Cult of Mac: a blog about the Mac, the iPod, the iPhone - and the people who love them

27 comments

Totally agree, most ppl are just too stubborn and stupid to learn to face the facts and learn to pay for quality, instead they just like to whine about how their food tastes like crap when it’s free. You can probably find a meal in the garbage can for free anytime, but it’s gonna taste like shit.

JYC, on August 10th, 2009 at 12:23 am

[...] The Case In Favor of Apple -– in Five Parts – Courtesy of The Cult of Mac [...]

Apple Expatriates | JB's Personal Portfolio, on August 10th, 2009 at 3:16 am

Am I the only one in the world who thinks that Apple rejecting the GV app had less to do with AT&T and more to do with their restriction on duplicate functionality??

The exact same thing happened with the likes of Podcaster & NetShare. These were both rejected and a few months later Apple introduced native functionality which did the same thing!

To me, the rejection of the GV app points to iChat for the iPhone/iPod Touch just around the corner…….

kenkc, on August 10th, 2009 at 4:41 am

Seems like you are the stupid one.
The guy spent over $20,000 on Apple products, and none of his arguments contained bragging about over priced items.
Read the link, will ya?

elek86, on August 10th, 2009 at 5:24 am

There are plenty of stable browsers to choose from on the beloved app store anyway, including iCan Mobile, a pretty high profile browser

Philip, on August 10th, 2009 at 6:05 am

It was a total pain listening to the episode of TWIT when Leo, Jason and Peter just rant on and on about Apple being evil without even getting most of their “facts” correct. At least Peter was more reserved and did not do as much accusing as the other two did. Leo is extremely knowledgeable, but he does not know enough about Apple unlike the other three co-hosts in MacBreak Weekly. He’s more of a general tech guy.

Ryu, on August 10th, 2009 at 6:36 am

I just read Calacanis’ blog. He’s a bit impassioned and some ways off the mark, but he does have a couple of key points. Apple is too much of a close-walled operation. It’s one company making the hardware, the software, the retail experience. You can call it anti-competitive in a way, but the worst thing is that it limits customer choice (speaking as a MacBook and iPod owner).

I personally don’t think the hardware is up to scratch. I prefer my battered old work Vaio for day-to-day usability, and neither come close in build quality to the Panasonic Toughbook I was once able to try. Then there is the ability to upgrade components. With PCs, I had a choice of CPUs, graphics cards, hard drives. It’s easy to upgrade. I’m yet to hear of Apple openly offering hardware upgrades.

The Apple retail model isn’t the best either. You can’t take your Mac back to a store in a foreign country without significant problems (I bought in US, now in UK), and the stores will simply refuse to take a damaged product under warranty if you’ve bought online. They’re polite, yes, they’ll help, yes… But you still have to post it rather than leave it with them. The Genius Bar is nice but doesn’t compare with the Geek Squad.

For me the all-Apple experience isn’t worth the cost (yes, I will go back to PCs eventually). But if Apple were more open and launched a PC-based version of Leopard (they could, you know, it IS an open environment) I’d buy that in a flash. And probably a lot of people would too. As is, my Apple adventure comes with too many restrictions. They’re not anti-cometitive but they don’t allow me the choice I want.

Gordon Morris, on August 10th, 2009 at 6:54 am

I agree. Calacanis is off the mark. I challenged him to put his money where his mouth is and dump his Apple stuff. I think he likes to complain and has a stick for Apple.

Sam Gouda, on August 10th, 2009 at 6:58 am

I blame apple for not givin’ a shit about those myths.
But maybe Apple think people are more reasonable than appears.

Deocliciano, on August 10th, 2009 at 7:14 am

Got to disagree on your point of banning Opera on the iPhone. While I wholly approve of Apple locking their hardware platform to prevent the mess that Window’s hardware support is, banning a rival browser seems more petty than anything. I use Opera on my Blackberry (which my work only supports) and it works fantastic for browsing full sized sites. I also happen to use it on the Mac instead of Safari as I find it more feature rich and easier to use (yeah, I’m probably in the minority). If Apple lets Opera run on their desktop OS, there is no good reason not to let it run on the iPhone. The “user experience” argument falls far short when I see some of the crap-tastic apps Apple has approved.

Vandulus, on August 10th, 2009 at 7:15 am

I think a fair part of the exclusive AT&T deal was simply that it was necessary to get AT&T to agree to give Apple control over the device. (We have seen since that the control is perhaps not as complete as Apple might have liked, given that AT&T is still exerting too much influence, but that was how it went). At that moment Apple needed AT&T and the exclusive was the price. Apple signed exclusives in a few European countries (Britain, France, Germany, Austria, and Ireland), but they seem to have been weaker contracts, two of those (France and Ireland) are now gone, and a third (Britain) looks about to be terminated by Apple due to a break clause in the contract.

After that though, Apple didn’t pursue exclusives at all. It may be that T-Mobile customers in Germany are happier than AT&T customers in the US, but I think they would certainly prefer more choice. (I am in the UK, and I would certainly prefer more choice than just O2). I don’t think you can really claim that the exclusive in the US says much about Apple in general – it was simply a pragmatic decision at the time.

Another thing is that support for more networks in the US is simply harder. Apple seems to like selling the same device everywhere if possible. Support for Verizon and/or Sprint would require a substantially different device, which could certainly be done but would require effort (and would complicate Apple’s product line, something that Apple hates). Proper support for T-Mobile would require support of another frequency band. This is a fairly minor task, but it has probably only been worth it in technical terms since quite recently, as T-Mobile started late in rolling out their 3G network. My hunch is that Apple will do this before too long, if only because networks in Canada, Mexico, Chile, and other parts of the Americas will soon support the same frequency band as T-Mobile and Apple will want to sell to some of them. At that point unlockers in the US will have an option, even if the exclusive survives.

And as one final point, yes, Verizon is going to use the same 4G standard (LTE) as AT&T and much of the rest of the world, and at this point the same iPhone will be able to run on AT&T and Verizon. However, I wouldn’t hold my breath for this one. 3G networks in Europe were supposed to be running in about 2001, but were only actually launched in about 2003 and issues with coverage and technical bugs etc meant they only became useful in about 2005 or 2006. Verizon isn’t going to have LTE going properly until something like 2014, regardless of what they are saying their schedule is now.

Michael Jennings, on August 10th, 2009 at 7:46 am

kenkc, so developers are supposed to spend their time and effort developing “in the dark” (because, of course, Apple isn’t going to reveal new features beforehand) only to find that their app has been rejected because Apple is planning to release something similar in the future? Really, what kind of relationship is that going to foster?

Sam, on August 10th, 2009 at 8:30 am

I’m split on this, agreeing a bit with Calacanis (App Store), some with Leander (‘MP3 player innovation’), and not really having an opinion about others. However, the browser issue isn’t as clear cut. as some claim. Apple does allow competing browsers—such as iCab—just not alternate rendering engines (which, presumably, can fall foul of the ‘no apps that can execute arbitrary code rule’). Firefox runs on Gecko, so it doesn’t get on. Opera runs on Presto, so it doesn’t get on. iCab runs on WebKit, and so Apple says ‘fine’. The one that would be most interesting: what will Apple do if Google submits Chrome to the App Store?

Craig Grannell, on August 10th, 2009 at 9:52 am

For those who want a more open platform, why don’t you try Windows and Windows Mobile? Apple has been an all-in-the-house company since day 1, way before even Microsoft was established, and if you are not happy about it, why buy an Apple product? I don’t ever remember Apple ever forcing anyone here to buy a Mac.

Some people just don’t make sense.

Ryu, on August 10th, 2009 at 10:51 am

I have never heard of Jason Calacanis before and now that I have I don’t care what he thinks. Just another blogger trying to be cool by jumping on Apple. Too bad he has no idea what he is talking about. But its all about the page views anyway.

99.9% of app developers will never be affected. Don’t develop an app that Apple could get in legal trouble for like porn or copyrighted material. Duh. Much ado about nothing.

Google Voice will run on a web app. Then what are the whiners going to complain about? Most of them will never use Google Voice anyway.

Saying Apple is like Microsoft is about as dumb as saying Obama is a socialist.

Terry, on August 10th, 2009 at 11:08 am

I think the metaphors that Calacanis is using are wrong. The Application store and iTunes aren’t monopolistic, they are proprietary. An owner, in Capitalism, gets to choose how his business will be run and under what condition his products and services will be sold.

What Calacanis is complaining about is that Apple is competing too well and that the competition is so pathetic. It’s been over two years since the iTunes Music store opened, and a year since the Ap store. The competition has yet to provide an acceptable response. The customers are giving Apple a huge market share, because the alternatives are so lacking.

Apple needs to be careful to protect the needs of its customers against the greed, incompetence and bad taste of some of its developers. Of course, they will complain about that.

Apple is acting like a “flea market” owner with the Ap store. It can publish its standards for an acceptable application, but can’t necessarily enforce those standards on the developers before the fact. Sometimes, Apple has state or federal laws or contractual obligations like with AT&T which it must impose upon its developers. Then too, Apple makes mistakes that it must backtrack on. The thing to remember is how new the Application store is and that it is a work in progress.

Restraints are necessary in life. Someone needs to police the applications in the Aps store and that is the responsibility of the proprietor. Calacanis is acting like a spoiled child who won’t brook any one telling him no. Apple is likely to treat him like a disruptive influence on their property and ask him to leave.

Louis Wheeler, on August 10th, 2009 at 11:08 am

“Apple is under no obligation to open iTunes up, and would be stupid to do so. The reason the iPod/iTunes combo works so well is because other players are locked out. It’s called vertical integration, Apple’s long-standing practice of tying software to particular hardware. It makes the system much more stable, reliant and easier to manage, and is the number reason people love their iPods — they just work when you plug them in.”

Spoken like a true fanboi.

Remember way back when iTunes actually worked with 3rd party players? This was before Apple released the iPod. Suddenly, after Apple released the iPod, that code wasn’t updated anymore.

I think Apple, as the leading producer of media cataloging software, is “obliged” to provide a specification so that third party devices can work within iTunes. No, not legally. But certainly on a moral standpoint. Lock in is bad. The fact that I would have to stop using iTunes and import my music into another cataloging app if I wanted to use some other player is just plain wrong.

There should be no reason I shouldn’t be able to sync my music, stored in iTunes, with a Palm Pre. The analogy–if Microsoft Word only printed on Microsoft Printers, we’d be storming Redmond with pitchforks and flaming torches. But you could use the same argument: “It’s Microsoft’s product, they can do what they want. This way Microsoft can ensure a good printing experience.”

Peter, on August 10th, 2009 at 12:56 pm

“Being a horrible hypocrite by banning other browsers on the iPhone.”

I realize this has become accepted as truth, but there’s never been any suggestion, beyond *rumors*, that Opera was ever submitted for the App Store. Meaning, of course, that it hasn’t been “banned” or “rejected.”

“I think Apple, as the leading producer of media cataloging software, is “obliged” to provide a specification so that third party devices can work within iTunes. No, not legally. But certainly on a moral standpoint. Lock in is bad.”

I take it you’ve been petitioning Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft to allow games developed for competing systems to work on theirs, then?

CapnVan, on August 10th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

Personally, I find it interesting that the tech industry bloggers complain that their iPhone isn’t open enough, or that Apple is too secretive. Do these same people complain when the software that runs their Logitech remote control is closed? or that their DVR software, the computer that runs their car engine or their high end audio receiver can’t be upgraded? No. and the average person doesn’t care either. They want these things to “just work”, and don’t lament the fact that they can’t tinker with it.

I know older Windows PC users that are afraid to load Firefox or Safari and continue to use IE because they are “worried that it would mess up their computer”. So a good percentage of iPhone users don’t care that they can’t have Opera, because Safari just works. When Safari stops working well, or the iPhone no longer is a quality product, the average person will stop buying it.

Apple is now a consumer product company, NOT a geek-tech company. Their market is mom and dad and grandma. Not tech writers or wall-street analysts.

Neal, on August 10th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

@vandulus – “Got to disagree on your point of banning Opera on the iPhone.”

Apple never “banned” Opera on the iPhone – Opera has never submitted it for approval. There are however, a couple of other browsers in the app store, but they are all based on webkit.

JW, on August 10th, 2009 at 8:40 pm

@peter -”I think Apple, as the leading producer of media cataloging software, is “obliged” to provide a specification so that third party devices can work within iTunes.”

Apple provides to or three methods for other devices and software to sync with the iTunes library – an XML file, the iTunes SDK and a Windows COM model.

Palm tried to use iTunes to sync the Pre directly, by having the Pre pretend to be an iPod. Palm should have written their own sync software like dozens of other companies. xBoxes and Blackberries for example, have no trouble syncing.

JW, on August 10th, 2009 at 8:44 pm

“I have never heard of Jason Calacanis before and now that I have I don’t care what he thinks.”

Me neither. Gee, I bet if I wrote some weak, whiny anti-Apple rant on my blog, I could get picked up by Computerworld and the AP.

I just like stuff that WORKS. If Apple is “evil” and ships iPods with baby formula to the 3rd World and takes over the world, that’s cool with me. The products WORK, conveniently and reliably–something we didn’t see much of when MSFT was busy taking over the world in the 1990’s.

Tom B, on August 10th, 2009 at 9:21 pm

Re: “For those who want a more open platform, why don’t you try Windows and Windows Mobile?”

Ryu, some people (like me) bought a MacBook wondering what all the fuss was about. Some of those (like me) thought the O/S was really nice, but the cost of the overall close-walled experience wasn’t really worth it. So some people, like me, will go back to PCs next purchase. ‘Til then, I’ll be quite happy on the Mac, thanks. I think we do make sense.

As for AAPL being different from MSFT, oh please. They’re both public listed companies out to earn as much profits as possible for their shareholders. One does this through mass-market software sales, the other is a premium one-stop-shop experience. But at the end of the day, they’re out to earn a buck and protect their IP. BOTH companies could do with being more open.

Gordon Morris, on August 11th, 2009 at 5:08 am

1. itunes uses XML for storing data so anyone can write a software to reads that data. so it is hardly ‘locked’ unlike iphoto, iweb etc where very much are
2. everyone does exclusive contracts, in part because the Carrier helps pay R&D. Apple has said that unlike devices like the Sidekick (which seems to be tied to T-Mobile until Pigs fly and talk) the contract is limited
3. on all the app store stuff. the app store is a baby. it’s only been a year. cut apple some slack on the growing pains. same for the iphone and what it lacks that every other (8th generation) smart phone has. and various factors like the ATT contract, technical conflicts etc might be part of what is happening with some apps. we are no more privy to those details than we are to Steve Jobs medical file. so until a court of law says stop it or be punished, we can’t really scream that Apple is doing something Wrong. we can dislike it, sure, but not cry foul and demand they do it our way.

Lucas, on August 11th, 2009 at 11:10 am

In all of these issues, I just ask myself what I’d think if Apple did the same thing on their desktop operating system as they do on their phone operating system.

“Photoshop is not allowed because it duplicates functionality of macpaint”

I think it boils down to how you think about the device. If the iphone is a phone, and you mentally compare it to your last crappy Nokia, it’s forgivable. If the iphone is a little pocket computer, more powerful and useful than the computers you used as a kid, but crippled in ways that happen to funnel your money towards apple.. then Jobs is totally the bad guy on the 1984 screen with the big hammer flying at him.

kevin, on August 11th, 2009 at 6:12 pm

“For those who want a more open platform, why don’t you try Windows and Windows Mobile? ”

My guess is that a significant number of folks will embrace Android, once the dozen+ Android phones are released before xmas. The Motorola one looks good, from what I have seen. Windows Mobile has always been crap.

And if you haven’t noticed, far more people choose a Windows environment rather than OSX. The Apple method of doing things has resulted, in all except a few niche markets, in single-digit market share.

David Westebbe, on August 27th, 2009 at 12:05 pm

“Apple is now a consumer product company, NOT a geek-tech company. Their market is mom and dad and grandma. Not tech writers or wall-street analysts.”

If that is true, then why is Apple’s market share so low?

ISTM that the vast number of people who meet your description choose to forego Apple products.

What accounts for the overwhelming rejection of Apple products by mom and dad and grandma?

And is it really true that Geeks reject Apple products? I was always under the impression that geeks were the main buyers of Macs. Am I wrong about that?

David Westebbe, on August 27th, 2009 at 12:14 pm

Add your comment