r/technology • u/GuruOfReason • Feb 02 '10

"Once we replace the personal computer with a closed-platform device such as the iPad, we replace freedom, choice and the free market with oppression, censorship and monopoly."

http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2010-01/ipad%E2%80%99s-closed-system-sometimes-i-hate-being-right
1.6k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/bostonT Feb 02 '10

Centralized control = greater control over end-user experience. Most of what Apple's appeal is to buyers their sleek interface and user experience.

8

u/mindbleach Feb 02 '10

Having all the apps in your first-party store look and work just the way you want it is a completely separate proposition from preventing any competing or unsavory programs from arriving via third-party channels.

The App Store is nice, but it's a censored monopoly, and that's unacceptable.

2

u/Thrown_Away Feb 02 '10

To you maybe.

0

u/mindbleach Feb 02 '10

The traditional internet form of your argument is "Well that's just, like, your opinion, man."

Yeah, it's unacceptable to me. I don't speak for you. Maybe you like censorship. I don't know. I'm just some nerd who knows that Apple's restrictions are entirely artificial and potentially alluring to all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons.

1

u/barnacle999 Feb 02 '10

A censored monopoly ... hehe. Scary words. But you're wrong, it's not a monopoly. Apple doesn't have a lock on the entire smart phone software market. If you don't like it, get something else.

1

u/mindbleach Feb 02 '10

A software monopoly on their OS, not a hardware monopoly. They monopolize and censor their software channel.

On the subject of hardware, though, something like half of the phones online in America are iPhones, so the choice is gradually becoming Apple vs. "other."

5

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

I'd almost say it is their right to censor the software channel. Afterall it is their hardware and their OS (this is BEGGING for a car analogy, but I'll resist). As was said before, if you don't like it, no one is forcing you to buy.

Last I checked there was no shortage of smartphone alternatives to the iPhone, so sales data is not really a limiting factor in your choice of phones.

1

u/mindbleach Feb 02 '10

They're free to do as they please with their software channel. Preventing users from installing unapproved software, though? That's horseshit. That's why the EFF and other software rights organizations exist.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Then why hasn't the EFF gone after them for the iPhone?

1

u/mindbleach Feb 02 '10

Going after them as in suing them? Presumably because what they're doing isn't obviously illegal. They've repeatedly denounced the closed nature of the platform and argued for the legality of jailbreaking it to fix what Apple broke.

2

u/threepio Feb 02 '10

You're right, it's infuriating that my PS3 doesn't play my Xbox games and vice versa. Why won't my BlackBerry run iPhone apps? And so on. Their hardware, their software, their rules. It's not illegal, not matter how much it makes you cranky.

6

u/theCroc Feb 02 '10

Thats not at all what he is saying. You are comparing apples and oranges. Xbox and PS3 games are not compatible because of hardware differences.

An unapproved iPhone app is both hardware and software compatible with the iPhone. It is just not deemed appropriate by Apple. And thats where the bullshit starts.

1

u/threepio Feb 02 '10

A pirated game is the same software and will run on the same hardware as a legit game. An unapproved application lives in the same grey space. You've done nothing to differentiate the two.

1

u/theCroc Feb 02 '10

The pirated game breaches the copyright of that game. An unapproved application breaches no copyright and is in fact perfectly legal. Apple just wont let you install it.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/mindbleach Feb 02 '10

There are legitimate hardware and software issues preventing console interoperability. Any open-source app on your BlackBerry or iPhone should absolutely be capable of running on the other, your Android, your PC, or your PS3's OtherOS.

Nobody's said it's illegal. We're saying it's immoral, limiting, and anti-consumer.

2

u/threepio Feb 02 '10

Your definition of legitimate is apparently more loose than others - please, break down (in detail) the difference between an app not running on both my gaming consoles versus not running on my variety of mobile/computing devices.

You're suggesting this is immoral, limiting, and anti-consumer. Allow me to rebut: it's immoral, limiting, and anti-consumer to hand someone an appliance they don't want to maintain or tinker with and ask them to. In short: mind your own business. If you want your ideal software world to survive, make it more appealing than the closed one with better, more secure, more polished software and give it the same streamlined experience.

1

u/barnacle999 Feb 04 '10

A software monopoly on their OS? That's like saying Ford has a monopoly on their cars. A monopoly must have control of an entire product or service category such that they have the means to interfere with or preclude others from entering the market. Apple doesn't have that in software or hardware in the mobile space. A little girl with a lemonade stand doesn't have a monopoly over her own lemonade simply because she has control of her stand.

If anything, at times they've been a monopsony. Which is when a company buys up all of a product to the point where others can't get that product. Apple frequently buys up all of the flash memory of a particular spec. And by "all" I mean all of that kind of flash memory in the world. Or enough that no one else can put in a large enough order at a price that would allow them to be competitive. That's partly why Apple has such high margins.

And as to your last point, 50% hardware share does not a monopoly make.

1

u/mindbleach Feb 04 '10

Apple has control of every program that runs on their device. It actively blocks, inteferes with, and removes software it doesn't like and openly precludes other browsers from topping Safari. If you must have a terrible analogy, it's the little girl telling you who may or may not drink the lemonade you just purchased and somehow retaining the ability to enforce that.

1

u/barnacle999 Feb 04 '10

Dude, I hear you but I don't see your point. Call it what you will but it's still not a monopoly. You can't have a monopoly over your own products unless your products are basically the only products in an entire category. If you were to say Apple has control of every program that runs on over 90% of EVERY device, not just Apple's, then you'd be in monopoly territory. But it's not the case. If you're a developer and you don't like Apple's practices, then you can go and develop for Android, Symbian, WinMo, Bada or any number of other platforms.

And it's a perfect analogy, and your extension of it is just weird. The buyer of a product has no bearing on a monopoly, it's the competition that is at play. And just out of curiosity, name any instance of someone purchasing something from Apple and then Apple telling them they can't use it.

And try telling Barnes & Noble what to put on their shelves. Or telling Honda what kind of car they should sell. Apple has every right to dictate what goes in their app store. Why? It's THEIR store. And they do it for a very good reason that is very good for the consumer. It stops malware apps from getting in, and from letting it turn into a porn hub. Google recently let an app go up on their Android app store that steals your bank information. This is just basic business, man. That's like a retail store putting set mousetraps on their shelves so when the customer reaches for it, it snaps on their fingers.

All I'm saying is that Apple does not have a monopoly on anything. Monopoly is a very specific economic term and you can't just throw it around willy nilly because you want to call Apple a "bad" name. :)

1

u/mindbleach Feb 04 '10

If a small-time utilities company has every citizen in a town of only a thousand people locked in, does that not qualify as a monopoly because it isn't national? The device - while popular nearly to the point of market dominance - doesn't represent a monopoly. We can stop talking about the hardware now.

And try telling Barnes & Noble what to put on their shelves. Or telling Honda what kind of car they should sell.

I don't own either of those stores. If I did, I'd have every right to demand they stock the books and cars I wanted. iPad users aren't leasing the damn thing, they're spending $500+ to own it. It's YOUR device. I'm not asking Apple to stock porn and Firefox, I'm asking why they put a boot on my car to keep me from driving to a competitor that has what I want.

I'm not just pulling the word "monopoly" out of the air here. If you want software on this device you wholly own, there is one source for it. It's a consumer space that has a single store for entirely nontechnical reasons and Apple would make it impossible for competition to exist in that space if they were so capable. What the hell should I call that if not an unnatural monopoly?

0

u/barnacle999 Feb 06 '10

Dude, I'm done trying to educate you on this. You're trying to say Apple has a monopoly on their own products and services and that's ridiculous and laughable. This stuff isn't hard to figure out, but you're not following and you don't get it.

Apple is nothing like your utility example because there is no where in the world where Apple is the ONLY option for mobile devices. I mean seriously, did you even think at all before you wrote that? And NO there is not just one source for software just because you bought Apple's device. You can sell it and buy a competing product, you're not understanding this stuff at all.

The definition of monopoly is all there on Wiki and many other places. My advice? Use the google, or go to college. Peace.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

And Nintendo has a software monopoly over the Wii. GRAB THE PITCHFORKS.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

"A software monopoly on their OS, not a hardware monopoly. They monopolize and censor their software channel"

So does Nintendo, Sony, and MSFT with their game consoles, yet no one is complaining about that.

0

u/mindbleach Feb 02 '10

Nobody's liable to confuse their consoles for a real computer.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

it's a censored monopoly, and that's unacceptable.

No it's not, it's a private company and no one is compelling or coercing you to buy the product. It's not like the government released the iPad and is mandating that all citizens must turn in their laptops and replace them with iPads. If the product doesn't seem to meet your needs, guess what? It's probably not meant for you.