something different from other vendors. Generally cell phones are pretty much fixed when you buy them. Apple says that want to do something more like a desktop computer: They want to keep adding new functionality. With OS X people expect to buy periodic new versions. We don't have that tradition with cell phones. Supposedly getting a continuous income stream from ATT will let them put continuing development work into it.

Unfortunately we won't know whether this is for real until we see what kind of development they do over the course of a year or two.

So don't buy Apple! (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 6 years ago | (#20720019)

So don't buy Apple!

You whiny iPhone owners are starting to get on my nerves. If you had two brain cells to put together, you would have known that a company that sells a $699 cellphone is in it for the money.

Re:So don't buy Apple! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20720075)

Damn companies... ALWAYS in it for the money.

Rules of the road (2, Insightful)

grumling (94709) | more than 6 years ago | (#20720035)

He who owns the road sets the rules. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you want to play in Steve's sandbox, you better do what Steve says, or he just might smite you. If your business model depends on the whims of a tyrant, you'd better have some cash on hand to weather the storm.

You want to have your cake and eat it too? (2, Insightful)

Quixadhal (45024) | more than 6 years ago | (#20720057)

Back in the good old days of mainframes, people (companies) used to invest a large chunk of cash into a single powerful mainframe system. They were then obliged to spend even more cash to buy peripherals for that system, which usually were only available from the original vendor. Some folks grumbled about this, but those were mostly bean counters and management (who listened to the bean counters far more often than their technical staff).

    The technical staff generally were happy with this arrangement. Part of the cash going to the vendor usually also paid for a nice fat service contract which meant if your disk drive walked a bit too far and bent the pins on the connector, they'd happily wander out and fix it for you. Sure, it might take them a little time, but generally speaking they'd eventually get it right and things would work properly.

    It also meant that the developers could learn how the system worked in a few months and then be productive for many years to come. No need to relearn the OS every few years because an update was just that, an update -- not a whole wad of new stuff lumped in and a big chunk of old stuff ripped out. No need to write code to handle 5 billion possible combinations of hardware from vendors who can't even read an English spec sheet when they design their chipsets. You wrote code, it worked.

    Then the microcomputer arrived and the PC got the attention of the bean counters. Not only could you buy dozens of these little boxes for a fraction of the cost of that big lump of iron in the basement, but there were no service contracts to sign... and no need for super-specialized support staff. The company could hire the VP's grandma to do tech support.

    Thus the industry went through a total reversal of operating standards. We went from having single-source products which were well tested, reliable, and backed by support from the folks who built and designed the systems, to cobbled together bits of duct tape and bailing wire that needed to be kicked every few hours to keep it running. But, it's cheaper.

    So, you'll forgive me if I don't take you guys very seriously when you say how much you love Apple because it just works, and because everything meshes together nicely, but you hate Apple because you can't add anything you want onto it and make it into the kind of frankenbox a typical PC is.

    Apple made the decision to sign a deal with AT&T for the money. Duh, they're a company trying to make a profit. They probably ALSO figured if they only had to deal with ONE vendor, they wouldn't have to worry if their new iPhone gizmo looked horrible when Bob's Budget Cellz decided to write their own GUI to slap on it for their customers.

    In short... make up your mind folks. You can have it done cheap, done right, or done quick... choose two.

The other side of the coin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20720089)

Apple has enetered a new and very competitive market with the iPhone.

It has developed something that was aimed to be more than just an other cell phone.
Apple needed the support not only from iPhone customers, but also from AT&T or similar company and it makes sense that they offered exclusivity in return - at last for the beginning.

"Screwing customers" by high initial price, which is getting dropped shortly, or locking them into a single carier is not really about screwing Apple users: once iPhone is reaching a critical mass - Apple will be in a different position and pretty much all analyst tend to think that eventually iPhone customers won't be locked in to single carrier.

Please google the pbs.org site for I Cringely continous and intersting takes on this issue - including Google's phone plans - and check out Jim Cramer's video: "Teens would devour iPhone if AT&T loosened up".

You could always, you know, NOT get an iPhone... (4, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#20720109)

I mean, just because Apple makes a product, that doesn't mean you need to get one. If the iPhone provides what you need better than the alternatives, and you don't need what it doesn't provide... go for it. If it doesn't... get something else.

There's no "platform lock-in" to the iPhone. If there was an iPhone SDK, there would be, but as it is if you don't have an iPhone you can get another phone that can still use all the same third-party content you could if you had one, and if you do you aren't locked into it. This is a different kind of lockin-in, and it's got nothing to do with developers.

On the iPod...

Now we see that iPod owners who upgrade to a newer iPod must re-buy the games they've already bought, because the new iPods are incompatible with the old. No credit given for having already bought an identical game.

Is he talking about games produced by Apple, or games produced by third parties? I don't know, I never bought games for my iPod. I never even considered buying games for my iPod. Why? Because it was obviously a closed system from the start.

But I did buy some software for my Palm, and had to re-buy some of it when I got a newer PalmOS device, because the older games didn't handle the new screen size. That's not Palm's fault, and I don't blame them for that (and not just because there's enough well-earned blame landing on them as it is).

And I'm certainly not going to *create* a platform lock-in for them by buying an iPhone and crack into it.

What should Steve do? Well, for starters, give up on trying to control everything.

Oh, I can only agree, but Steve isn't going to do that, so my recommendation is to stick to the Mac, ignore the 'appliance' products, and have an exit strategy so you can jump ship if Apple decides they're going to get serious about making the Mac an appliance again. That way we'll never have to put up with 1984 being just like 1984.

In the meantime, be picky.

Apple needs to be able to say, "Look, NBC, you want to be dumb-asses and try to sell people crap they don't want, fine -- we're still going to sell iPods that'll play your programs, we just won't sell your programs on the nicest internet store in the world. Your loss, suckers, call us when you change your mind."

I don't think Apple can say that. Because you will only be able to download those videos to your iPod on Windows: We're Sorry the requested download is unavailable. Downloads are only available to users located in the United States that have a Microsoft operating system and Internet Explorer web browser. Please check back soon for other offers.

Now *there* is your *platform* lock in.

I don't write programs for Apple because I worship Apple. I write programs for them because they have the best development environment

Don't write programs for Apple. Write programs for Macintosh. You can't write programs for Apple's appliances.

I agree with you, they should make it possible, it wouldn't even be that hard... it'd just be another target option for XCode.

But Apple's decided they're not interested in selling iAppliances to me, so I'm not going to get one.

Apple == Micorsoft? (3, Insightful)

hhlost (757118) | more than 6 years ago | (#20720111)

Apple's just Microsoft in cooler clothes. Where does the personification of Linux fit in those clever commercials? Oh, right -- it doesn't fit in a 'commercial' at all.

This is what everyone does (1)

aitikin (909209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20720245)

Every cell phone company does this at first. The RAZR was Cingular only to begin with, the Chocolate is still Verizon only (last I checked). Apple just figured out a way to lock it down a bit more.

long-term ramifications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20720275)

Wil's comments are spot-on with respect to Apple's recent alienation of both its developers, and its early adopters.

It was these very developers and early adopters (fan-boys, if you wish) who kept buying Apple products through the dark times.

Now that Apple is firing on all cylinders, can they afford to alienate these two groups? In the short term, iPhone, iPod, and MacBook sales are through the roof.

The question is, what is the long-term ramification of their actions.

And we all know when I say "their actions" I mean "Steve Jobs' actions."

Apple is and always has been the psycho girlfriend (1)

clusterix (606570) | more than 6 years ago | (#20720279)

They have never planned on owning the markets they are in. They have always wanted to maximize the amount of money they get from the specific consumers that buy their product.

Microsoft won the PC market because they leveraged partners and helped build a large competitive industry around their software. Yes, Apple wants to control 'the user experience' even at the cost of the quality and interoperability of such experience. This has also been apple's way, they hope to provide a controlled experience with their products.

As far as philosophy, control of a 'market' has never been apple's way and anyone who thinks Steve Jobs wants to be Bill Gates is just confused as they appear to be in Bill's market. Steve understands human behavior and has never wanted own the whole market, he wants to lead his consumers. Cult of Mac is no joke. Steve takes care of his children and is rewarded with ownership of his children. It also helps that he has treated media people quite well and even tailored his computers almost exclusively for their use back in the day when no one else would buy the crap.

You can clearly see why Bill is envious of such loyalty, and he does seem quite often wishful in the products Microsoft makes that they would have such loyal followers.

The problem here is that because of the quality of the product and of the current cell phone market in the US, Apple is getting regular buyers/user/consumers and isn't converting them properly. Basically, when you buy an Apple experience, you tend to know you are giving up certain things other products because you are joining not buying. When a consumer chooses Apple, they go through the stages of grief/acceptance for many interoperability(rights)/features missing they find come with a similar product. All cell phone companies in the US control everything they can and that incidentally includes the experience. Apple is in a competitive market(such as it is) for the first time and so their being criticized more heavier here than they are used to and by more people willing to join. People are pissed about having to join AT&T, pissed about dropping some other company they were forced to join before (they have already accepted its limitations and cherish its limited set of features). In the long run, it will likely cause the market to open if Apple competes successfully. If the cell phone companies have to compete on loyalty it will take more than Alltel ads and the bs 'feature' of reasonable prices to succeed. Since experience isn't their expertise or goal, hopefully they will start giving consumers rights to contrast from the Apple/AT&T experience.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>