Apple is about as anti-competitive as KFC
Wednesday November 2009 08:16 This post features thoughts on...apple | apple computer | legislation last | libertarianism
I'm more than a little sick of people invoking terms like OPEN and FREE when trying to make Apple Computer look like an "Evil Empire" company. And I'm just as sick of people calling Apple's business practice "Dictatorial" and "Oppressive".
It's no more dictatorial than Burger Kings "Iron Grip" on The Whopper.
Have you ever eaten in a take away restaurant that makes a point of saying "Only Food And Drink Purchased on These Premises may be Consumed Here"? Or have you ever bought a bottle of wine and then tried to walk into a restaurant only to have them say "You can't bring that in here, we are a licensed establishment and you can't bring your own".
Oh, Iron grip of the fast food restaurant! The evil dictatorial restaurant 'forcing' you to buy their wine!
Come on, seriously. A free company is offering you a price to use their product under restricted conditions. You can either take the offer or walk. Don't be a pussy and try to legislate your way out of it with anti-trust suits.
What 'monopoly' are they trying to protect? Their monopoly of OS-X? Really? Their 'monopoly' on their own invention?
OK. Well, in that case, how dare Burger King have a monopoly on The Whopper! You want to introduce legislation to make MacDonald's have to sell The Whopper too? After all - Hungry Jacks can charge whatever they want for a Whopper! How criminal! How Evil! It's in the interests of the consumer to have competition in the Whopper industry, right?
No, not right. In fact, bullshit.
Because there is no Whopper Industry. There is a Hamburger industry. Beyond that there is a Fast-Food industry. And beyond that a Food industry.
At every level right up to "Food" any product is replaceable making it competitive by nature.
You don't have to intervene to protect Whoppers because people can choose Big Macs -> No monopoly. You Don't have to intervene to protect Hamburgers because people can choose Pizzas -> No monopoly… And you don't have to intervene to protect Fast Food generally because people can choose other forms of nutrition -> No monopoly.
If someone had a monopoly on Food, then maybe you'd have an argument for intervention.
Likewise if you don't like the terms of sale of the Mac OS then go with another OS.
Or an alternative to a computer altogether!
Apple is NOT a monopoly.
Anyone can try to install OSX on a PC in violation of their terms of purchase. And Apple can code them into a corner until they try again. What's the issue?
Its practices are no more anticompetitive than KFC having 7 secret herbs and spices.
Apple use code to make sure their OS that they wrote can't run on a competitors hardware.
KFC uses a combination lock to make sure their recipe cant be used on a competitor's fried chicken.
What the hell is the difference??
What exactly is the problem with Apple Inc. wanting to do whatever the hell they want with their OS and letting people decide whether or not they are going to buy it with whatever restrictive conditions it is sold with?
Its called Freedom of Choice.
Do you know how you benefit from Apple's behaviour? You get to choose whether or not you want to buy and use the iPhone, the iMac, the iPod and OSX - at the level of quality that they offer - with all the restrictions that come with it.
You agree and buy, or you don't and you walk. You don't buy and then say how unjust it is.
Look, I'm a Final Cut Studio user. A few years back, Apple purchased Final Touch - a color correction tool - and rebadged it as 'Apple Color'.
It dropped from $25, 000 per license to being included in the Final Cut Studio which costs around $1,200 all up.
Years before that Apple bought Final Cut Pro from Macromedia and sold it as a low cost alternative to Avid.
The reason they can practically operate this way is because their business model involves subsidising their low software prices with their inflated hardware prices.
It works.
As a bonus we have immaculately designed computers and second to none innovation. The downside is that the hardware is locked to the software.
At this point I should mention that another upside to me is that the hardware is locked to the software.
I consider the fact that Apple can control what exactly is in my Laptop and design the software environment accordingly to be a massive advantage in both the initial design of the Mac environment and in subsequent trouble shooting of anything that does go wrong.
The bottom line is this:
Apple computers would not be apple computers if their OS ran on just any machine because they would not have the hardware profits as a foundation on which to concentrate on other innovations.
People who want to force that to happen might just break Apple in the process. I have no doubt that many people would like to do just that.
I'd prefer that didn't happen cos I like my Apple hardware and software just the way it is. Controlled, well designed, well supported and consistently cutting edge.
Don't be a pussy and try to legislate your way around your choices.
A company is offering you a software-hardware combination at a premium price. They have every right to do this. If you disagree with their methods of maintaining their control and their business model you have a right not to support them.
But you can't have it both ways.
If you like their OS enough to force them to release it on any and every piece of hardware, you deserve the Apple you'll get.
I should mention... I am not being all "Apple faithful" as you might assume. This article is about freedom of choice. If Microsoft introduced code that would prevent Windows from operating on a Mac under Bootcamp I would fully support them too.
It's the enthusiasm with which people are prepared to petition the government to get what they want which sickens me.
Legislation should always be a last resort. This is petty, petty stuff.
Doug Suiter,
Sydney, Australia.
Wednesday 11 November 2009.
It's no more dictatorial than Burger Kings "Iron Grip" on The Whopper.
Have you ever eaten in a take away restaurant that makes a point of saying "Only Food And Drink Purchased on These Premises may be Consumed Here"? Or have you ever bought a bottle of wine and then tried to walk into a restaurant only to have them say "You can't bring that in here, we are a licensed establishment and you can't bring your own".
Oh, Iron grip of the fast food restaurant! The evil dictatorial restaurant 'forcing' you to buy their wine!
Come on, seriously. A free company is offering you a price to use their product under restricted conditions. You can either take the offer or walk. Don't be a pussy and try to legislate your way out of it with anti-trust suits.
What 'monopoly' are they trying to protect? Their monopoly of OS-X? Really? Their 'monopoly' on their own invention?
OK. Well, in that case, how dare Burger King have a monopoly on The Whopper! You want to introduce legislation to make MacDonald's have to sell The Whopper too? After all - Hungry Jacks can charge whatever they want for a Whopper! How criminal! How Evil! It's in the interests of the consumer to have competition in the Whopper industry, right?
No, not right. In fact, bullshit.
Because there is no Whopper Industry. There is a Hamburger industry. Beyond that there is a Fast-Food industry. And beyond that a Food industry.
At every level right up to "Food" any product is replaceable making it competitive by nature.
You don't have to intervene to protect Whoppers because people can choose Big Macs -> No monopoly. You Don't have to intervene to protect Hamburgers because people can choose Pizzas -> No monopoly… And you don't have to intervene to protect Fast Food generally because people can choose other forms of nutrition -> No monopoly.
If someone had a monopoly on Food, then maybe you'd have an argument for intervention.
Likewise if you don't like the terms of sale of the Mac OS then go with another OS.
Or an alternative to a computer altogether!
Apple is NOT a monopoly.
Anyone can try to install OSX on a PC in violation of their terms of purchase. And Apple can code them into a corner until they try again. What's the issue?
Its practices are no more anticompetitive than KFC having 7 secret herbs and spices.
Apple use code to make sure their OS that they wrote can't run on a competitors hardware.
KFC uses a combination lock to make sure their recipe cant be used on a competitor's fried chicken.
What the hell is the difference??
What exactly is the problem with Apple Inc. wanting to do whatever the hell they want with their OS and letting people decide whether or not they are going to buy it with whatever restrictive conditions it is sold with?
Its called Freedom of Choice.
Do you know how you benefit from Apple's behaviour? You get to choose whether or not you want to buy and use the iPhone, the iMac, the iPod and OSX - at the level of quality that they offer - with all the restrictions that come with it.
You agree and buy, or you don't and you walk. You don't buy and then say how unjust it is.
Look, I'm a Final Cut Studio user. A few years back, Apple purchased Final Touch - a color correction tool - and rebadged it as 'Apple Color'.
It dropped from $25, 000 per license to being included in the Final Cut Studio which costs around $1,200 all up.
Years before that Apple bought Final Cut Pro from Macromedia and sold it as a low cost alternative to Avid.
The reason they can practically operate this way is because their business model involves subsidising their low software prices with their inflated hardware prices.
It works.
As a bonus we have immaculately designed computers and second to none innovation. The downside is that the hardware is locked to the software.
At this point I should mention that another upside to me is that the hardware is locked to the software.
I consider the fact that Apple can control what exactly is in my Laptop and design the software environment accordingly to be a massive advantage in both the initial design of the Mac environment and in subsequent trouble shooting of anything that does go wrong.
The bottom line is this:
Apple computers would not be apple computers if their OS ran on just any machine because they would not have the hardware profits as a foundation on which to concentrate on other innovations.
People who want to force that to happen might just break Apple in the process. I have no doubt that many people would like to do just that.
I'd prefer that didn't happen cos I like my Apple hardware and software just the way it is. Controlled, well designed, well supported and consistently cutting edge.
Don't be a pussy and try to legislate your way around your choices.
A company is offering you a software-hardware combination at a premium price. They have every right to do this. If you disagree with their methods of maintaining their control and their business model you have a right not to support them.
But you can't have it both ways.
If you like their OS enough to force them to release it on any and every piece of hardware, you deserve the Apple you'll get.
I should mention... I am not being all "Apple faithful" as you might assume. This article is about freedom of choice. If Microsoft introduced code that would prevent Windows from operating on a Mac under Bootcamp I would fully support them too.
It's the enthusiasm with which people are prepared to petition the government to get what they want which sickens me.
Legislation should always be a last resort. This is petty, petty stuff.
Doug Suiter,
Sydney, Australia.
Wednesday 11 November 2009.