The Cult of Apple
Posted on Wednesday 28th July 2010
Over the past 5 or more years I’ve witnessed a strange phenomenon that seems to have passed unnoticed by most. An insidious deception perpetrated in the guise of benefaction.
It will come as no surprise that this post will be a criticism of the Apple Corporation. To see off any backlash against proponents of their products, I have no major issue with the hardware that carries their logo. On the whole products are stylish, functional and feature-rich. However I will raise a couple of concerns while we are on the subject. Firstly, I have an inherent dislike of any black-box device … in other words, one for which modification is not only discouraged but also actively suppressed. I’m sure for some the concept of a finished product that invites no end-user tinkering is nirvana, but for the techie this comes across as overly paternalistic. For example, there is no way to change the battery on an iPod without voiding the warranty … or paying Apple an extortionate sum to perform the routine task for you.
The second hardware concern was that they released the iPhone 4 to market with an easily exploited Achilles heel – that of the now infamous signal issue. That a new device had a problem is hardly unique, but given it so significantly impacted a core function … that of making phone calls … really should have been nipped in the bud prior to the official launch.
I could wax lyrical, but must get onto the meat of the issue, namely the modus operandi demonstrated by Apple. Fifteen or more years ago, I can remember using one of the early Mac models at school. At the time the Macintosh was regarded as revolutionary, as were those who used them. In the intervening years Apple managed to create an elitist aura with ownership being akin to membership of an enlightened fraternity.
At the same time, Microsoft was beleaguered with lawsuits, many of them entirely justified, attacking the protectionist strategies they employed to seize market share. They have been fined millions of dollars for the embedded integration of Internet Explorer into Windows products, yet when Apple hard-coded Safari into the iPhone and aggressively defended against any attempts to make competitors’ browsers available, it registered no attention. Although some 3rd-party browsers have subsequently appeared, they must use Safari’s layout engine (WebKit).
This leads me nicely onto another somewhat devious strategy adopted by Apple …. that software for their devices may only be obtained from them, with the threat of a loss of warranty for disobendiance. It is claimed that their benign motive is to ensure quality control, but the cynic in me thinks that they just want control. Imagine the hue and cry if Microsoft suddenly announced that the only software that would run on Windows were products that they either produced or approved. The EU lawyers wouldn’t be able to get their wigs on quick enough, yet somehow this behaviour by Apple has not raised concern.
Such a paternalistic attitude may sound beneficent but stifles development and is hence anti-competitive. That the ubiquitous Flash Player still isn’t permitted to run on the iPhone is another symptom of this. Again, Apple claim they are acting in the best interests of the owner by preventing a potential security catastrophe from running on their devices. That many other computing platforms (including Mac desktops) run Flash without many serious problems must not be relevant. The situation wouldn’t be quite so deleterious if Apple actually provided an alternative, but they have not. Which leaves the net result that iPhones cannot functionally utilise any website that has majority Flash content. A somewhat strange stance, given that the iPhone is supposed to be a full web integrated device.
Before I wrap up my last charge is against the spectre of the “Cult of Apple”. An unshakeable superior smugness adopted by some Apple owners. Few other possessions seem to spur owners into berating people who favour alternatives. If not for the tangibility of the focus, it could easily be viewed as akin to religious fever. All of which, no doubt, encouraged by the high priest Steve Jobs. He deserves credit for spearheading a business that has mimicked some of the more questionable strategies of it’s biggest rival, while simultaneously maintaining a whiter-than-white reputation. To paraphrase Baudelaire: The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.
This post was induced by the recent finding by the Librarian of Congress in the US allowing jail-breaking of the iPhone. Unsurprisingly, vigorously opposed by Apple with many claims of doomsday proportions. However, EFF’s counsel, Fred von Lohmann, put it best: “I have a Toyota. Toyota would, of course, prefer that I use nothing but authentic Toyota parts and Toyota dealers for service, and that they would also prefer that I not modify my Toyota in ways that might be dangerous to me. I appreciate all that, but it is my automobile at the end of the day.”
The irony is that both, Apple and Toyota, don’t manufacture authentic parts themselves…
P.S. I’m not an Apple fan, though I have to admit iPod Nano is superior to competition. iTunes application client, on the other side, is total bloatware.
Of course Apple is not perfect; and if it was in Microsoft’s dominant position, it is debatable whether it would behave any better. Having said that, the one thing Apple is good at is innovation, plus compared to other companies, it is a much more consumer-focused which has resulted in its releasing some really great products.
While I do agree with some of your comments, particularly on the AppStore, I have a few comments…
iPod batteries: I have an iPod Nano with a non-removable battery which is a couple of years ago and still going strong, so I feel in this instance Apple have got it right. With phones which have much shorter battery life, a replaceable battery could be useful, but there is obviously going to be a compromise.
iPhone aerial: I have had an iPhone4 since launch date and haven’t had any issues with reception compared to my previous iPhone 3G; after a couple of days I did buy the bumper though not because it was dropping calls. I know quite a number of people who have bought iPhone 4s and to my knowledge none have returned them under the 30 day offer. Having said that, I thought Steve Jobs’ comment ‘not to hold it that way’ was most arrogant and not at all helpful.
AppStore: I partly agree with you, but feel that there does need to be a gatekeeper to test out the quality of the apps before they are released. When one can have numerous apps installed, and say the phone OS starts crashing, or the battery runs out in half a day, or the phone starts dialing premium rate numbers…. for many the phone will get the blame.
With mobile phones it is good to have a competition in Android, and it will be interesting to see how the Android ‘Marketplace’ deals with these issues and others of its own; for example some of the lower end Android phones have a low screen resolution so will be unable to run many apps. The other disappointing thing with Android is that although Android is royalty free, the cost of the better Android phones such as Samsung Galaxy S is not significantly cheaper than iPhone4; hopefully this will change with the ever increasing competition.Another issue with Android is that a number of manufacturers (HTC particularly) have put skins on, and they are very slow at releasing OS updates for the older phones; for example unfortunate users who bought the HTC Hero are still running Android 1.6 despite Android 2.x being out since late last year; the update has been promised for months and months and is due imminently.
Flash: While this has turned out to be a mudslinging match with Steve Jobs and Adobe, it is worth pointing out that until very recently there have been multiple issues with the Flash player for any mobile platform – mainly stability and battery drain; the one for Symbian was buggy for ages; the one for Windows Mobile was eventually withdrawn though apparently a player will be relaunched with the new Windows phone 7. Even on the Android platform, it would appear that the pre-2.x releases are not supported. I do agree that there really isn’t any good reason why there shouldn’t be Flash for the iPad. It’s unfortunate that there isn’t really any royalty-free alternative; I thought things were looking up with html5, but with the licensing of the codecs it appears not to be the case.