PDA

View Full Version : Apple A lesser Evil But an EVil all the same



bigbrovar
September 24th, 2007, 09:07 AM
the Linux community do not hesitate to call Mircrosoft the EVIL EMPIRE..and i agree for obvious reasons..but i found out that the linux community has a somewhat friendly or indifferent Attitude when there talk of apple..the fact is that apple is just as evil and the only reason MS beat it to first position is because MS control 90% of the PC Business...imagine what would happen if that 90% was owned by apple...A company that Locks its OS to a particular Hardware hence if u want use OSX u have to Buy a MAC. but that is little compared to what GREAT EVIL being perpetuated in the Music player / download business this was put into fine perspective by an article i found here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7002612.stm read
and post your opinions

N.B sorry for my English.

Bachstelze
September 24th, 2007, 09:40 AM
We have a very nice joke on this :

"- Hey, Bill, what do we do, tonight ?
- Same thing we do every night, Steve. Trying to take over the world !"

Artificial Intelligence
September 24th, 2007, 10:20 AM
Dunno if you can call a company evil. Depends how/what you put in the word "evil".

luca.b
September 24th, 2007, 11:41 AM
IMO Apple is much worse than Microsoft. They're real professionals when it comes to vendor lock-in (iPhone, iPod, their servers).

Johnsie
September 24th, 2007, 11:51 AM
I think the BBC is evil too

karellen
September 24th, 2007, 11:57 AM
even MS is more "open" than apple

Nano Geek
September 24th, 2007, 12:58 PM
Does "closeness" = "evilness" to people here?
Personally, I don't think Apple is evil. They do what just about every other company does. Can you write and install programs on your cellphone? I thought not. And there are only a few companies that sell DRM-free music, Apple being one of them.

n3tfury
September 24th, 2007, 01:03 PM
you guys and your "evils". get over it.

bigbrovar
September 24th, 2007, 01:14 PM
IMO Apple is much worse than Microsoft. They're real professionals when it comes to vendor lock-in


even MS is more "open" than apple

Exactly my point..in pratice apple have shown tendency to use monopolistic tendency to muscle out completion..and now there have created a sinerio where u most have an itunes if u want to use an ipods,and u most have an ipod if u want to buy music from the itunes stores.. yet many pple in the community still see them as the good guys



Dunno if you can call a company evil. Depends how/what you put in the word "evil".

the term "Evil" is mostly used as a Metaphor .it is used when a software giant locks down a widely used program to work only with other software or product developed by the same company hence...making it impossibe for a open source or any alternative for that matter to be developed..(virtually killing competition)
e.g ipod can only be used with itunes hence an ipod user would be forced to have to install itunes even if it is against their wish just to be able to sync it with their ipods..also the only way to buy music from the itunes stores is if u have an ipods as itunes is locked to other portable music device..hence ipod make u get itunes,and itunes make u get ipods.. so a person who is on linux must either get a windows system of a mac if they want to sync with their ipods.. as rythmbos,banshee and other players as been locked out..these are just some examples of an evil practice

other form of evil include locking down iphone to one carrier so that anybody who hopes on getting one would have to enslave him self to the slave contract of AT&T

Ozeuss
September 24th, 2007, 01:22 PM
IMO, apple is "evil", but much to a lesser degree than microsoft.
but one might assume that if apple held the same market share as microsoft, they will end up using the same dubious tactics.
on the other hand, the enemy of my enemy... and generally, mac OS's have been always superior than windowses. so if you're going to go the proprietary way, at least do it with a decent OS.
BTW, i have to correct a mistake you have- apple does not lock the OS- apple is essentially a hardware company. They sell computer hardware bundled with an OS.

mostwanted
September 24th, 2007, 01:33 PM
Apple is as "evil" as Microsoft, but benefits from being the underdog.

lundish
September 24th, 2007, 01:36 PM
DNA is also evil

SuperDuck
September 24th, 2007, 01:52 PM
These kind of posts confuse me. "Evil" exists in the world, but I don't think that software companies are the perpetrators. I suppose everyone views what would be considered "evil" in different ways, but in the List of Worldly Priorities proprietary software doesn't even rank as far as I'm concerned. Believe it or not, the world does not stop and end with what OS you play Solitaire on.

Let's not confuse "inconvenient" with "evil". Just because you don't like the way a company operates it does not make them "evil".

laxmanb
September 24th, 2007, 02:14 PM
Apple is much more evil than MS. and nobody has any checks on them, unlike MS.

starcraft.man
September 24th, 2007, 02:14 PM
If we define evil as being proprietary, monopolistic and trying your best to lock in your customers at all costs then yes, I think Apple both fits and exceeds that definition. In my mind, they are worse than Microsoft because today MS is largely irrelevant and Apple is the new king of technology.

People forget that Apple already has a monopoly, it is called the iPod and iTunes. They have cornered the market (whether justly or not) in both playing and selling/managing music, they own this vertical channel. They don't have any qualms about leveraging it either, just look at the recent hash in the new line, the new charges to third party devs for making anything work with their iPod. Both designed with the sole purpose of lock in and profit. Not to mention the fact that they snub Linux and Unix by not making a native client for iTunes Music store (while at the same time trying to lock us out, way to shaft us).

That's not all, they do many things but I don't feel like listing them out. I mean I could go on about the iPhone and AT&T, their hardware/software prices and how dispirit they are across country lines (especially here in Canada, a royal premium Apple expects us to pay especially when our dollar is higher), and so on. People should realize that Apple's philosophy is very much about closed systems and limiting what you the end user can do, that is their ethos.

The bottom line is people should be wary of Apple, much more so than they are now. I don't think any one company should own that much of people's lives.

Nano Geek
September 24th, 2007, 02:20 PM
DNA is also evilEven more evil than Apple. Its lock-in is horrible! You can't install extra stuff, and you can't use any third-party software with it!

If you value free-trade, don't use your DNA!

SuperDuck
September 24th, 2007, 02:48 PM
People forget that Apple already has a monopoly, it is called the iPod and iTunes. They have cornered the market (whether justly or not) in both playing and selling/managing music, they own this vertical channel. They don't have any qualms about leveraging it either, just look at the recent hash in the new line, the new charges to third party devs for making anything work with their iPod. Both designed with the sole purpose of lock in and profit. Not to mention the fact that they snub Linux and Unix by not making a native client for iTunes Music store (while at the same time trying to lock us out, way to shaft us).

Being the best at something and selling the most units is not a monopoly.

Nano Geek
September 24th, 2007, 02:56 PM
Being the best at something and selling the most units is not a monopoly.Exactly right.
There are many audio players out there. If you don't like iPods, then don't buy them.

However, most people seem to like iPods the best.

beyboo
September 24th, 2007, 03:00 PM
I think the BBC is evil too

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/iPlayerProtest :lolflag:

beyboo
September 24th, 2007, 03:05 PM
Exactly my point..in pratice apple have shown tendency to use monopolistic tendency to muscle out completion..and now there have created a sinerio where u most have an itunes if u want to use an ipods,and u most have an ipod if u want to buy music from the itunes stores.. yet many pple in the community still see them as the good guys




the term "Evil" is mostly used as a Metaphor .it is used when a software giant locks down a widely used program to work only with other software or product developed by the same company hence...making it impossibe for a open source or any alternative for that matter to be developed..(virtually killing competition)
e.g ipod can only be used with itunes hence an ipod user would be forced to have to install itunes even if it is against their wish just to be able to sync it with their ipods..also the only way to buy music from the itunes stores is if u have an ipods as itunes is locked to other portable music device..hence ipod make u get itunes,and itunes make u get ipods.. so a person who is on linux must either get a windows system of a mac if they want to sync with their ipods.. as rythmbos,banshee and other players as been locked out..these are just some examples of an evil practice

other form of evil include locking down iphone to one carrier so that anybody who hopes on getting one would have to enslave him self to the slave contract of AT&T

Directors of ISPs who sniff network traffic for bittorrent, ban traffic on the default bittorrent ports, choke upload bandwidth of its users are evil evil slimy creatures too :biggrin:

Ozeuss
September 24th, 2007, 03:09 PM
Being the best at something and selling the most units is not a monopoly.
apple indeed is not a monopol. like google is not a monopoly.


These kind of posts confuse me. "Evil" exists in the world, but I don't think that software companies are the perpetrators. I suppose everyone views what would be considered "evil" in different ways, but in the List of Worldly Priorities proprietary software doesn't even rank as far as I'm concerned. Believe it or not, the world does not stop and end with what OS you play Solitaire on.
Let's not confuse "inconvenient" with "evil". Just because you don't like the way a company operates it does not make them "evil".
Of course there are priorities when it comes to evilness. it doesn't make certain conduct of certain companies less evil. they are perpetrators of *some* mischief, even if it much less than other people/regimes/whatever.
I don't consider software companies that sell propietary code evil at all. I would call propietary code "wrong" or "antisocial", "inherently silly", and in all i think we would be a better society if we chosen to use only free software.
What makes microsoft and/or apple "evil" is their specific conduct.
I mean, just look at recent examples by MS. Bribing countries so that they will accept their own format, which they will use to restrict freedom, lock users, overprice product, and hinder progress. damn! downright evil. Spreading FUD? eeeeevil.

Nano Geek
September 24th, 2007, 03:11 PM
apple indeed is not a monopol. like google is not a monopoly.


Of course there are priorities when it comes to evilness. it doesn't make certain conduct of certain companies less evil. they are perpetrators of *some* mischief, even if it much less than other people/regimes/whatever.
I don't consider software companies that sell propietary code evil at all. I would call propietary code "wrong" or "antisocial", "inherently silly", and in all i think we would be a better society if we chosen to use only free software.
What makes microsoft and/or apple "evil" is their specific conduct.
I mean, just look at recent examples by MS. Bribing countries so that they will accept their own format, which they will use to restrict freedom, lock users, overprice product, and hinder progress. damn! downright evil. Spreading FUD? eeeeevil.Those things are what I hate most about Microsoft, but Apple doesn't do any of those things. How does Apple fit into the same category as Microsoft?

buntunub
September 24th, 2007, 03:13 PM
I think people in the Linux world feel "closer" to the Apple crowd because OSX takes parts of BSD, if even large parts maybe. OSX has the look and feel of GNOME, and its run by the guy that was screwed over by Bill Gates. Also, Apple is THE direct competitor to M$ in the proprietary world of OS's. We have quite a bit more "common ground" and a reason to feel "allied" with their userbase against the common foe. Afterall, OSX users tend to use that OS for alot of the same reasons for why we use Linux. I have no issues at all with OSX users, but I do feel sorry for them because they either cannot, or will not get over their need to feed the corporate cow with $$$, even while open source software can easily meet, or exceed all their needs as it does for us.

As far as weather Apple is "evil" or not is entirely subjective. It is not a word that should be used in connection with a Corporate entity, because the employees just do what they are told to do, the Management does what the Board of Directors tells them to do, and the Board of Directors does what's best to turn a profit and please their share holders. There really is no "evil overloard" perse, such as there was for M$ with Bill Gates. Steve Jobs may have a hand in what goes on over there, but I dont think he is driven by the same egomeniacle mindset that Bill is. Either way, one could easily compare Apple's or M$'s business ethics with a multitude of other Corporations. The difference is that both Apple and M$ deal in Software (and hardware in some cases), while those other Corporations which are much less ethical deal in things that rule our lives such as Oil and Energy resources, etc.

There is alot of things Apple and M$ both do that enrage us in the Open Source world, yet none of those things directly impact us except in very rare cases (wifi, DRM), unlike physical substances such as Oil, which if we are denied access to, dramaticly impact our ability to live a normal life.

aaaantoine
September 24th, 2007, 03:13 PM
Even more evil than Apple. Its lock-in is horrible! You can't install extra stuff, and you can't use any third-party software with it!

If you value free-trade, don't use your DNA!

Give it time. Someone will find a hack.

LowSky
September 24th, 2007, 03:18 PM
What is the point of this poll. Corporations are not evil, people are evil. I bet most of the people who work at Apple are decent good folk.

The decision of a company to protect its work is not evil, its called survival. Open source is a new idea, compared to the tried and working model of propritorship. companies do these thing to make sure that their stuff works under their guidelines. It makes sence to want something to work the way it was designed for.

Things like linux work because of a change of thinking. Unfortunalty for linux 90% of the world believes in holding onto the things they design, and I dont feel that their idea is wrong, but just different.

Please remember that the world isn't Black and White, but also includes alot different greys.

julian67
September 24th, 2007, 03:25 PM
Apple are more of a threat to Free software than MS because Apple's stuff is higher quality and works better. If someone is giving you a hard time it's better if they are incompetent. If they are skillful and efficient it is bad for you. Apple try very hard to build their own software and hardware ecosystem that deliberately and totally excludes Linux and BSD users from accessing content and hardware, while they just tolerate MS Windows compatibility when there's a profit in it like selling ipods, making itunes work for windows and so on. MS I'm sure would love this kind of control but they have made their fortune in a more diverse environment and even as functional monopolists have to pay some heed to real standards some of the time. I'm not sure if I'd call either company evil but if either of them was to have their dream of total control the consequences would probably be so negative that a person might legitimately say evil. Right now I'd describe them more as anti-social, selfish, greedy, dishonest, untrustworthy, conceited, arrogant. That is bad and unpleasant but not quite evil. They're not killing or burgling (i hope) or torturing kittens etc but they aren't exactly charitable or a force for positive social change either.

julian67
September 24th, 2007, 03:30 PM
What is the point of this poll. Corporations are not evil, people are evil.

legally corporations are treated much like people. they are entities with intention, responsibilty, obligations, duty, good and bad qualities and so on. They can be prosecuted, their executives can be held accountable for corporate behaviour. Corporations can be broken up. I've worked for big organisations and big corporations and as an employee it's worth taking a view on not just what your particular job/task is but also on what is the purpose and behaviour of your employer.

pluviosity
September 24th, 2007, 03:40 PM
Must we play the "point-our-fingers-and-declare-evil" game? Negative feelings like these don't help convert Windows or OS X users to FOSS, if that's the ultimate goal.

julian67
September 24th, 2007, 03:52 PM
Must we play the "point-our-fingers-and-declare-evil" game? Negative feelings like these don't help convert Windows or OS X users to FOSS, if that's the ultimate goal.

that's the goal of Ubuntu and some other distros but popularity or market share isn't the goal or purpose of the FSF, though most of the time the goals coincide enough that it isn't an issue.

tcpip4lyfe
September 24th, 2007, 03:56 PM
you guys and your "evils". get over it.

+1

Ozeuss
September 24th, 2007, 03:59 PM
Must we play the "point-our-fingers-and-declare-evil" game? Negative feelings like these don't help convert Windows or OS X users to FOSS, if that's the ultimate goal.
i beg to differ. if people understand what is fundamentally wrong with propietary code, they will move to FOSS. That is the greatest motivator. part of understanding why FOSS is good, is understanding why propietary code is wrong and might lead to "evil" conduct by corporation.


Those things are what I hate most about Microsoft, but Apple doesn't do any of those things. How does Apple fit into the same category as Microsoft?
Apple does different things- DRM, lock in, etc. not as worse as MS, but still.



I
There is alot of things Apple and M$ both do that enrage us in the Open Source world, yet none of those things directly impact us except in very rare cases (wifi, DRM), unlike physical substances such as Oil, which if we are denied access to, dramaticly impact our ability to live a normal life.
i couldn't disagree more. everyone uses computers everyday. it affects your life everytime you turn on a computer.

bigbrovar
September 24th, 2007, 05:17 PM
Many people are getting me wrong ..1st when i say evil..i dont mean that all the employees or apple or MS are evil..that would be stupid of me..since there are not the decision makers of the company..am talking about the practise of a company..and the evil we are talking about is used in a loose context- and not in the there kill people and support wars and mafia organization,and other BAD things context-here were are talking about practices of a company kills competitions and make them a monopoly..thus giving us no choice ..Yeah it is not debatable that apple is one of the best when it omes to technological innovations ..but does that means they are the good guys? for me the answer is no...is apple love the linux community sooooooooo much then there would make an itunes for linux .and not lock our native software like banshee,rhythmbox etc from ipods..

derekr44
September 24th, 2007, 06:23 PM
Eeee-vil
as in the froo-its of the dev-il

jrusso2
September 24th, 2007, 06:28 PM
Steve Jobs has always been about lock-in. Starting with their proprietary computer hardware and software.

Its no surprise that this continues to be his practice in the iPod and iPhone.

starcraft.man
September 24th, 2007, 06:29 PM
Being the best at something and selling the most units is not a monopoly.


Exactly right.
There are many audio players out there. If you don't like iPods, then don't buy them.

Ahem, the definition of "best" is just as debatable as that of "monopoly". You don't need to be the only fish in the game to be monopolistic, which Apple is, at least it seems to me (for reasons stated). Sure there is competition from Sandisk, Creative and the Zune but all have laughable market shares (each being fairly inept in one way or another) when compared to Apple. To add, none can leverage the iTMS, which is increasingly the central and controlled means for digital distribution of music, movies and netcasts (refuse to use word podcast, Apple does not own free media content distributed on the internet). Not having access to the iTMS is a serious blow to any competition, especially to existing customers already invested.


However, most people seem to like iPods the best.
I question this. I know that many people buy iPods simply because they have invested a fortune in iTMS and thus can't use it with anything else (or don't care to use any of the methods to "extract" their content). So I don't really know if they are the "best" experience, but rather have a strangle hold on the content. The latter situation being one of the many manifestations of a monopoly (though not absolutely, yet) in my mind.


apple indeed is not a monopol. like google is not a monopoly.

Apple and Google are very different, the comparison is most flawed. Google has around 60% of the over internet services market (individual service numbers vary) and Live + Yahoo make up the rest. It hardly counts as a monopoly, especially when compared to the shares of iPods and sales on iTMS in comparison to competition.

Additionally, their ability to lock you in is crippled by the fact that they offer a completely online experience. Do you know how long it takes to change search engines? 1 second. Same with map services or even email (you can forward any of the email accounts to another). Their dominance is at the whim of happy consumers, if they screw up they could be last inside a month.

Apple owns the hardware, software and everything between. The more they sell the less they need care because owning the entire experience grants them ample power. I do not believe the level of control Apple has today has ever been held by any other single tech company ever. People equally aren't as free to change, they are tied to the hardware and moving to a different platform is difficult and costly. I personally think it's scary... I therefore refuse to spend even a dollar on them or their products/services. I hope that public complacency and apathy don't lead us to a more serious situation.

Dragonbite
September 24th, 2007, 07:23 PM
When I talk to people about Open source and Linux, I try to refer to Microsoft and Apple as the "Proprietary model" because they are both closed and both with obvious money-making agendas (not saying it's wrong, but "you get what you paid for" can cut both ways ;) )

hessiess
September 24th, 2007, 07:36 PM
voted yes, i do not like some of the things thay have done, the ipod, imposable to upgrade, uncustomisoble os. but i mutch profur using osx to winblows

glupee
September 24th, 2007, 07:48 PM
M$ over Mac for me anyday! I like the flexibility of being able to build my own computer for $400 or $4000. I like being able to upgrade. Don't really like 'made for princess hardware' that's more expensive and not as good as what i can put on a machine myself. Tweeked properly an ms machine can be as productive and reliable as a mac for a much smaller price tag. To me ms is in the middle/right of the spectrum i guess, with mac way to the right and linux on the left, where i like to be ;)

pluviosity
September 24th, 2007, 10:08 PM
i beg to differ. if people understand what is fundamentally wrong with propietary code, they will move to FOSS. That is the greatest motivator. part of understanding why FOSS is good, is understanding why propietary code is wrong and might lead to "evil" conduct by corporation.

This is where I must beg to differ. The majority of people out there are not going to get software based on principles, but instead based on familiarity, great technology, reputation, and support. If it would get out that Canonical, any OEM that carries Ubuntu, or even Ubuntu's community were a bunch of snobs (which, fortunately, is not the case :)), then I can hardly see the general public taking the time to adopt Ubuntu usage. You can go on and on about the morality of FOSS to them, but would the majority care, given that FOSS isn't as widespread as proprietary? I don't think so. This is why calling the competition "evil" isn't really a good idea, IMO. And really, is what Apple does really so bad to merit being called "evil?" Wrong, yes, based on FOSS principles, but evil? It's not like they are mass-murdering Apple users who switch to something else.

julian67
September 24th, 2007, 10:36 PM
This is where I must beg to differ. The majority of people out there are not going to get software based on principles, but instead based on familiarity, great technology, reputation, and support. If it would get out that Canonical, any OEM that carries Ubuntu, or even Ubuntu's community were a bunch of snobs (which, fortunately, is not the case :)), then I can hardly see the general public taking the time to adopt Ubuntu usage. You can go on and on about the morality of FOSS to them, but would the majority care, given that FOSS isn't as widespread as proprietary? I don't think so. This is why calling the competition "evil" isn't really a good idea, IMO. And really, is what Apple does really so bad to merit being called "evil?" Wrong, yes, based on FOSS principles, but evil? It's not like they are mass-murdering Apple users who switch to something else.

Preferring free software for its freedom and for the principles/ethos behind it rather than for technical reasons is not snobbery. Both reasons are valid, but one has nothing to do with proprietary vs freedom. There's no reason why you shouldn't get "great technology, reputation, and support" from a proprietary for-profit company. I believe Apple has this kind of reputation ;-)

Ubuntu has a certain stated purpose which is to fix bug number 1. This is not the stated aim of the FSF who brought us the freedom of the GPL and the GNu tools which made Linux based OS viable. Their aim is to ensure freedom. It's about ethics and freedom. The different aims of FSF and various distros are not necessarily contradictory or incompatible, but it pays to be aware that there are differences in purpose, method and philosophy within the free software world.

ComplexNumber
September 24th, 2007, 10:58 PM
the current main reason why apple seems more evil is because they are allowed to get away with much more because they're not a monopoly. essentially, both MS and apple are equally guilty of being the ultimate lockin-in kings of the world.
in some respects, though, i would say that apple is probably worse at heart because, (for example) given that the total market share of all windows mobile devices and the market share of the iPhone differ by only about 3%, apple is far worse with it's lockin tactics. they try to force you to buy everything apple.
if apple were a monopoly, they would carry on producing any old crap because they would know that people have to use their crap. MS are exactly the same.

i remember someone mentioning about how, when they worked for MS, the general attitude of MS was "how can we force users to buy and use our products?" rather than "how can we make a product that people would want to use?".
yup, apple and MS are just different sides of the same rotten coin.

SuperDuck
September 25th, 2007, 01:31 PM
Ahem, the definition of "best" is just as debatable as that of "monopoly". You don't need to be the only fish in the game to be monopolistic, which Apple is, at least it seems to me (for reasons stated). Sure there is competition from Sandisk, Creative and the Zune but all have laughable market shares (each being fairly inept in one way or another) when compared to Apple. To add, none can leverage the iTMS, which is increasingly the central and controlled means for digital distribution of music, movies and netcasts (refuse to use word podcast, Apple does not own free media content distributed on the internet). Not having access to the iTMS is a serious blow to any competition, especially to existing customers already invested.

I did not say that Apple sold the best music players; they are the best at selling music players. As you said, the alternatives can only hold tiny shares of the market. Thanks to Apple's genius marketing, they are the best at selling digital music players. They sell about a bajillion more than everyone else.

Again, however, that still does not make it a monopoly. Whether or not you view it as lopsided does not mean that Apple "owns 100% of the market and no alternatives exist". That's just not true - alternatives exist, it's just that people don't care.

No one's forcing people to buy Apple products - people buy them because they want to. Apple makes a damn good product and therefore can charge a premium for it. It's painfully obvious that people are willing to pay that premium. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true. ;)

SuperDuck
September 25th, 2007, 01:34 PM
voted yes, i do not like some of the things thay have done, the ipod, imposable to upgrade, uncustomisoble os. but i mutch profur using osx to winblows

You said that Apple is evil because of those reasons? I see those as "inconveniences".

Throwing a baby down the stairs is evil; the fact that you cannot customize OS X is not.

markp1989
September 25th, 2007, 01:37 PM
neither microsoft or apple are evil

ThinkBuntu
September 25th, 2007, 02:12 PM
Why can't they do that? You have to understand that at the core of Apple's business philosophy is controlling all aspects of a product's use. That's why there's the Mac platform, the iPod, iTunes, the iTunes store, and a whole bunch of Apple-produced accessories. Only with reluctance, and very much counter to typical Apple strategy, did Apple release iTunes to Windows and begin selling FAT32-partitioned "Windows" iPods. This is also why analysts and Mac-heads alike were surprised by the iPhone because Apple has no way of controlling the vital component: phone service, and the network in general.

By locking out other platforms, Apple hopes to draw more people to their OS and by association their computers. If I'm a Unix guy, I love using the latest and greatest iPod, and Linux/other BSDs are blocked, wouldn't I just pick up the fine OSX if I could budget it? This is the same tactic being used to keep the iPod OS locked down, as well as many music management features. It's no secret that iPods work best with iTunes, although Amarok makes a noble effort.

Yes, this is an aggressive strategy, but it's nothing new, and it's nowhere near as evil, underhanded, and aggressive as Microsoft business practices.

herbster
September 25th, 2007, 02:29 PM
Apple is "evil?" Hahahaha. Yeah, and white kids in the burbs whose parents say no iPhone until Christmas are abused.

starcraft.man
September 25th, 2007, 03:14 PM
I did not say that Apple sold the best music players; they are the best at selling music players. As you said, the alternatives can only hold tiny shares of the market. Thanks to Apple's genius marketing, they are the best at selling digital music players. They sell about a bajillion more than everyone else.

Again, however, that still does not make it a monopoly. Whether or not you view it as lopsided does not mean that Apple "owns 100% of the market and no alternatives exist". That's just not true - alternatives exist, it's just that people don't care.

I don't subscribe to that stringent definition of a monopoly, it's unrealistic and clearly not needed. A monopoly can just as easily dominate and crush with 98 or 97 or 95 % as it can with 100 (Windows has shown this, I don't think even at it's peak it had 100). I also think you need to take careful note of my words, heavily monopolistic does not infer a complete monopoly. In the end, if that's how you see things then I won't bother continuing this discussion point, it's clear your set on your idea and anything I argue is insufficient because Apple isn't a complete monopoly.


No one's forcing people to buy Apple products - people buy them because they want to.
Please go to the last post, I addressed this and you overlooked my response. I know a lot of people do feel "forced" to buy from Apple. The more you invest the less likely you ever are to leave or buy alternatives, the more you are to buy more Apple products.



Yes, this is an aggressive strategy, but it's nothing new, and it's nowhere near as evil, underhanded, and aggressive as Microsoft business practices.
I don't see what makes em so different. Look at their recent decisions. They changed the iPod accessories so that all companies now have to buy "authentication chips" and rebuy all your accessories for the new line. This article is a nice highlight. (http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/customers-ask-is-apple-going-rotten/) If they aren't already as "evil, underhanded and aggressive" then they sure are on their way and it will only increase rapidly in the next few years as their domination of iPod and iTunes spirals out exponentially.


Apple is "evil?" Hahahaha. Yeah, and white kids in the burbs whose parents say no iPhone until Christmas are abused.
Very insightful...

Anyway, I don't know why I'm trying so hard. It doesn't bother me that much, I know Apple will never have anything of mine.

SuperDuck
September 25th, 2007, 03:46 PM
I don't subscribe to that stringent definition of a monopoly, it's unrealistic and clearly not needed. A monopoly can just as easily dominate and crush with 98 or 97 or 95 % as it can with 100 (Windows has shown this, I don't think even at it's peak it had 100). I also think you need to take careful note of my words, heavily monopolistic does not infer a complete monopoly. In the end, if that's how you see things then I won't bother continuing this discussion point, it's clear your set on your idea and anything I argue is insufficient because Apple isn't a complete monopoly.

I'm not arguing that Apple owns a large part of portable music department. I'm arguing against hyperbole, both by you and many of the other posters in this thread. There's no need for the "taking my toys and going home" attitude, either. We're all adults, and if you don't want to reply, then simply don't reply. :)

You don't "subscribe" to the defintion of the word monopoly? I will have to tell the cops I don't "subscribe" to their defintion of armed robbery. It's all subjective, right? If you don't want to use basic economic terms in their correct context, then don't use them at all. ;)

And that, ladies and gentlmen, is the big issue I have. People are letting their distaste for certain companies lead them to wildly exaggerated claims of what's really going on. Apple doesn't have a "monopoly", they are not "evil", and by and large the animosity I see on forums such as these towards the Big Two is unwarranted and shows a lack of perspective.

Bottom line: In the end, you can thank the consumers for buying the product. Don't blame McDonald's for making people fat; blame the people who buy the food and feed it to their kids. Don't blame Microsoft and Apple for selling jillions of products - blame the people who buy them!

Also, I would have to say that Herber had one of the more poignant posts in the thread. There are greater evils and better causes to get riled up about - OS's should be pretty low on the list. :(

Ozeuss
September 25th, 2007, 05:45 PM
And that, ladies and gentlmen, is the big issue I have. People are letting their distaste for certain companies lead them to wildly exaggerated claims of what's really going on. Apple doesn't have a "monopoly", they are not "evil", and by and large the animosity I see on forums such as these towards the Big Two is unwarranted and shows a lack of perspective.
Bottom line: In the end, you can thank the consumers for buying the product. Don't blame McDonald's for making people fat; blame the people who buy the food and feed it to their kids. Don't blame Microsoft and Apple for selling jillions of products - blame the people who buy them!
Also, I would have to say that Herber had one of the more poignant posts in the thread. There are greater evils and better causes to get riled up about - OS's should be pretty low on the list. :(

It is not exaggerated. this has nothing to do with preference. microsoft and apple actively damage freedom and hinder progress. microsoft has rightly earned the title "evil", and it is definitely not unwarranted.
note that i'm using "evil" with quotes. to argue about the word, we will have to define it first. And there is definitely more than one degree of "evil". of course there are greater evils- but it still doesn't make MS or Apple behavior ok. Since this is an ubuntu forum, makes more sense to deal with OS-related evils than others.
about your bottom line- what about cigarette companies which market to children, and lie about health issue (not now, but up until a decade ago). What about sneaker companies using child labor in the east? some companies are just evil. MS is every bit evil. and IMHO, apple is too.